scalia. the chief justice and several of also inr justices were attendance. justice scalia passed away february 13 while visiting a texas ranch. he was appointed to the high court by president ronald reagan in 1986. this is about one hour and 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. welcome. we are touched to be joined this afternoon by the chief justice of the united states and all of my father's former colleagues from the court. as well as -- as well as many other distinguished guests and friends. this is an opportunity to do two things that we didn't have a chance to do earlier this month at the beautiful funeral mass. to hear some words in tribute to my father's life and career and second, for family and friends to spend some time together in the reception afterward. convey myt begin to thoughts about my father in the small amount of time i have a lot of for myself, so i thought i would limit myself to just one recollection, a dinner parties at my parents had years ago. the guests had just left and

scalia. afterbirth we'll hear from justice thomas. and then from judge silberman of the court of appeals here in washington who unfortunately will have to leave immediately afterward to teach a law school class. we will then hear from my sister catherine come from justice ginsburg and from two of my father's former clerks, john many banana teaches at harvard law school, and justice john larson of the michigan supreme court who also spent a professor and practitioner. and then as often is the case my sister mary will have the last word. [laughter] >> i should be careful. we will have a reception immediately afterwards. thank you again for coming this afternoon. [applause] >> if i could ask you all to please stand as we begin with prayer. almighty god as we gather here to remember and honor your server and antonin scalia we ask not your blessing. make us mindful that every good gift comes from you, that we see in attendance gets in your life as coming from a good is intended for your glory. so

scalia. we will hear from justice thomas and then from judge silverman from the court of appeals in washington who will have to leave immediately afterwards to teach a law school class and hear from my sister and justice ginsburg and john manning and justice joan larson of the michigan supreme court who has been a professor and practitioner. and so as often is the case, my sister mary will have the last word. [laughter] >> i should be careful. we'll have a reception immediately afterwards. thank you again for coming this afternoon. [applause] >> please stand as we begin with a prayer. >> almighty god as we gather here to remember and honor your servant antonin scalia we ask for your blessing. make us mindful that ever good gift comes from you that we see coming from your goodness and your glory, in honoring him, we honor you his creator and redeemer. may antonin's example unite closely in our pursuit of the common good for our nation. and conscience also of his imperfections, we ask you in yo

during the presidential election in for those to replace justice leo. -- justice scalia. it without law professor one from campaign finance with the race to religion to include a signature project such as an amendment somebody to go quickly like citizens united. >> your time is expired. >> i asked for five more? for more minutes. >> without objection. >> some will go slower in that leaves me to a broader point. to any particular case the american people need to consider if they won there justice to base the case on the text of the united -- constitution as it was understood at the time it was adopted where if they are free to update the constitution according to their own moral sam political philosophies. could day have those principles of new facts? where do back flips to reach their desired public policy goals? >> that is called a legalistic in justice scalia new that the rule of law was a lot of rules. so if there is the constitution that is unclear it the empathy for their causes. to think that the constitution is not clear. into those them on the american people. the

justice scalia was a strict constitutionalist. yet noi in the weeks following his -- yet now in the weeks following his death, senator grassley wanted to throw out the constitution. that's what senator reid said this week. let's look what senator reid said in 2005 on this exact same issue. in 2005 on this floor, senator reid said, "the president of the united states has joined in the fray and become the latest to rewrite the constitution and reinvent reality." this is speaking of president bush at the time. senator reid continued, "speaking to fellow republicans, on tuesday night, two days ago he said that the senate has a duty to promptly consider each nominee on the senate floor discuss and debate their qualifications and then give them an up-or-down vote that they deserve. referring to the president's duties, duty to whom? the duties of the senate -- this is from senator reid? 2005 -- "the duties of the senate are set forth in the u.s. constitution. nowhere in that document does this say the senate has a duty to give presidenti

you're a scalia. then in true scalia fashion he quickly followed up with another of our favorites, now don't screw it up. [laughter]. i hope dad will forgive me if i do screw it up. he might ask is this of general interest? [laughter]. yes, it is. [laughter]. as one of the minority in his 5-4 split of his nine children -- [laughter] i want to share some of what my father was to me. i was at the top half of the batting order, another nine member american institution, so for the first decades of my life as far as i was concerned dad was a justice department lawyer or a law professor who couldn't seem to hold down a job. [laughter] during those know maddic years, between jones day in cleveland and appeals court in washington we moved eight times. there werefy constant besides the likelihood there was a new baby on the way. [laughter] one constant was mass on sunday and yes, every holy day even the one that fell right in the middle of our beach vacation. and another negotiable family dinner every night. a

