i have a great printable justice scalia that i value highly. if i tell you that i go to the opera with justice ginsburg, you would probably not be as interested in that. but i do that too. >> let me follow up a little bit on maybe what is a more process oriented version of a similar question. i found that it is wonderful to be a justice on the supreme court terms of personal relationships. it is obviously a group of folks that to hera those stories and it is very curdling. but you do disagree with each other. you do disagree vehemently at times. when is it appropriate to write a dissent? after you've lost once, that they justice have an obligation to admit defeat and go on? how does that work in your mind? >> i think dissenting opinions play an important role in the court. that is not to say that i do not value consensus. to the extent that we can achieve consensus, i think we should try hard to do so. i very much admire the chief justice's efforts in that regard. i hope that i am a willing participant in that effort. i think the absolute worst

but you mentioned justice scalia.had her stand that you have friendship with justice scalia as well. like i have. -- >> i have. i knew justice scalia before he came on the court. he is a total crack up. i love the guy. he is such a good guy, so generous, so warmhearted, i love spending time with him. he did me a big favor. if you don't mind, i am going to tell the story. back to your first question about the confirmation process. when you go through the confirmation process now, at least if you go through the way i go through it, there is the nominee of a democratic and 71 if you characterized by demographics, i think they would say that i am a jewish woman from new york city. -- nott known to be known to have particularly strong feelings about guns maybe. when i went to all of these courtesy visits, the question i was asked most was not about abortion or religion or anything else. the question i get asked most was my views on guns. say, how areally you going to rule in this case, how are you going to rule in that cas

but my closest ally and friend when i got there was justice scalia. [applause] at the expense of embarrassing him or the risk of embarrassing him, i can honestly say that as beat up as i was when i got there with the workload, i do not know how i would have gotten through it if he had not been there. he became, quickly, a friend. he became family. he and maureen just became -- you know what? it was not that we always agreed on every case, although we agree quite a bit. it was that i could count on him and i could trust him. i could go and talk to him. there were days when i was getting beat up quite a bit, and he was a friend and a colleague. but oftentimes, a friend. he was very kind to me. those on the court were delightful to me. chief justice rehnquist, justice marshall, all of them, justice brennan. they all gave me sage advice, but in the end, the closest person who made it doable was justice scalia. >> tell us what has changed during your tenure on the court. >> god, i am older. [laughter] the courts change. you know, it is really interesting.

that is a great thing. >> you mentioned justice scalia. i had her stand that you have a friendship with justice scalia as well. >> i have. i knew justice scalia before he came on the court. he is a total crack up. i love the guy. he is such a good guy, so generous, so warmhearted, i love spending time with him. he did me a big favor. if you don't mind, i am going to tell the story. this goes back to your first question about the confirmation process. when you go through the confirmation process now, at least if you go through the way i go through it, there is the nominee of a democratic president and if you characterized by demographics, i think they would say that i am a jewish woman from new york city. i am not known to have particularly strong feelings about guns maybe. when i went to all of these courtesy visits, the question i

but you mentioned justice scalia. i had her stand that you have a friendship with justice scalia as well. like i have. -- >> i have. i knew justice scalia before he came on the court. he is a total crack up. i love the guy. he is such a good guy, so generous, so warmhearted, i love spending time with him. he did me a big favor. if you don't mind, i am going to tell the story. this goes back to your first question about the confirmation process. when you go through the confirmation process now, at least if you go through the way i go through it, there is the nominee of a democratic president and 71 if you characterized by demographics, i think they would say that i am a jewish woman from new york city. i am not known to be -- not known to have particularly strong feelings about guns maybe. when i went to all of these courtesy visits, the question i was asked most was not about abortion or religion or anything else. the question i get asked most was my views on guns. nobody can really say, how are you going to rule in t

these are scalia's word from the opinion. scalia wrote to permit this would make professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land and in effect to permit every citizen -- to become a law unto himself. it will be interesting, will it not, julian to see, how scalia manages that past quote of his? >> scalia had interesting company in that case. and there, the idea was that you can't simply use a -- a professed religious belief to get, exempt yourself from laws. so i think -- conservatives will find themselves in an interesting position. congress passed a law. religious freedom restoration act. and the question now is, not only -- the question is not only whether any of these provisions, protections apply to a corporation to begin with. but whether the statute that was passed, in 1993 would apply to a corporation. i think the answer to that is probably going to be no. because -- for a variety of reasons. one is congress certainly wasn't passing a law in 1993, expecting that there would be any religious free

