tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 14, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
with the wit -- wilson center. will also take your calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. >> >> he had wit and colorful opinions. he influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and students and profoundly shaped the legal landscape. host: president obama paying tribute to justice antonin scalia arrest night in california, as the nation mourns the death of what many are calling a legal giant. flags at the u.s. capitol and all federal buildings are at half-staff this morning in tribute to the man who served nearly 30 years on the high court.
we're going to win with calls, his impact on the high court, and the looming political battle over his successor. this is "washington journal" for sunday morning, february 14. our phone lines are open at 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. if you're an independent, 202-748-8002. join us on social media on facebook and twitter. good sunday morning to you. thank you very much for being with us. as we look at the life and legacy of justice scalia, he was talked about last night in the cbs debates, and this is a story this morning, front page of the "new york times," justice antonin scalia is dead at the age of 79. he passed away of natural causes while on a vacation in texas.
he was a leader of conservative intellectual renaissance in three decades on the supreme court, was found dead saturday at a resort in west texas. he was 79 years old. and this from the hill newspaper, a sharp partisan battle opened saturday over whether president obama should nominate a successor so the late justice antonin scalia. the news of his death was a bombshell in an already lively election cycle, and both sides quickly recognized a story that would reverberate in the races for the house, the senate, and the presidency. we're going to get to your calls in just a moment as we look at the life of justice scalia, but first, as part of a documentary on the supreme court, he talked about his role as a judge and his writings on he high court. justice scalia: i like figuring out the right answer to legal questions, believe it or not, and not everybody does. i think some people who lust to become an appellate judge find
the judge really quite unsatisfying when they get there. you have to have a rather warped mind to want to spend your life figuring out the answer to legal questions. it's a very isolated job. people time you see from the outside is when you're listening to argument from counsel. other than that, it's very disembodied, intellectual work, probably most closely resembles the work of a law professor, which is what i was before i as here. i'm no more unhappy than i was before. host: the full documentary on the supreme court, part of our video library. you can check it out online any time. as you might imagine, the political reverberations from statements by the senate leaders, including mitchell
mcconnell, the senate republican leader who paid tribute to justice scalia, and hen said this -- host: of course, the new president won't come from another 11 months. the president must do his job per the u.s. constitution and nominate a qualified successor for justice scalia. national review from nationalreview.com, paying tribute to justice scalia, may he rest in peace. let's go to keith, joining from us chicago, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. just one second here. it's outrageous for mcconnell to suggest that the president should not nominate a replacement to scalia. no president would do that. i mean, he's saying that
because he dislikes this president that he will not even consider any of his nominees. mean, how much more blatant obstructionism can we see out of this congress going into an election year? everyone should be appalled. if they tonight like the nominee, vote them down. it would only work against them, particular physical it sat an american judge, it will work against them mightily in the 016 election when they have the senate in the balance. host: thanks for the call. this point on twitter, why would that be a question? it's part of the potus's job to nominate people for the scotus, the supreme court of the united states. zach is joining us, youngstown, ohio, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning.
i didn't agree with his opinions, but he was -- he was a man. he was like you or i. it makes my heart hurt that in this hyper partisan environment we are going to go through this nomination process. it is -- as the last caller should president appoint a justice. the thing to me is, if the true jurist is appointed, it's not going to matter what party it is in the executive branch. just remember sandra day o'connor. if you have an independent judiciary with a lifetime appointment on the supreme court, it's going to free the reins from the political bindings that they have, just as the framers had intended. see what's about to happen with the very partisan fights that are going to happen outside of the senate, which i mean,
that's a confirmation hearing, it really is -- should be expected. but we have -- scalia was unanimously confirmed. ginsburg was unanimously confirmed. we are in an environment today that is very toxic and this should not be politicized. host: zach joining from us ohio. another viewer with this tweet, we are not going to let a lame-duck president pick another supreme court justice with another lifetime appointment, so put that out of your minds. he was born in new jersey. he was the only child, but went on to have nine of his own children. he went to xavier high school in new york city, graduated from georgetown university, earned his law degree from harvard law school, served in the ford and nixon administrations, also served as the supreme court appeals judge in the d.c. circuit court in 1982. he was appointed by president reagan in 1986 to serve on the
supreme court. the caller indicated, he was approved unanimously by the u.s. senate, serving nearly 30 years. antonin scalia, who passed away yesterday, he was 79 years old. vincent is joining us, tulsa, oklahoma. look at the "new york times" and tribute to justice scalia, calling him a legal giant, the piece available online from the opinion pages of nytimes.com. good morning, vincent. caller: good morning. i believe the next president will probably be the cuban -- how do you pronounce it, rubio? host: senator marco rubio. caller: marco rubio, and i believe that we should wait till he does it. so letting obama do it and have maybe another conservative judge instead of a liberal. host: vincent from tulsa, oklahoma. we'll go to eddie on our line from independents, joining from us massachusetts. good morning.