he is profoundly not justice scalia's opposite number. he is more pro-scalia than anti-scalia. bill: your prediction is what then? >> political side of our team could make a better prediction than i do but it seems now that the republicans are standing firm. will they feel the same way in august? only time will tell. bill: so the white house is 11:00 a.m. quickly the whole debate will shift to capitol hill. >> absolutely. bill: judge, thank you, speaking of capitol hill, martha has that angle now. martha: we want to bring in chad pergram, our senior capitol hill producer. chad, merrick garland was confirmed in 1997 by majority with both parties participating including seven current republican senators. so how can they say this is someone they will not consider? >> well, sort of the endgame the president played at start to put republicans in a tight position. they amped up the attention on chuck grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee. who initially indicated he would hold hearings but now said there is no way. there is very arcane process which, if you look at it, i'm

instead, it is what justice scalia calls legalistic argot barco. that is a quote. another quote, jaggery potpourri. justice scalia knew that the rule of law was a lot of rules, the rule of law is not a law, whatever is in the justices art. when i justice believes, as president obama does, that anytime a views the constitution is unfair unclear he can apply his own life experience. unless the constitution specifically prohibits the democratic process from reflecting the we will of the people the decisions are made by elected individuals who are accountable to voters. the supreme court plays an important role in keeping the branches of the federal government within constitutional powers. keeping the federal and state governments within the constitutional fear, sphere. it ensures the government complies with the bill of rights. that is the basis for its legitimacy. when the court leaves the constitution in ways that reflect the justices personal policy views rather than the text it does not act legitimately. instead it denies the people the legal right to govern thems

and you know what the solicitor general said, yes, justice scalia, and scalia -- you know -- chair was rocking. >> guest: just fell out. >> host: turned purple and that's when they said, come back, ebrief and it we'll do something else. that's january 2010. so this citizens united comes down. >> guest: citizens united holds that money is speech and so the government, just like it can't regulate the speech of private people through different groups and politics-it can't regulate the donations to -- by private people or corporations or groups engaged in politics. always been puzzled why critics of citizens united get so upset because seems obvious to me the right anxious, just, example, we wouldn't say -- the government, for example, has to recognize its right to abortion, but we would never say congress could say, you can't spend any money on abortion. seems obvious that the government can't regulate the money that you would use to participate in a constitutional right. so, citizen united simply says, since you have a right to free speech, particularly as you said, in politics, during c

"on the supreme court, however, justice scalia continued, the consequence is different. the court proceeds with eight justices, raising the possibility that by reason of a tie vote, it will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issues presented by the case." justice scalia then quoted the supreme court's own recusal policy, observing that -- quote -- "even one" -- "even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the court." if even one unnecessary recusal impairs the court, imagine what 14 months vacancy would do. imagine if in 2016 we had a repeat of 2000, when the supreme court decided bush v. gore, except with only eight justices on the bench. imagine the constitutional crisis our nation would have to endure. i know, mr. president, i know it has become fashionable for washington politicians to tear down rather than work to improve the democratic institutions generations of americans have built. but to impair so cavalierly the judicial branch of our government is pathetic. it is a standard one would expect of a lawless nation rather than a nation

and then with justice scalia. it does is to read anything. but in the '80s. >> it is partially congress's fault if they wanted it to be very hard to make a lot at all to issue the house and senate to a separate body selected different times that they could veto with interpretation that is really difficult to reverse that system under the obama administration to delegate authority to those agencies that is supposed to be the status quo congress has to go through those troops to stop the agencies from imposing more and more burdens. is the complete upside down of the framers constitutional system. >> to overrule chevron to say. >> this is interesting struggle of jurisprudence there are some of like justice scalia was a loyal fan in judge bork was as well. even the most administrative law clerk but most recently justice clarence thomas has been raising doubts about chevron and if it should be overturned. >> host: teethree they are beginning to have their doubts? >> somebody that was raising doubts about concurrences of criminal law. >> so let's