justice scalia reads from his dissent. justice alito and roberts also have the sense that they don't read from the bench, in which they indicate that the court reporter is going to rule on the standing issue on the per can i case. >> california case. >> they're not going to decide whether or not prop 8 is actually unconstitutional. so everyone who is outside the courtroom knows this almost immediately. meanwhile, inside the courtroom justice scalia has to first announce his decision in an obscure criminal case so the people in the courtroom don't actually get to perry for probably a half an hour. >> so it hasn't changed -- to some exat the present time it hasn't changed what is done. this is has been what the wire services live and die on ever since they started covering the supreme court. just before i started covering the court the way it worked was they literally hand it had decisions -- handed the decisions down from the bench. a copy went down. you were from upi or -- united press, international news service and ap, s

democrats did not filibuster scalia. that's how you got scalia. >> well, real, well right. threat, i found actually laughable. you raise a good point. unless you have the white house, house, senate. that threat means nothing. especially since we, what we all know, the likelihood of there being a republican president is very, very. >> yeah. >> very, very slim. given what republicans are doing now. angering, missing off so many constituents they will need to win the white house. the idea of a republican president, nominating another thomas or scalia is, what's the word i am looking for, next to nothing. >> yeah. >> the older, you know, establishment playing democrats in the senate are also drifting in this direction. >> start to. >> not hearing them anymore kind of privately giving those warnings, about, oh, boy, when we are in the minority. it takes a lot. you know, to snap that, that -- that incredible pull of tradition in the senate. i think the republicans have crossed the line. don't think there is anything worth to holding on toen the current rule. >> harry reid, the li

the democrats voted for scalia, they did not filibuster scalia. >> from the nuclear option we have the scalia option as republican rejoinder to what harry reid did. every piece out side, not only is the supreme court carve out going to go way of the dinosaur. republicans will extend the nuclear option to supreme court nominations to put democrats in a really tough place. if they take back the senate. some people are saying this could be the end of the legislative filibuster. pandora's box has been opened. and the filibuster on nominees was causing havoc, dysfunction, what's to say they could not go further when there is a huge piece of legislation held up because of filibustering. that as a senate junkie, i wonder what your thoughts are about the prospect of losing the filibuster entirely. i think i am in complete agreement with you. that it is high time, democrats sort of albert finny network moment we're mad as hell and not going to take it. the country will applaud this decision. what it portents for the future is very much anybody's guess. >> you know, any senate staffer who sat on

the other justices that sided with scalia were clarence thomas and samuel alito. and even though they did not sign the ruling that the other two justices on the court, justice roberts and justice kennedy also sided with scalia on this ruling. so this was the two sides in this really important texas abortion ruling this week. but look at this breakdown. the side voting to keep the clinics open in texas, those judges were appointed by prp prm, president obama, president clinton, president clinton. the side that voted to shut down the clinics, those justices were appointed by george w. bush, george w. bush, george h.w. bush, ronald reagan, ronald reagan. notice a trend? notice any pattern here? presidents appoint judges. this is one of the fundamental things that presidents do. if you boil presidents down, this is one of the last things left in the pot of gelatinous down there. it is one of the most fundamental and consequential things that american presidents do. it is part and parcel of the job, it always has been. like it or lump it, if you elect a president, that

you know, you better be careful what you wish to, more clarence thomases and scalias. they made it through confirmation. they are not like fabrication of chuck grassley's mind. >> although they seem to be at some point fabrications of conservative means. >> kasie, i wonder what the dynamic on the hill is. part of the functionality were gentlemen's agreements everybody would color inside the line. this is called a nuclear option because it's seen as a drastic measure. i wonder if it erodes any goodwill or bipartisanship that may be any shreds of that that still linger in the halls of capitol hill. >> this move by senate majority leader harry reid is not going to do anything to bring the temperature down here. this is just sort of turning it up and cranking a little further. the reality is that the number of senators who remember being on the other side of the coin either remember what it's like to be in the minority or remember what it's like to be in the majority and need to get your judges nominations through is dwindling. there are 55 senators here who have never kno