caller: good morning, steve. i don't expect you to remember this, the last time i got through, you were on, you were working on a wednesday, and the opening question you had was what was the biggest issue as far as this election coming up, and i did get through, and i talked to you when i said it was the supreme court. host: right. caller: and we actually talked about the ages of some of these guys. this is a complete shock, i tell you, with scalia. i turn on the tv last night, i saw the news, and i kind of sleeked like a little girl, and my wife come running in, what's the matter, i couldn't even speak. i pointed to the tv. she doesn't follow it, so she didn't get the severity of it. i think it increased 10 or 100-fold who gets in this next election. i'm incident pent, but i am a conservative -- i'm independent, but i am a conservative. this is kind of like a free
pick for obama. i think he has the right to pick it. he is the sitting president. i hate to say that, because i don't want to imagine who he's going to throw up there. i also think the senate, the senate's job to block him if they can, and if they want to, they hold the senate, as obama is fond of saying, elections have consequences. i mean, his passing, just intensifies. the one thing i'm hoping is that i think a lot of people that get up and hold signs for sanders and don't really know what socialism is about or whatever, i think it might galvanize conservatives to get to the polls a little bit more. i think if they come out like they should have, obama would have won a second term. but i don't know. it's one of those days i have so much to say. host: did you watch the debate last night? caller: i can't. i can't watch them. i watched a few at the beginning, and i probably
should have because of the scalia issue, but i'm tired of the debates. i don't even know who i like. i change every day, like the previous caller said, with rubio, i kind of like rubio. one quick question before i go. when was alito elected, put to the bench? i don't mean to put you on the spot. host: no, alito was one of two put on the high court by president bush, george w. bush. i want to say it was 2005, 2006. caller: i'm 55, and i was never really interested in politics until that nomination, and just how the democrats really tore into him and how the republicans come to his defense. that's really when i started etting interested in politics. host: it was 2006. caller: ok, so it's been 10 years. but yeah, just next election, i
think it just amps up, intensifies the conservatives got to get out there and vote or this country is going to be changed, in my opinion, for not the better in the years to come. but i appreciate your patience, steve, and keep up the good work. host: thank you very much. we mentioned the debate last night that took place in greenville, south carolina. this is a moment of silence called by john dickerson, the moderator of the cbs debate, as they pay taint to justice scalia before dealing with a number of contentious issues, including 9/11, george w. bush, the issue of immigration, and common core. the debate that took place last night is going air tonight, this afternoon, i should say, on c-span. our thanks to cbs news for allowing to us carry that debate. you can watch it at 4:00 eastern, 1:00 for those of you on the west coast. if you're just joining us on c-span radio or sirius x.m. channel 124, we are talking about the passing of supreme court justice antonin scalia, as washington, d.c., and the
nation mourns the death of what many are calling a legal giant. the implications that his death means for his replacement on the high court, harold is joining us on our democrats line from pennsylvania. good morning to you, sir. aller: good morning. as far as justice scalia, his body wasn't even cold and rube scombrow cruz come out, oh, no, the president can't appoint anyone. even though the constitution says when there is a vacancy, the president will appoint someone. they want to wait. sprobe breaking the constitution, breaking the laws, they turn around and do the same thing yesterday. they swear on the campaign trail they will uphold the constitution, they didn't do it
yesterday. not good for this country. host: michael has this tweet, president's pick nominees, the senate confirms or doesn't, but the process play out. and if there is a senate battle looming, one of those who will be front and center, senator marco rubio, who is running for the republican nomination, he talked about justice scalia last night in that cbs debate in south carolina. >> let me talk about justice scalia. this loss is tremendous. he will if down as one of the great justices in the history of this republic. you talk about someone who defended consistently the original meaning of the constitution, who understood that the constitution was not there to be interpreted based on the fads of the moment, but that it was there to be interpreted according to its original meaning. justice scalia understood that better than anyone in the history of this republic. his defense on the independent
