divided court, 5-4 position, dominating, and that has been true for many years since chief justice warren burger was appointed in 1969. i think that there's not necessarily going to be disorder. a large percentage of the supreme court's zises are unanimous, and difficult ones are sometimes 5-4, but in this instance, the court could carry over a rearguing of the case. they normally end in june anyway, and they take three months recess, and it could slow things down, and it may be in the interim, they only grant four votes on the case that's they wouldn't be divided 4-4. just for your audience's sake, when a 4-4 tie occurs, it means that the lower court's precedence is not disrupted. >> when that happens, send it back to the lower appellate level, does anybody get another bite at the apple because it wasn't decided at the top appellate level? >> i think that the parties in that particular case probably wouldn't. the decision was affirmed by an equally divided court for supreme court issues, there may be proceedings for the lower courts on those issues, but the particular issue that went to the sup

chief justice warren burger once explained the significance of the united states constitution as follows. he wrote that -- quote -- "in the last quarter of the 18th century, no nation in the world has governed with separated and divided powers providing checks and balances on the exercise of authority by those who governed." the chief justice went on to call the constitution -- quote -- "a remarkable document, the first of its kind in all of human history." chief justiceer was right. it's remarkable for not only what it says but how it says it and some places the constitution speaks in poetry like the preamble that begins with "we the people from the united states" and talks of a more perfect union and the blessings of liberty. and other places the constitution is simple prose but given the importance of every single word in the text of the constitution, the founding fathers wrote in plain, concise and understandable language. that clarity can be found in the advice and consent clause of article 2, section 2. its words could not be clearer. it simply states that the president of the unit

when president ronald reagan nominated him to fill the vacancy left by retiring chief justice warren burger. the senate confirmed him unanimously 98-to-zero. when he died yesterday, scalia was the longest-serving of the nine supreme court justices. >> brangham: for more on justice scalia's role and his influence on the court, i am joined from washington d.c. by marcia coyle, the chief washington correspondent for "the national law journal," and jamal green, a professor and a vice dean at columbia university law school here in new york. thank you both for being here. marcia, i would like to start with you. just give me your take on scalia's lasting legacy. >> well, william, i think his legacy will be in several areas. first of all, and perhaps most importantly, is his approach to constitutional interpretation as well as interntion of statutes. he was what he said, called himself an originalist in that when he interpreted the constitution, he would look at how the words of the constitution were understood at the time of the framers. he also was a tect allist meaning he would look at the words

that vacancy was created when chief justice warren burger resigned. and instead of going outside of the court president reagan selected william renquist who was an assocate justice to be chief justice and then selected skalia to take the rin quest seat. didn't they come together at the same time? >> yes, and that helped him. he was helped by his italian-american heritage, and helped by the fact his record for all intensive purposes was in plain site but there was no reason to probe too deep in the how deep his conservative behavior was but he followed him for status and a lot of came out to be elevated to chief and support him. they didn't like his report on the supreme court but he was outspoken as an assistant attorney general in the office of legal council and he had a record that generated so many more critics. here is antonin scalia who has this wonderful life story. his nine children lineup behind him. >> i was going to ask you when you mentioned he was an only child he has nine children and how many grandchildren now? >> 30. but i would have to

you had chief justice warren burger.tices like thurgood marshall, like william brennan, who very rarely asks questions. they really were very reticent to get involved in oral argument. justice scalia, the former law professor at chicago and virginia, he gets on the bench in 1986 and suddenly he's this complete live wire. he's asking these questions. throwing hypothetical questions at the lawyers, asking, you know, expressing incredulity at some of the answers. that simply was not done. but he single-handedly transformed the bench. today, you have eight justices, all except justice thomas, who are all active participants in oral argument. frankly, it is a much more entertaining lively bench than it used to be, and that's because justice scalia really single-handedly changed the whole dynamic of oral arguments at the court. >> jeffrey and douglas brinkley, rarely do we see a sitting justice do an interview. but scalia did an interview in 2012 with then cnn host piers morgan. there were some personal moments that came throu

he was appointed in 1986 and sworn in by warren burger. this is a photograph from the "new york times," along with his wife, maureen, and behind him, justice william rehnquist, who went on to serve as chief justice of the united states. and this is from a tweet, it seems most people are interested in antonin scalia's replacement rather than his legacy or his passing. layer a joining us from california, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have three comments. one is the lord works in mysterious ways. two, the republicans have been blocking obama for seven years. if they block him again, it's going to rally us. and three, i think calling c-span for three, four years, trying get my point across, and my point was, we let 9/11 happen. donald trump almost said it last night, but he couldn't bring himself to say it. but we went for the oil. they don't talk about the airport that we not in iraq, the biggest thing, huge amounts of money. we built the embassy and the airport, and we didn't even secure the country. the country was i

he did not choose to push through a nominee and that fell to richard nixon who came through to warren burgerd justice kennedy who was nominated in 1987 through the confirmation process into 1988. that was because the democrats had rejected the president's first choice. >> you heard that and how historic might this turn out to be and what are the implications? >> let me just say for the court, my heard goes out to them as well. a death is never something one welcomes. if he lies in state, i will pay respects even though i disagree with every opinion he wrote. this is a political fight and they have the right to nominate and the republican-led senate has the right to bring him up and decide yes or no. they were voted out and sent for a democratic-let senate and he was rejected. he got a vote. the point here is that mitch mcconnell who in 2005 said every president deserved the right to nominate and get a vote on any of his nominees for the judiciary. i wonder what has changed in the last nine years. that being said, the president should nominate and the senate should give that person a fair hea

chief justice warren burger warned in 1970 that -- quote -- "a sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty, for a free people." he cautioned that inefficiency and delay in our courts of appeals could destroy that confidence. mr. president, unfortunately as it's currently constituted, the ninth circuit is inefficient, it delays and, therefore, denies justice for millions of americans and we cannot allow the confidence to our system of justice to be undermined by continuing to have a court of appeals that is so large, so unwieldy. and that's what the senator from montana and i intend to do with our bills, to bring equal justice for all americans. i turn to my colleague from montana for his views on this very important issue. mr. daines: i want to thank the junior senator from alaska and i appreciate him joining me in this most important effort and the leadership that he has demonstrated on this issue. as the junior senator from alaska knows, the ninth circuit court is broken. it is overburdened and it's unable to provide quality service and expeditio