justice kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and when he announced it in court, justice scalia took the unusual step of reading from the dissent. for 11 minutes, he excoriated his -- and suggested that the opinion of the majority strained the cra jewelty of the cred you lose. it reflected a lack of the english language and paved the way for a agree nettic pan opt con in which governments could peer in to in to the dna of nearly all of us. what did the court actually hold? it reasoned the that the swaps of the cheek was indeed a search not issued in the case. that the constitutionality of this kind of a search turn os the balance of state and individual interests, and that balance favors the state under at least the facts in this case. but what is remarkable about the majority of opinion and that lead to some of the criticism that i mentioned is that it focused almost exclusively on the interests of the state in pretrial, as it called, processing of detainees. of seeing whether someone might be guilty of another crime not to convict them of that crime, but to help make decisions like sho

who is the son of supreme court justice antonin scalia he is known as the pit bull of lobbyists and one of the best there is when it comes to the financial services industry if you need something done in the financial services industry you call him and who in your estimation is the jacket from off of today. well i hope nobody actually you know for the sake of the country but i don't you know it's hard to know it i think what happens is the media tend to focus or they try to focus that they can on personalities and a lot of these lobbyists they absolutely out of the public eye so the jack today or whoever is playing at that level we're never going to see that person the less like a jackhammer mop they wind up with a senator subpoenaing all their e-mails and dumping them into the washington post we're never going to know who that person is we were never going to follow them during their career they're going to retire having made millions tens of millions of dollars influence policy and we will never know who they were jack i want to thank you for your time and said on the subject we'l

who is the son of supreme court justice antonin scalia he is known as the pit bull of lobbyists and one of the best there is when it comes to the financial services industry if you need something done in the financial services industry you call him and who in your estimation is the jacket from off of today. well i hope nobody actually you know for the sake of the country but i don't you know it's hard to know it i think what happens is the media tend to focus or they try to focus that they can on personalities and a lot of these lobbyists they absolutely out of the public eye so the jack today or whoever is playing at that level we're never going to see that person the less like a jackhammer mob they wind up with a senator subpoenaing all their e-mails and dumping them into the washington post we're never going to know who that person is we were never going to follow them during their career they're going to retire having made millions tens of millions of dollars influence policy and we will never know who they were jack i want to thank you for your time and said on the subject we'l

finally, justice scalia's favorite objection is that all we're going to see on television is snippets. that is true. i would point out to him that all you see in "the new york times" are snippets. they happen to be in print and have" around them. guess what? they don't all this a transcript of every oral argument. think what they're concerned about is sitting down at home and watching jon stewart pull certain isolated parts of supreme court arguments and making fun of them. i think they're truly worried after the oral arguments in the health care case, republicans put out an ad featuring a solicitor general stumbling. you think this affects the attitudes among members of the court? >> i know it does. i know they were offended by that. but it was terribly unfair and i think you could damper over getting one of the many reasons we'll get a lot more audio than we do. >> is my first reaction. that's what the cause back 10 years. >> and understand policy on becauseg same-day audio from 2000 to 2009 dated 21 times. then they said they're not than he do that anymore, with we're going to rele

. >> host: if you were a lot curler for justice scalia -- a law clerk for scalia what would you say? >> he would be for it because he made the statements very clearly as a member of congress and during the trial of course, the supreme court has not followed it in this respect either but no doubt as to where he stood and maybe that will be taken into account with due process. >> host: complete the fascinating other conflicts are the impeachment of andrew johnson that was so intricately tied up of the ratification of johnson's reluctance to enforce it to ask about the different stages. tell us about the controversy of ratification those submitted to the union before they ratified then they would not have been gratified to get the supermajority so what was his plan? >> the great debate is what do we ask the southern states to make them full partners again of the united states? bingham view 14th amendment to guarantee fundamental rights that the law was inadequate and needed to be fixed if they had ratified it they could come back to the states again. in this respect his opponent is one

and in a recent broadcast, an tau anyone scalia said, quote, i even believe in the devil. yeah, he is a real person. come on that is standard catholic doctrine. every catholic believes that. case closed. i always as a kid believed in the devil and then jedediah we have president barak hussein obama. then i realized he is the del. what say you? >> i got none of my work done because of you because it lead me to thinking about god and religion and the devil and i almost went to church. i think if you believe in god you have to believe in the devil. if you believe in supreme good, i think you have to believe in supreme evil and vice-versa. is it walking among us? no, i don't think so. i don't believe in organized religion, but i believe there is a force of good out there so i feel like there is a force of evil. that's as far as i have gotten. >> could miley cyrus be the devil? >> i can tell you that it wasn't -- there was a lady in the article talking about she was in bed and a cloud of black smoke appeared and she was like, oh my god, it is the devil. it is not that. >> that