council case, brilliant, and his dissent as well. number two, i do not believe the president should appoint someone, and it's not unprecedented. in fact, it's been over 80 years since a lame-duck president has appointed a justice. it reminds us of this, how important this election is. someone on this stage will get to choose the balance of the supreme court, and it will begin by filling this vacancy that's there now, and we need to put people on the bench who understood that the constitution is not a living and breathing document, it is to be interpreted as originally meant. host: last night with senator marco rubio, and roll call is writing about what's next in terms of the confirmation battle, if the president does put forth a nominee. justice anthony kennedy was confirmed during an election year, that although he was nominated in november of 1987. since the ford administration, the average november days from nomination to final senate vote is 67 days, which is just over two months, that according to the congressional research
service. justice scalia's death leaves the court evenly split with four justices nominated by republican presidents, four nominated by democrats. the senate nominated scalia in june of 1986, confirmed him in september. the vote was 98-0, and he was -- when he was nominated by president reagan for the past 30 years, scalia has been a conservative, a school wart conservative on the bench. and this is the headline from "the washington post," the nomination questions are likely to move to the race with the presidential election now front and center. republican line from florida, good morning to you. caller: thank you. wonderful show. we appreciate what y'all do. it means a lot to us. regarding senator rubio, saying that he, you know, admires and supports what scalia did and his life's work, that's very admirable to say, and we appreciate it. however, senator rubio said that he wants n.s.a. spying on all americans, recording all
the phone calls, emails, everything, to continue forever, made permanent, and he also said that we should never have to vote for it again. just make it permanent. now, justice scalia fought his whole life to protect the fourth amendment and to ensthure the government was not spying on us. there's a contradiction there. host: thanks very much for the call from. his book, "reading law:: the interprets of legal text," brian lamb in our sunday program questioning justice scalia about his latest book, which came out in 2012. >> are there ever personal feelings behind the things -- >> i don't want to talk about it. [laughter] >> are there -- let me do this, the question you were talking about, the answer you talked about earlier, about what you write in your opinions, has there ever been in your past when you make some strong statements personal, you know, fallout from that?
>> i've criticized the opinions of some of my colleagues, and we have remained friends. just as they criticized my opinions and we've remained friends. this is the kind of job, if you can't disagree, even disagree vehemently on the law, without taking it personally, and without, you know, hitting the person who's on the other side, you find another job. so, you know. that's it. >> done? >> done. [laughter] >> why do you sometimes have -- i mean, anybody that knows you knows you are a jolly fellow. >> i'm a jolly fellow. >> why do you take such an intense, you know, when you're dealing with this subject, you look like you're mad? >> with what subject? this whole business is the law. mean, you look like you're --
he should look jolly talking about a very serious, heart-felt issue, one in which what used to be -- the stuff we set forth in this book is orthodoxy. it was the traditional approach to judging until about the middle of the 20th century. we are trying to bring that back. it's a very significant issue of how judges go about giving effect to democratically enacted legislation and to the democratically ratified constitution. it's a terribly important matter. you smile and look jolly when i'm talking about that, i don't know. i think i should look impassioned when i talk about it, because i do care passion gnatly about it. i'm not angry, i'm just impassioned. >> what makes you mad? >> what makes me mad? >> deal with the law, dealing with the court, dealing with lawyers that come before you,
issues, the presses. justice scalia: well, the press gets -- if you read, it it gets under your skin. i don't much read it. you get used to t. you get used to the fact that you can't respond, so they can say anything at all. host: justice jal from a 2012 interview on his book, and the headline from today's "washington post," influential justice known for his fiery dissent, below that, a picture of his family. he is the father of nine, and emotion two dozen grandchildren. his wife, maureen, married back in 1960. from numbers, the president hailing justice scalia and saying he will nominate a successor. they're available online. the president's comments took place last night at about 8:45 eastern time, about four hours after the first reports came forth on the death of justice scalia. we'll go to ellis next from georgia, democrats line.