was in scalia is a gregarious character.i interviewed the grandson for the book and he told the story of how they would always spend new year's together with all the scalia kids, i asked him if scalia. >> by the way, that is nine. >> i think i actually thought it was some combination of 11 kids. i asked if the to ever talk about politics and he said no, what would would there be to talk about? [laughter] >> i had an opportunity to go to the premier the summer of scalia, ginsburg at the opera which we exert in the book. justice ginsburg love this opera. she has this obsession with people being friends despite their political differences. i think anybody who spent all of the year she spent on a d.c. circuit with robert bork, scalia, clarence thomas, i think understands that you do not get very far in that world if you just verbally or physically punch someone in the face for disagreeing with you. it is survival mode, in an appeals court you need at least one other judge to boat with you. she did not get to where she isn't bein

and what did justice scalia say? said that, well, the senators voting for him because it was named to the voting rights act. remember that? senator hatch: he had a half-hour argument towards hundreds of hours of debate. senator franken: i mean, this is insulting. to hear that. it is just insulting. now, let me say a couple things about some of the things i have been hearing. senator biden, chairman biden, when he spoke, does anyone here know, anyone, chairman, do you know when he spoke? i'm sorry. i apologize. it had to beley: june, 1992. senator franken: it was late june as the session was ending. and when he was talking about is somebody resigning to game the system. that is what he was talking about. we are talking here about confirming someone to replace a justice who has died. think about how different that is, everybody. when chuck schumer says in its -- an extraordinary situation, he is talking about someone dying. scientists tell us there are 10.5 months left in this president's four-year term. and justice sc

defendedonin scalia the united states constitution. he descended in the 5-4 decision in 2005, where the supreme court interpreted the constitution's eminent domain provision to allow government to compensate private property and give it to other private owners to promote economic development. justice scalia equated the decision to the dred scott decision, the supreme court ruled that blacks are not human, but property and cannot become american citizens. he also equated the decision to the roe v. wade decision to legalize abortion on demand. decision,ing the kilo donald trump told fox news, i have been to agree with the decision 100%. according to the kato

the death of justice antonin scalia. ((nat pop - scalia funeral)) ((vo)) the high court will hear mcdonnell's appeal -- in the case involving 177- thousand dollars in bribes. scalia was expected to be a vote in the convicted governor's favor, because in 1999, scalia argued that gifts don't always equal pribes, instead ((gfx)) "the government must prove a link between a thing of value conferred upon a public official and a specific 'official act' for or because of which it was given." ((chance seales / national correspondent)) in other words, if bob mcdonnell didn't perform a specific act - for a specific loan or vacation - he might've been in the legal gray zone, and keep himself out of jail. ((sen. mitch mcconnell / r- kentucky)) this vacancy will not be filled this year. ((vo)) while the senate sorts out a scalia replacement, and mcdonnell goes to prison for two years. ((vo)) also moving through the courts, new jersey sen. bob mendndez outraged that prosecutors at the justice department were tricked into starting this

the things that comes to mind is the fact that with the recent death of the late justice antonin scaliaa lot of people wondering who is going to feel .hat desk fill the vacancy who is going to name the person to fill that role? that is one of the great things about ted cruz. is that americans can know with confidence that ted cruz will take an outstanding person to fill antonin scalia's position

justice scalia served for 30 years.ut clearly the stakes are high and that is why we decided the american people should have their voice heard. the senate has clear constitutional authority to demand this, and my republican colleagues and i do intend to do the job for elected to do on the people's behalf. it is fair to say our friends across the aisle don't like this idea. but they are feigning a lot of outrage. we know they would do exactly the same the shoe on the other foot. we know that because they have told us. we talked about one now vice president biden said years ago. you don't have to go back that far to find the comments from the senior senator from new york who said 18 months before president george w. bush left office that i will recommend to my colleagues we should not confirm supreme court justice except in extraordinary circumstances. we should reverse the presumption and have a presumption against confirmation and then there is senator reed, the former majority leader how the minority stated this, the d

brian: what does the death of scalia had done for this discussion? you referenced travel and all of that. gabe roth: it is still a lot. a lot of people are talking about the supreme court than they were a few weeks ago. primarily, really, on this whole issue of lifetime tenure, the intelligence of lifetime enure. a "boston globe" columnist partially said, the founders missed this one up. there shouldn't be lifetime tenure for the supreme court. the founders weren't anticipating living into their 90's. and staying on the bench when lifetime tenure was written into the constitution. so i think that when it comes to how his death has been most impactful in my work, it is this lifetime tenure. and you've seen people all across spectrum, coalescing on this idea that lifetime tenure no longer works and in 18 term is more rational. brian: how much about their travel can you see, can we the public see? gabe roth: not a whole lot. every may, the justices, just like president, vice president, members of congress, are required to release their annual financial