chuck grassley was saying, well, we're going to use the scalia option, the threat, threatening to expand nuclear option to encompass supreme court appointments. how likely is that if republicans gain power? how much are they talking about that on capitol hill. >> that's certainly an option thrown out there. alex, i think if you want to look towards the tactics used by gop, look no further than last government shutdown and lead up to the debt limit in 2011 and 2013. they have no problem playing the hardest of hardball as i mentioned earlier. would that shock me if presumably you have a president christie who wants to bolster right flank, supreme court justice upsets republicans, upsets democrats, republican senate and they hammer it through. i'll say this in 2013, that wouldn't shock me in any way, shape, or form. >> clarence thomas got in with less than 60. >> scalia, what did he have, 93. those were different times, different years many moons ago. luke russert, happy thanksgiving to you, our favorite pilgrim. >> thank you so much. take care. >> half a century has passed of the question

i'm sorry, justice scalia; could you repeat your question? >> well, i'll repeat mine. it was: who was supposed to make these determinations? is there supposed to be an officer of the town council that will review? do prayers have to be reviewed for his approval in advance? >> no. principally the clergy make this determination. there is a 200-year tradition of this kind of civic prayer. the clergy know how to do it. if the city has a policy, then an occasional violation by one clergy is not the city's responsibility. so -- so this is left principally to the clergy by simply giving them instructions. they receive no instruction of any kind about the purpose of this prayer or -- >> so there is an official in the town council that is to instruct clergy about what kind of prayer they can say? >> that's right. state legislative bodies, the house of representatives have these kinds of guidelines. they issue them to the guest clergy before they appear. >> and if i'm -- if i'm that official and i think a prayer was over the top for being proselytizing and particularly sectarian

to soto these days from scalia to soto soto soto meyer. meyer. and this reflects the wider and this reflects the wider religious scene. religious scene. you've got catholics on one you've got catholics on one side. side. and catholics on the other side. and catholics on the other side. you've got baptists on one side you've got baptists on one side and baptists on the other. and baptists on the other. it's interesting discussion. it's interesting discussion. >> professor, even if a >> professor, even if a settlement could be found before settlement could be found before march when the argument goes march when the argument goes forward. forward. >> well, the u.s. courts of >> well, the u.s. courts of appeal, the circuit courts have appeal, the circuit courts have split in a variety of directions split in a variety of directions so it's really something that so it's really something that the supreme court needs to the supreme court needs to decide so there is consistency decide so there is consistency in the way that the mandate is in the wa

. >> the justices appear to be split along ideological lines with conservative justices scal scalia andas ratified in 1971, the country was mostly protestant unlike today when countless religions are represented. several justices pointed out that crafting a prayer today that doesn't offend somebody could be daunting if not impossible. for "religion & ethics newsweekly," i'm tim o'brien at the supreme court. >> the court's decision is not expected until spring. >>> a u.s. military judge has ordered the government to

they range the spectrum, reflects the catholic church these days from scalia to sot so meyer. and this reflects the wider religious scene. you've got catholics on one side. and catholics on the other side. you've got baptists on one side and baptists on the other. it's interesting discussion. >> professor, even if a settlement could be found before march when the argument goes forward. >> well, the u.s. courts of appeal, the circuit courts have split in a variety of directions so it's really something that the supreme court needs to decide so there is consistency in the way that the mandate is applied or not applied across the country. >> if the ruling goes your way, you're saying that the affordable care act will still be okay and workable rather than a very ad hoc kind of thing. >> yes, i believe that's right. what the greens and the family businesses are asking for is a very narrow exemption from one very small part of the law. this is not going to strike down the affordable care act or have any larger affect. >> that brings us to the end of this addition of inside story. g

if justice scalia says -- i love his descents, they sound like someone in a workplace where he has to work with the biggest idiots in the universe. i can't believe i have to come to work with these idiots. he's one of the most brilliant people in the country, but scalia decides he's had it, right, he retires and there's now a vacancy. the same logic of republicans would be like, well, it's court packing if you fill that seat. >> double speak, people say court packing. court packing was when roosevelt wanted to add six judges to the nine he had to get the results in every case. the idea that filling vacancies is court packing is -- i just almost can't believe people are saying it and the fact that people would believe it is extraordinary. >> and to jim's point that what happens when the democrats are in the minority? then don't we want the filibuster? the problem with that over the long-term is democrats want the government to work. democrats want the government to be accountable. and if that means when there's a republican government they can pass their program and be judged on it, so