ood morning. caller: one of the callers really took the words out of my mouth, because the republicans always talking about president obama going against the constitution, want to change the constitution, and i listen to that debate last night, what do you think the republicans doing? they want to change the constitution. and the constitution, the president has to appoint a justice. you know, it just so disgusting to me for them to sit up there and say one thing one minute, and say another thing the other minute. now, personally, myself, steve, i never agreed with a lifetime appointment. i'm going ask you one question, and maybe you can answer this. when a justice is at a certain age, are they given an i.q. test, a health examination, something like that? because i never agreed with the
lifetime appointment. thank you very much. have a good day. host: thank you from georgia. the democratic candidates weighing in on the passing of justice scalia, this from senator bernie sanders of vermont, saying, my thoughts and prayers are with justice scalia's family and colleagues on the court who mourn his passing." from hillary clinton, a statement on the passing of justice antonin scalia, she issued the full statement on her twitter page, @hillaryclinton. on the republican line, dave from omaha, nebraska, good morning to you. caller: good morning. in answer to that last caller's question, there is no i.q. or health test to remain on the federal bench. it's up to them to resign if they want. the only thing i wanted to say is he was an american classic, and he was a graduate of a jesuit high school in new york and georgetown, and people, to
understand him, need to appreciate that fact. thank you. host: thanks for the call. we'll go to california, independent line. good morning, bill. caller: good morning, steve. i want to say, like many other callers have, how deeply sorry i am to hear the news that we've lost scalia. i also to want say the more supreme court decisions that i read, the more respect i gain for all the justices, and i think scalia was my favorite. my second favorite would have been breyer. i think you need a strong voice built for the strict construction side and for the active living document side, because the truth always seems to be somewhere in between. but the thing i'll miss most, i think, is scalia's fantastic wit. it was just wonderful, the way could bring humor in an
insightful way into the oral arguments, and some of the other callers said, i was shocked when i heard the news. i also hope that even though i'm a big fan of scalia, i hope hat obama is able to appoint a replacement. have done a es fabulous job, and i've been very impressed living to their oring arguments. host: you mentioned the wit and wisdom of justice scalia, and wee been able to let you listen to the oral arguments that are released now, the same week that they take place, and we showed some of them last night on c-span. you can also check them out on our website at c-span.org.
did he have an incredible wit, as you saw in his exchange with brian lamb. from the house leaders, including nancy pelosi paying tribute to justice scalia, making the point he was also the first italian-american to serve on the high court, and sympathy also from speaker of the house paul ryan saying i learned so much from justice scalia tonight, my wife and i offer sympathy and prayers to his family. this from the "new york times," the president's tone last night in california, spending the weekend out there, left little doubt that he intends to use the full power of his office to try to leave a final imprint on the supreme court. his choice has the potential to be more decisive for the court's makeup than his two previous appointments, justices season i can't sotomayor and elena kagan, given justice scalia's longtime status as the most outspoken conservative. mr. obama would be the first president since ronald reagan to fill three seats on the court. senate republicans made clear
they would not make it easy, arguing that with just 11 months left in office he should leave the choice to the winner of the november general election with 54 seats in the senate, republicans have the power to block the confirmation of any nomination that by the president if they stick together. caller: good morning, steve. thank you for taking my call. as much as i admired him for anding in his views, i think the nation needs to reminds themselves that this is actually a man who once said, innocence, ace of a man condemned to death should be allowed to be killed. i also think that conservatives who were so happy to have
conserve tizz on the supreme court, now this needs to sit and wait their turn, because we get to shift the paradigm and hopefully obama will be able to appoint the liberal, and we will have a liberal activist supreme court now. and finally, for those who have the 're going to strom their manned rule, even though this is greater than six starts efore the vote i ask them to please call their republican senators and voice their concern about not following the constitution that hey made a pledge to protect and obey when they took the oath of office.