justice scalia served for 30 years. please be stakes are high and that is why we decided the american people should have their voices heard in the selection of this next lifetime appointment. the senate has clear constitutional authority to demand this. my republican colleagues and i do intend to do the job we were elected to do on the people's behalf. it is fair to say our friends across the aisle don't like this idea. but of course they are feigning a lot of outrage. we know they would do exactly the same if the shoe were on the other foot. we know that because they have told us. you, mr. chairman, talked about what now vice president biden said as chairman of the judiciary committee years ago but you don't have to go back that far to fight for example the comments from the senior senator of new york, senator schumer who said 18 months before president george w. bush left office that i will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm supreme court justice except in extraordinary circumstances, he said you sh

justice scalia said this, i agree, what about this? it teaches the country not only how appellate argument works but also how a trial that goes on for days and weeks, and our tops -- they would see the facts that the justices interact and break down preconceived notions about the ideological makeup of the institution. brian: keep in mind with kennedy said about education. here is just what justice scalia had to say back in 2012. [video clip] >> television in the court. television in the court. the reason i bring it up is because congress has talked about ordering the court to go on television. why are you so against it? >> brian, i am for it when i first joined the court and switched and remained on that side of it. i am against it because i don't believe, as the proponents of television in the court assert, that the purpose of televising or hearings would be to educate the american people. that is not what it would end up doing. if i really thought it would educate the american people, i would be all for it. >> what most of the americ

particularly one to succeed justice scalia, one of the most influential jurists of our time. the men and women who sit on the supreme court are the final arbiters of american law. they safeguard our rights. they ensure that our system is one of laws and not many. they are charged with the essential task of applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago to some of the most challenging questions of our time. so this is not a responsibility that i take likely. it's a decision that requires me to set aside short-term expediency and narrow politic, maintain faith with our founders and more importantly, perhaps with future generations. and that's why i have done my best to set up a rigorous and comprehensive process. i have sought the advice of democratic and republican members of congress. we reached out to every member of the senate judiciary committee, to constitutional scholars, bar associations representing an array of interests and opinions from all across the spectrum. and today after completing this exhaustive process, i have made my decision. i have selected

justice scalia said this, i agree, what about this? it teaches the country not only how appellate argument works but also how a trial that goes on for days and weeks, and our tops -- they would see the facts that the justices interact and break down preconceived notions about the ideological makeup of the institution. brian: keep in mind with kennedy said about education. here is just what justice scalia had to say back in 2012. [video clip] >> television in the court. television in the court. the reason i bring it up is talked congress has about ordering the court to go on television. why are you so against it? >> brian, i am for it when i first joined the court and switched and remained on that side of it. i am against it because i don't believe, as the proponents of television in the court assert, that the purpose of televising or hearings would be to educate the american people. that is not what it would end up doing. if i really thought it would educate the american people, i would be all for it. >> what most of the american peopl

a supreme court agency follows the death of antonin scalia last month. the republican senate wants to block any vote on a nominee put forward by president obama. time for the latest business news, including a closer look at the u.s. federal reserve policy. anchor: will they, or won't they? they have now announced they will keep interest rates unchanged from where they stand currently, between 0.25 and 0.2 5 -- 0.5%. this happened at a meeting earlier. the fed had a lot to chew over in the meeting. oil prices have been -- core inflation rising, home construction stronger, and factory outlets have improved. it was not enough to bring up rates this time, but a another hike as early as the next fed meeting. the chairwoman, janet yellen, has set up her vision to come. >> the median projection for the fund rates rises only gradually, to .9% later this year, and 1.9% next year. as the factors restraining economic growth are projected to fade further over time, the median rate rises to 3% by the end of 2018, closer to its normal level. anchor: i should say that

like to cordon off various and maybe scalia. >> it should be a no-brainer for kaufhof off starting off as a janitor then works his way up as day engineer. it is a retirement home for military and the spouses of military persons in there is a lot of elderly people there of course, . is so lawrence decided he should converted to a sewage drain but it went to the potomac and the justice department went after him as a felony and admitted he did not know when he was doing. >> that case is like thousands where the government is overreacting to something that you should solve with common sense the government doesn't just say you made a mistake. he did not intend it to do that. instead they come down with criminal sanctions because they can and they have that type of discretion and to know that they will escape oversight in the courts will defer to them so it is full of examples like this. >> host: look at the lovely c act. >> guest: o no. [laughter] >> as a guide named lacey wanted to protect the wildlife that sounds okay but then in 2008 is to control congress? it was democrats they say they