. >> reporter: eugene scalia, son of ant nun scalia, argued that osha has no more rights to put restrictionsworld than to regulate tackling in the nfl or speed limits in nascar. the judges took note but didn't give any indication of which way they may rule. >> it's amazing when you think about that and what you're saying, they don't have authority on thing like nascar? kind of surprising. was there anything else that seemed to resonate with the judges in terms of the arguments made? >> the judges did pick up on that theme of talking about football and nascar. and they said okay, maybe osha wouldn't consider saying, making contact football into flag football or putting a speed limit up for nascar. but they do regulate thing like, say, seatbelts or helmets which are designed to make both those sports safer. in other words, there are ways to advance the idea of safety protocol without putting somebody out of business. >> amazing. when you think about how important those trainers are sow what seaworld stands for. whether you like it or not. thank you very much. you've been covering this story of

. >> that is right, just as scalia and the government like a private party can wave a constitutional argument but on the other hand i would say we are not particularly concerned about the commerce clause argument because it has the same basic defect as the treaty power argument. >> this goes back to justice ginsburg's question. could this treaty have itself regulated individual conduct? could the treaty have been still executed? >> i think that is an interesting question and i don't think the court needs to answer it. the position that if there were a self executing treaty that tried to impose criminal prohibition i don't think there's a treaty like that but if there were one i would say here that it violates the constitution's the the same basic reason this implementing legislation does. >> where would you find that in the constitution. there's a treaty power that does not understand subject matter limitations and indeed if you go back to the founding history is clear they thought about all kinds of subject matter limitations and james madison and others decided self-conscious not t

justice scalia a number of years ago before justice scalia was a justice he wrote a very powerful attack on affirmative action as a law professor. and in his article he said just imagine that you are a person who needs an operation. a very serious operation, you know? a life and death operation. and you're trying to figure out what physician, what surgeon you want to do this operation. and you're looking, you're checking out various surgeons, and then there is, you know, the black surgeon. well, a very difficult operation, you've only got one life to live. you look at this surgeon, and you say, well, this surgeon may be good, but, you know, if this surgeon has gotten help along the way, maybe this isn't the best, the best of the array of surgeons i might have. and so you might mark that, you know, put a little asterisk, a little subtraction mark next to that person. that's a real, that's, you know, a cost. is he right or is he wrong? i think that he's right insofar that he notes that is a cost. i think it's a cost, sure, i think it's a cost. i think it's a cost. i teach at harvard law sc

. >> reporter: eugene scalia, son of supreme court justice antonin scalia argued osha has no more rightsestrictions on seaworld as tackling for the nfl or speeds in race cars. >> when you think about that, martin, what you're saying they don't have authority on things like nascar, kind of surprising. was there anything else that seemed to resonate with the judges in terms of the arguments made? >> reporter: actually, the judges, erin, did pick up on that theme of talking about football and nascar. they said, okay, maybe osha wouldn't consider saying making contact football into flag football or putting a speed limit up for nascar. but they do regulate things like say seat belts or helmets which are designed to make both of those sports safer. in other words, there are ways to advance the idea of safety protocol without putting somebody out of business. erin? >> amazing. when you think about how important those trainers are to what seaworld stands for, whether you like it or not. martin savidge, thank you very much. you've been covering the story of "black fish". >>> still to come the lat

republicans take back the senate, and we end up with a bench, a federal bench full of clarence thomass and scalias, then the american people will see the consequences of that, and perhaps the republicans will pay for that in subsequent elections. but at the end of the day, this process is really just become a farce, and it is a disgrace to my profession far, frankly. >> professor, do you think this has some usefulness? >> yes, i do think there is that bit of a silver lining here. but let's be clear about what is really at stake. we are confining the discussion to judicial nominations, but in my view, now that the principle now that the precedent has been established that a similar minority can change the rules at any time, in any way, this is a slippery slope. thank you for being with us, that brings us to the end of this edition of inside story. in washington, i'm ray swarez. >>> welcome to al jazeera america. i'm del walters. these are the stories we are following for you. >> as on earth the united states is second to none. all men should dream dreams, your young men shall see vision the bible t