host: a live look at the u.s. capitol on this sunday morning, february 14. the flags at the supreme court, the white house, the capitol, and all federal buildings at half-staff, ordered by the president yesterday to pay tribute to justice antonin scalia. on our twitter page, there's this from a viewer saying words have meaning, the potus nominates and congress confirms. the state newspaper in columbia, south carolina, with the headline, republican candidates wait on a new justice. that from the cbs debate that took place last night, re-airing today at 4:00 eastern time here on c-span. justice scalia's death reported 4 1/2 hours before the debate. the first question the six remaining g.o.p. candidates received was who should pick scalia's successor. democratic president barack obama, who has 11 months left in office, or the next president, and they all agreed that it should be the next president. go to ralph joiningous our democrats line from new york. good morning.
welcome to the conversation. caller: i'm a proud worker from upstate new york. i want to say this, we took a very narrow interpretation of the constitution. you look at his votes against the affordable care act for citizens united, and his votes will follow property rights over worker sandrites corporations and businesses over people. he might be missed, but his votes will not be missed. i thank you. host: we read the statement from mitch mcconnell, this from senator harry reid and the democratic leader, he paid tribute to justice scalia and then said the follow -- the president can and should send the senate a nominee right away. with so many important issues pending before the supreme court, the senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible. it would be unprecedented in recent history for the supreme court to go a year failing to
nil vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the senate's most essential constitutional responsibilities. we're going to talk about what's next in terms of the president's options and what to expect in the senate. the president speaking to reporters at about 8:45 eastern time last night, 5:45 in california, where the president is spending the weekend at rancho mirage. here's his statement. president obama: good evening, everybody. justice 30 years, antonin scalia was a larger than life presence on the bench. brilliant legal mind, was an energetic style, insky si wit, and colorful opinions. he influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and students. and profoundly shaped the legal landscape. he will notice doubt be remembered as one of the most
consequential judges and think others the supreme court. justice scalia dedicated his life to the cornerstone of our democracy, the rule of law. tonight we honor his extraordinary service to our nation and remember one of the powering legal figures of our time. antonin scalia was born in trenton, new jersey, to an italian immigrant family. after graduating from georgetown university and harvard law school, he worked at a law firm and taught law before entering a life of public service. he rose from assistant attorney general, to the judge on the d.c. circuit court to associate justice of the supreme court. he was a proud father of nine children and grandfather to many loving grandchildren. justice scalia was both an avid hunter and an opera lover, a
passion for music that he shared with his dear colleague and friend, justice ruth bader ginsburg. michelle and i were proud to welcome him to the white house, including in 2012 for a state dinner for prime minister david cameron. and tonight, we join his fellow justices in mourning this remarkable man. obviously today is a time to remember justice scalia's legacy. i plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor in due time, and there will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. these are responsibilities that i take seriously, as should everyone. they're bigger than any one party. they are about our democracy. they're about the constitution,
to which justice scalia dedicated his professional life and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our founders envisioned. but at this moment, we most of all want to think about his family, and michelle and i join the nation in sending our deepest sympathies to justice scalia's wife, maureen, and their loving family, a beautiful symbol of a life well lived. we thank them for sharing justice scalia with our country. depod bless them all, and god bless the united states of america. host: the president last night in california. here are the headlines from "the washington post" and the "new york times." justice scalia passed away esterday at the age of 79. at thehill.com, the death opening up a partisan battle, the headline on thehill.com. joining us on the phone is bob
cusack, editor in chief that have website. thanks very much for being with us. guest: thanks, steve. host: let's talk about that first. just what imprint did he have on the high court? guest: i think he had a huge imprint from the conserve active standpoint. he was nominated by president reagan, unanimously confirmed, and i don't think you'll see over the next decade of any supreme court justice unanimously confirmed. he would someone you would see on capitol hill. he was not a recluse smsm justices are recluses, but he would go out. i know you were playing the "q&a," he would do interviews, write books, talk to students. he was very much a social person on the washington scene. and even though liberals certainly disagreed with him, a lot of them respected them, especially justice ginsburg. they had a very close
relationship, even though they're on opposite ends of the spectrum. i said it was interesting to see the different reactions from democrats. i know you're reading from nancy pelosi, a very gracious response to his passing. host: in fact, he was a devout catholic, frequently said at st. joseph's on capitol hill, which is just about a block or two from the u.s. supreme court. how important was his catholic faith to his life and also to his court rulings? guest: oh, it was very important. he cite it had regularly. it was something that his talian heritage as well as his catholicism was something near and dear to him. he had nine children and basically was in talking to private people, to friends and also in his decisions, he would always talk about the family.