but scalia added, the right is not unlimited. also, leaving room for gun regulation. area. >> it is absolutely a continuing gray area. absolutely a continuing gray >> another gray 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, on -- on -- who replaces justice scalia. >> most people who live in urban areas can't imagine why anyone would need a room full of rifles and handguns. for millions of americans who live in the wide open spaces firearms are a way of life. here's ted koppel. >> reporter: itch you have ever wondered where the deer and the antelope still roam, this is it. you know to so many people. looks like he has been riding all his life and bears a striking resemblance to teddy roosevelt, that's bob modell. this is his moon crest ranch, a few miles outside of cody, wyoming. >> boys! hand getting ready to feed the horses. when they head up into the mountains they will be carrying rifles for, protection against wolve

and justice scalia had been very much involved in that. he's very much laid out a series of cases where he wrote the majority opinion or wrote the dissent or wrote concurring opinions in which he laid out a coherent policy for the expression of faith in the public realm. i think that in itself is a significant achievement. when justice roberts came before our court -- before our committee for confirmation, he remember telling him, sir, if you can participate in trying to clear up and bring some common sense to the question of expressions of faith, you can -- you got a right to free speech in america. you have to right to the free exercise of religion under the constitution. so somehow it's gotten around that you can have more -- you can be protected in filthy speech more than you can be protected in religious speech. so justice scalia made -- had a series of rulings that are important on that subject, and my staff has worked on it. and, mr. president, i would -- i ask -- and have laid that out here. it's just an important area that we need

are you sure you had nothing to do with this scalia thing? mean, what i'm saying is kennedy knew scalia's movements. he had motive. you know he has access to pillows. i mean, his nickname is "mr. pillows." i'm just sayin', you guys. anyway, everyone wants could-be-scalia-murderer anthony kennedy on their side now. in fact-- this is true-- the actress amy brenneman and 100 other women filed briefs in the case telling their abortion stories, trying to sway justice kennedy. oh, my god! so "judging amy" is now getting involved in supreme court decision? that's awesome. that would be like if kevin spacey ran for president, or if cuba gooding jr. brutally murdered his wife. wait, no, no, no, that doesn't-- strike that. he wouldn't-- cuba, don't do it. for more in-depth coverage on this complicated, delicate issue, we turn to our own grace parra. >> hi! >> larry: so, grace, why why are so many women sending justice kennedy their abortion stories? >> well, larry, turns out justice kennedy is this season's "it boy." he's the hottest bachelor since jua

he sounded from the steps of the white house somewhat like justice scalia. he believes in interpreting the law and he doesn't believe in make the law as a judge. and those are all good things. but he's a pragmatist. it's no slight of him to say i think he would move the court to the left. >> do you think the republicans would rather have a trump nominee, bryan? >> i don't know. it's a big -- if you're talking about the republicans, well, the republicans have been voting for donald trump. absolutely. but the republican establishment, i think they have a big quandary. i think what's likely to happen, if hillary clinton were to win would be that judge garland would be given hearings and approved before the inaugural. >> jeffrey? >> i don't think -- i don't agree with brian about that. there really isn't enough time between november and january to do such a controversial act. the republicans are so -- >> especially when they said it shouldn't happen, the next person should pick the president and all of a sudden you reverse course. >> i don't know. i think it wou

came right after the sad death of justice scalia. he said, "deer senator inhofe, i've just learned of the death of justice scalia. i should only be feeling sadness at the death of this great patriot, a man of the law, and i'm terrified of what i am sure is now already in the works, his replacement by president barack obama. the person who replaces justice scalia will have the potential to change the balance of power on the bench for decades and may have the possibility to reshape the political land shape immediately -- landscape immediate lid and unalterably. i therefore, beg you and all of your fellow senators to not vote to affirm any candidate put forward by president obama. this is an election year, and the people should be given a chance to choose which direction this country will go and not have it decided by president obama, as he leaves the white house. please do not vote for any candidate offered by this administration." another letter. this came from chicashay, oklahoma, from donald. "dear senator inhofe, i have just receiv