. >> the justices appear to be split along ideological lines with conservative justices scal scalia and alito supportive of the board. the prayers of the opening congress were highly sectarian much like those in greece, new york. >> when the first amendment was ratified in 1971, the country was mostly protestant unlike today when countless religions are represented. several justices pointed out that crafting a prayer today that doesn't offend somebody could be daunting if not impossible. for "religion & ethics newsweekly," i'm tim o'brien at the supreme court. >> the court's decision is not expected until spring. >>> a u.s. military judge has ordered the government to

only one agreed with the court and that was justice scalia. justice sotomayor or stressed the limits of the opinion. , aslimited being the report to which there is no live nevers for, was introduced into evidence. the question becomes what if it is not introduced into evidence? that is the williams case. in williams, this is off to a firm in maryland. the firm deduced the rapist's profile that often requires a judgment, mixed samples, or producing real issues. especially when there are low quantities of dna. they wrote a report and sent it back to the state. an analyst from illinois punched in the profile to the computer which search the database, that a hit and she also use another to come up with a probability even lower than the ones we heard this morning. this is 12 zeros for an picked atperson random. not attemptte did to introduce the report. instant it called the illinois analyst to describe her database. there is noor said confrontation because i am not getting what another lab did. the prosecutor referred to the male dna profile found

people like scalia, everybody says there will be more scalias. he passed unanimously. ruth bader ginsburg passed with just three votes against her, 96-3. so the issue really is advice and consent, not with super majorities. right now we have the tyranny of the minority. that's what we've taken care of. >> this is from mitch mcconnell's office. vast majority of obama nominees confirmed, almost 1600. that's a lot of nominees who have been confirmed. that's what senator mcconnell -- >> you know the chart i would put up here? i would put up the filibusters since the beginning of the country -- >> i will do that for -- >> 50%, 50% of them in four and a half years. four and a half years. >> you can see it's a significant number of nominees have been approved by the senate. >> nominees have been approved but we reached a critical point there. there was blockage and we had to break through and overrule the tyranny of the minority and really, this is going to be good for the country. we are going to be able to let the president have his team in place. any president, democrat or

. >> reporter: eugene scalia, son of supreme court justice antonin scalia argued osha has no more rights to impose restrictions on seaworld as tackling for the nfl or speeds in race cars. >> when you think about that, martin, what you're saying they don't have authority on things like nascar, kind of surprising. was there anything else that seemed to resonate with the judges in terms of the arguments made? >> reporter: actually, the judges, erin, did pick up on that theme of talking about football and nascar. they said, okay, maybe osha wouldn't consider saying making contact football into flag football or putting a speed limit up for nascar. but they do regulate things like say seat belts or helmets which are designed to make both of those sports safer. in other words, there are ways to advance the idea of safety protocol without putting somebody out of business. erin? >> amazing. when you think about how important those trainers are to what seaworld stands for, whether you like it or not. martin savidge, thank you very much. you've been covering the story of "black fish". >>> still to

to take justice scalia's hypothetical example of an international treaty that purported to regulate marriage rights, one thing the senate very well might do in that case is to say, we will ratify it, but make sure it's not self- executing, and then maybe we will use our spending power to get the states on board. we're not going to propose a national solution. it does not make sense to say a nonself executing treaty guarantees the validity of the enacting legislation. respond toint is to the arguments which i think i have already explained why it's not correct, the suggestion that there's is no daylight between the convention and the statute. there is huge daylight, and the daylight is precisely whether it affects individual conduct and how. everything on justice breyer's list a is not stuff that implicates the convention at all, but yet it is the government's unwavering theory that cannot make limitations on the statute. there is your daylight. i suggest that are statutory construction argument, there is only one way out of this. you have to understand the way it is used as art. i don't thin

judges, let's do away with judges and we will have a , nominate president more people like roberts and scalia and we will have 51 like it was prior to 2001. remember, we had estrada up, the democrats would not let him come it. we had peter crisler to put on the same committee. after never brought up 900 days of being on the agenda. they are choosing republicans of holding this president up? do awaywe wante to with judges? they cannot accuse us of doing it because we have a democratic president. it when we have a republican president and this republican president wanted to fill that 12 seat but we got rid of it. >> as a follow-up on that, but public watches all this and they get frustrated because they see people arguing on the floor of the house in the senate. how do you explain to them about the gridlock and the disagreements without having them totally lose oh. congress has low approval ratings. you're going to have controversy, it makes news, so the journalists will print the bad news or the controversy, not the good news. don't dislike a single senator and i don't think any senator dislik