so his faith was very, very important to him, and it was something that he talked about regularly. host: this is a photograph of his family taken when he was first on the supreme court back in the 1980's, appointed by president ronald reagan. as you indicated, bob cusack, something that is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetime, a unanimous vote by the u.s. senate. let's talk about what's next. by all indications, the president has at least a plan in place to replace justice scalia. we heard from the republican candidates, not so fast, nhl the new president is elect. what can we expect in the senate and what can we expect from the white house? guest: well, i think the president has to move quickly with a nomination, because you're going to have -- you're already having both sides, democrats and republicans, cite precedent. republicans saying it's been 80 years since an election year that a supreme court justice was nominated and confirmed, so
basically they're saying we need to wait for the american people to weigh in. democrats noting that the longer deliberations were about 120 days, and we've got about 280 or so until the election. so we're going to see i think a nomination very quickly, and then it will of, ok, will republicans who have indicated, mitch mcdonnell saying, no, we should wait for the next president, as well as hopefuls, will republicans give the no, ma'am notice a hearing? i would imagine they would. but they have want said, so they're waiting the president to send up a name. usually they take their time, the president takes the time to vet potential nominees. this time there's less of that. now, the president has already gone through this process, though. he's considered a number of people before he nominated justice sotomayor and justice kagan. so there have been a lot of people that have been vetted,
and that's why i think you're going see something, as far as historical terms, i think this is going to be a very quick nomination, whoever it ends up being. host: we're talking with bob cusack, and the latest on the passing of justice scalia and the political battle ahead. he's available online athill.com. let me throw out names, ncluding senator amy klobuchar of minnesota. how does that impact any senate decision by the senate republican leader now in the majority, mitch mcconnell? guest: i don't think that's going to change much. but i think senator mitch mcconnell has made his opinion quite clear, that he is not going to be acting on this omination. it tchanges the die natural i can to some degree, but i think that based upon the statements that have come out from republican leaders, i don't see
them changing their mind any time soon. i do think that it's likely that the president is probably going to pick someone who has gone through the process in the lower courts, one of the names that's come up is the deputy solicitor general in the obama administration, and also has republican ties, worked for g.o.p.-appointed judges. and that judge was unanimously approved by the senate. i think he's got to pick someone certainly who is left of center, but someone who also has been approved by the senate at a lower level, just so the president can say this is not a controversial pick, i deserve to pick my nomination, my noam knee, and the senate should approve. of course, the senate, as you can go back and say, well, thank you very much, but we're not going to move on this, and as the majority party, we have the right not to bring this up. this is going to be a massive,
massive p.r. battle in an election year that's going to be talked about on the campaign trail. i think there's going to be a lot of polling done on this. we'll see which way it goes. i think the big question, steve, honestly, is how far will the president go to get his way, what will he threaten to do, because he's going to have to apply the pressure, the power does rest in the senate, so he's going to have to use the bully pulpit to pressure the republican senate to act, and it's going to be quite a showdown. host: seismic, huge, all the adjectives being used on the passing of justice scalia and the implications. final question for you, the idea of a recess appointment. can you just walk us through what the scenario could be if that were to happen? guest: yes, the president can appoint a justice and any judge during a recess appointment. and this week is a recess for both the house and the senate.
now this has come up before the courts, where the president a couple of years ago he nominated recessed appointments when the senate said it was not in recess. the president ended up losing that case, so there's precedent here that i believe that unless the president acts very quickly, meaning over the next week on a recess appointment, i think the senate is not going to be in recess. now, of course, they're going to take breaks, but there are procedural ways where they can keep the senate not in recess, technically in recess, so the president cannot offer recess appointment. that recess appointment certainly would be extremely controversial based upon the president's remarks last night. i think he's going to be doing this the traditional way at least in the near term in nominating somebody and probably not going to be putting out any type of recess appointment.