i don't know that justice scalia ever contemplated this particular scenario.h the justices. it's not clear if a president nominates in t s and the senates to act. of course, there's the -- if you admit that's a constitutional question that could be settled by the judiciary, you know, you have basically the supreme court -- you are saying that the supreme court would basically be engaged in this question of who would be -- who would become one of their members. and i think that -- i think the court would be reluctant to do that. you know, and i think that -- i'm not a lawyer, but i know that there are very significant questions of standing and sort of judicial -- whether this could be litigated. i don't see it heading in that direction. it doesn't mean that, you know, if we get far enough down this road and neither party has moved much and that turns out to be something people look at, but it's certainly an interesting thought experiment at this point. >> from time to time the senate goes into recess, could the president appoint someone during that recess to th

who will replace justice scalia? it will be decided in the next session. court will not cease to function because it is 8-8. i am fully aware that my colleagues want to make a political point, and tried to not this issue, but it is what should be done. 1888 undergo before these circumstances when a .ustice was approved this is what you would expect the senate to do. let the american people have a voice who would replace justice scalia next year. >> senator schumer? >> thank you. i would like to thank you for allowing these remarks. i want to thank the ranking member from fairmont for his able remarks, and associate myself with his, and senator feinstein's outstanding presentation as well. movingciate the chairman forward with nominees today, as well as who goes before us. it is a pleasure to work with you, mr. chairman, on these important pieces of legislation. i appreciate the partnership on those efforts. i have to say, the work of this committee, and this congress will be shamefully incomplete if the committee refuses to do that most important job of we

scalia's death, he served for 30. ratchet up president obama's pressure on the republican led senate to allow a vote on garland's nomination. >> i am grateful beyond words for honor you have bestowed upon me. thank you. [applause] >> david schuster, al jazeera. >> now to the state of the presidential campaign.in the wake of tuesday's primaries, hillary clinton was the big winner on the democratic side, she won four states and holds a slim lead in missouri. on the republican side donald trump scored big vic trises in n three states but lost ohio to john kasich. fox news cancelled a republican debate planned for friday after donald trump bowed out. we begin with michael shure in florida covering the republicans. >> today my campaign is suspended. >> with those five words in miami last night the once promising campaign of marco rubio came to a an abrupt end. the state of florida was the site of his final defeat in this presidential race. >> it is clear while we are on the right side this year we will not be on the winnin

the supreme court is evenly divided after the death of conservative antonin scalia a. -- antonin scaliahe would likely side with the conservatives. onplease join the candidates stage for a moment of science for judge galena -- judge antonin scalia. republican senators confirm they would not give judge garland a hearing. clear president obama made this nomination not with the intent of saying the nominee confirmed, but to politicize it for purposes of the election. >> both parties are preparing for a fight. president obama said the supreme court must be above politics, but it is about to be the center of a political battle that will impact the election campaigns. katty: for more on the pick and fight i spoke with a law professor at george washington university. let's lay out for our viewers around the world how significant eric garland could be if you became a supreme court justice in the lives of ordinary american. >> he is moderate. anyone who is replacing scalia will move the needle to the left, because he was so much to the right. he could flip the result. like gun rights. that is on

obama announced supreme court nominee to replace the late antonin scalia. as expected the president's announcement is not without controversy especially as the nation prepares to pick its next president. caroline shiley has more, of the judge, judge merrick garland and how the senate is responding. >> reporter: selecting a nominee , in the middle of an -- of a contentious presidential campaign, it is made difficult. >> today i nominate judge merrick garland to join the supreme court. 4 the rose garden ceremony, president. obama announcing his top choice to replace the late antonin scalia on the highest court. >> this is the greatest honor of my life. other than my wife agreeing to marry me. >> the white house is selling it as a consensus candidate hoping to appeal to republicans and democrats. but the gop may not buy it. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says he thinks the next president should choose the next justice and republicans are vowing to block the nominee from getting a floor vote. >> the senate will revisit the matter when it considers the q

justice scalia served for 30 years. and thus, fundamentally reshape american society in the process. and given president obama's previous supreme court nominees, the question before the american people is whether they want someone with the same or similar ideology to dramatically change the current balance on the supreme court. because if president obama were allowed to nominate someone who were confirmed in the same mold as those he has already nominated and who have been confirmed, it would for a generation change the ideological balance of the united states supreme court. and you have to wonder whether the real goal, much like it was when the nuclear option was invoked and we saw nominees to the district of columbia court of appeals, which some people call the second-most important court in the nation, when there was literally a packing of nominees on that court because they wanted to tip the ideological balance of the d.c. court of appeals. because most of the important legal decisions made which ultimately go to th

in scalia's own words. the only article in faith that plays any part in my judging is the commitment, thou shall not lie. in a time when all of us are bombarded with media agendas, and the web of spin and cortical andiving, the very best most effective way to defend freedom is found in those four words. they'll shall not lie. shall not lie. i talk to people. they are fed up. good, honest people worried about the future of their families. the future of their country. self-servingh political and media elites rick and game the system for their own personal wealth and power. the lies,gusted with all of us are. we are enraged. we are so outraged, it is game over for the liars. [applause] yearapierre: this election proves the rage of the american people to be real and powerful. strategists and pundits are learning this year that telling it like it is brings success. straight talk brings rewards. that is something i learned in kindergarten. truth counts. truth matters. endures. history proves if you give the ameri

it does not -- justice scalia: well, if it -- mr. dumont: require it would not -- justice scalia: the problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, almost by definition. should the government pay higher wages or lesser wages? should it promote teachers on the basis of seniority or on the basis of -- all of those questions are necessarily political questions. that's the major argument made by the other side. mr. dumont: and your honor, i don't disagree with that. but it does not change the fact that as a government, we have two things that we're doing -- one is trying to run a workplace, another is trying to run a government in which the debate must be wide open, and we would not dream of being able to impose -- justice roberts: what is you said you agree with that. you agree with that everything they're negotiating over is a public policy question? mr. dumont: no. i don't agree that -- justice roberts: why? mr. dumont: every issue is a public policy question, but i don't

justice scalia, confimpled in 198 -- 85 days. justice kagan, 75 days. r.b.g., i would say, one of my personal favorites, 50 days. clarence thomas, 99 days. i mean, you could add some of these confirmation periods together and you wouldn't get to 325. so what is the problem? mr. speaker, let me ask how much time we have remaining on our special order today? the speaker pro tempore: 12 minutes remaining. mr. jeffries: let me ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to include any ex train just material on the sut of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jeffries: one of the concerns that we have as it relates to the presidency of president obama and representative beatty pointed this out, this is a feeling in many corners of america that this president is treated differently. because ot sure it's sole people have folks against waii or kansas, i don't know if you dislike the fact that he is a community organizer in terms of one of the jobs he held. he is so well educated from columbia or harvard law sc

garland may not be the right fit for scalia's position. do you agree or disagree?don't think it is fit. the president has the duty to nominate someone and whoever is president at the time has that duty. i believe the senate has the obligation to give that candidate serious consideration and particularly with a candidate like this. merrick garland is one of new york times mentioned this yesterday about being a feeder judge. which means you send your clerks to them to clerk at the supreme court. he is the third highest feeder judge of all time. he sent three law clerks to clerk for the office. no one could be better qualified to do this job. >> justice scalia's diversity test, he doesn't fit the bill. and part of a piece on the blog wrote about this. in his humor and descent on this, scalia complained that the court consisted of only harvard or yale educated lawyers and all but one justice grew up in coastal states and that none was an evangelical christian. they were either catholic or jewish. he doesn't fit scalia's diversity test. >> he has the illinois thing goin

i think now it's pretty certain that this is the man the president has picked to replace justice scaliaere are multiple media outlets reporting that that is the name that is going to come out. it's interesting because earlier this morning, we had five names to play with, but now we appear to be down to one. he is 63 years old, and a harvard graduate. five other members of the supreme court are harvard graduates. he was nominated by the senate back in 1997 by 70-23 votes. so he has had 19 years service in his position. and he has been passed over before. when president obama picked elena kagan, and sonia sotoma r sotomayor, his name was also in the running. the president has given considerable attention to this choice. he has consulted legal experts and reached out to every member of the senate, according to the statement issued by president obama. and all members of the senate judiciary committee are going to be in the rose garden this morning. >> and merrick has been on the d.c. circuit court for some 19 years, so he will have a long record to pick through. how likely is it that the re

just scalia was almost unanimously approved. it was the bourque poiappointme because he was very much a judicial activist on the right. >> alan, you're playing with words. you're making black appear right. >> why? heller is not creating a new right? how can you say it's not creating a new right? for 150 years everybody said the second amendment. >> no. my own personal belief is that the second amendment was a mistake. justice scalia simply interpreted it according to the best indications of original meaning. >> and jeffrey toobin, i have to say you wrote the book on it and you don't have a very good poker face. what are you thinking? >> i'm thinking that interpreting the constitution has always been a political act. we always want judges to be somehow divorced from politics, but my view is that deciding does the constitution protect a woman's right to choose abortion, may university consider race in admissions, those are political issues as much as they are legal issues. >> brian garner, thank you very much. when we come right b

>> right now at noon, president obama announces the replacement for supreme court scalia. >> this will likely start a bitter battle with republicans. >> reporter: president obama >> president obama: after completing this exhaustive process, chief judge merrick brian garland to join the supreme court. >> reporter: 63-year-old merrick graduated from harvard law school. >> he has a long record of highly regarded by conservatives and liberals. >> reporter: if confirmed he will replace antonin scalia. president obama knows with this nomination he'll be facing bitter opposition in congress. almost meetly after scalia's death republican leaders next president is sworn in. >> american people will have a voice as they choose the next president. >> reporter: in pushing forward with his nominee, president obama is fulfilling his constitutional duty and called on senators to do their jobs, craig boswell, cbn news. >> breaking at noon, florida governor has just endorsed donald trump for president. >>> crews are checking for hot spots after a fire destroys an iconic cocoa beach mansion. >> reporter:

what is the senate jobs regarding the scalia vacancy?he senate's job is to determine the best way to exercise its u advice and consent power under the circumstances we face today. thankfully we are not without guidance in deciding the best way to exercise out advice andns consent power regarding the scalia vacancy.pr we can look at precedent. it hardly takes a lot agree tont know that a president is more sa legitimate if it is more similar to the situation before us. comparing apples and apples is more helpful than saying comparing apples and rocks. that's just a matter of common sense. i the fictional claims offered in recent days suggest some of the lawyers among us could benefit from even more common sense. over the years the senate has considered dominations into the ways at different times depending on the circumstances. consider these residents with great daring on the current circumstances. the senate has never, never confirmed a nominee to the supreme court, to a supreme court vacancy that opened up this late in the term of limit

particularly one to succeed justice antonin scalia, one of the most influential jurists of our time.blue blue and women who sit on the supreme court are the final arbiters of american law. they safeguard our rights. they ensure our system is one of laws and not men. they are charged with the task of applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago and the most challenging questions of our time. this is not a responsibility i take lightly. the decision requires me to set aside short-term expediency and narrow politics, make faith with our founders and future generations. that is why i have done my best to set up a rigorous and comprehensive process. i have sought the advice of republican and democratic members of congress, reached out to every member of the senate judiciary committee, constitutional scholars, advocacy groups, bar associations representing opinions from all across the spectrum. today, after completing the exhaustive process i have made my decision. i have selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of america's sharpest legal minds but one w

we have a vacancy that's caused by a death of justice scalia. president shall appoint and the -- with the advice, consent of the senate. scientists tell us there are 10 1/2 months left in this president's term. he was elected by the people. the people have had their say. they know what happens when you elect a president. he gets to nominate justices and the senate is supposed to do its job. >> well, the argument that mitch mcconnell made in that letter and the judicial committee made is, look, the constitution is clear, advise and consent and they use that word, we are withholding our consent preemptively to anyone you nominate. their argument is this is squarely constitutional. >> well, i understand that, but what's unprecedented about this is, you know, i guess we don't have to do anything. it's probably constitutional for me to stay in minnesota and not show up here. but that's certainly not the point of bothering to become a senator. >> well, so then the question -- well, that is -- i agree, i mean, that seems persuasive to me -- >> not only

justice scalia served for 30 years. clearly the stakes are high.t is why we decided the american people should have their voice heard in the selection of this time appointment. to senate has authority demand this, and my colleagues jobi intend to do the do on theected to people's behalf. it is fair to say that people on the other side of the aisle don't like this idea. they are feigning a lot of outrage. we know they would do exactly the same if the shoe were on the other foot. we know that because they have told us. you, mr. chairman, talked about what now vice president biden said years ago. you don't have to go back that the comments from the senior side of new york, senator schumer, who said, 18 months before george bush took office, i will recommend to my colleagues that we will not recommend a supreme court extremeexcept for circumstances. then, there is of course senator leaderhe former majority . he stated this. do on the people's behalf. itthe duties of the senate are t constitution. disagreeing myself often with the member, he is absolute