put then down the road, we'll see how that plays. but i also think republican leaders in the senate are going to make sure that they are technically not in recess and iting that high court ruling from recent history saying we won that, you can't just nominate somebody, and i don't think -- i think that's probably an unlikely scenario, but you never know in this town, steve. host: bob cusack, thank you very much for joining us on this sunday morning, trying to put the events of the last 24 hours into perspective. bob, thanks again for being with us. guest: thanks, steve. host: go back to your phone calms on the passing of justice antonin scalia. greg is next from south carolina, where the voting will take place next saturday, you're a republican. good morning, greg. caller: good morning. how you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: speaking about the
upreme court judge, he was a very good man. scalia, he served for 30 years, and he was very honorable, very dedicated in what he did, a lot like lindsey graflam our state of south carolina. there would have made a good president. i noticed earlier you were talking about rubio quite a bit. and rubio is a young man. he hasn't been around in this country long enough to know what has really gone on in this country in years past, and i think personally that a person should be at least 50 years of age before they are even considered to be allowed to run to be president. host: well, that would include a lot of presidents, from clinton to kennedy to teddy roosevelt.
caller: well, look at clinton. look what he did, run around with women, everything, and now his wife's up there trying to be nominated for president. come on. we need to get real. we've got serious problems in this country, and we need serious people to take care of situations that we have. host: thanks very much for joining us. dave on the republican line from indianapolis. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm very saddened by the loss of conservative giant like antonin scalia. i thought he was great. i loved reading his opinions. nd i was thinking that the constitution anticipates the type of problem since only a third of the senators will be up for re-election, so i think it shows the beauty of our system in that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the democrats to gain control of the senate. but my question was, last
night, what happens to all the opinions where he's voted, or cases where he's voted, but yet to write the opinion. does he -- what happens to those? i don't know. host: that is a question for the "wall street journal," because there are a lot of implications, as you indicated, on those oral arguments that have already taken place, that no decision or ruling is yet made, and, of course, what happens if there is no replacement for the next year. it is essentially a 4-4 court. we'll be learning more about that coming up. but first, what is the role of the court in our lives? how does justice scalia view that from our interview that took place a few years ago? here's a portion of what he had to say. justice scalia: i think the same role it has always played. i don't think it's changed. in a oper role is democracy to give a fair and honest interpretation to the
meaning of dispositions that the people have adopted. either congress in statutes or the people when they ratify the constitution. simple as that, no more, no less. i don't think we're a leader of social causes. we're not pushing this society ahead. we're supposed to be interpreting the laws that the people have made. host: justice antonin scalia in 2009 for c-span's "the supreme court" series, and you can watch the full interview on our website. 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 in a mess, but yet we built this. i think people are starting to realize, and donald trump, the truth talker, is saying exactly what i've been saying for years. i served 20 years in the united states marine corps am i never talked about the president dissed our just
president, and that's when i said, you know what, i can't let this go on. the american people got to know. why did we go there? they tried say it was weapons of mass destruction. it's a coverup. we went there for oil. host: thanks for the call. you mentioned that moment. we're going to talk later in the program, 9:00 eastern, 6:00 for those of you on the west coast, to get your comments on last night's debate that took place on the cbs television network. here's the moment that donald trump -- the caller referred to on president george w. bush and 9/11. mr. trump: well, i can say this, if the president, and if i were president now, i would certainly want to try and nominate a justice, and i'm sure that, frankly, i'm absolutely sure that president obama will try and do it. i hope that our senate is going to be able, mitch and the entire group, is going to be able to do something about it in times of delay. we could have a bill pryor. we have some fantastic people. but this is a tremendous blow
to conservatism. it's a tremendous blow, frankly, to our country. >> just to be clear on this, you're ok with the president nominating somebody? mr. trump: i think he's going to do it whether i'm ok with it or not. it's up to mitch mcconnell and everybody else to stop it. it's called delay, delay, delay. host: that was donald trump last night on what the president should do in the senate on the nomination to replace justice scalia, and there were a lot of fireworks about 9/11 and references to george w. bush. the headline from "the washington post," g.o.p. rivals turn fierce in the runup to the south carolina vote, and we'll have more on that exchange between jeb bush and donald trump in our 9:00 hour, as we focus on the debate last night and a chance to see it again here on c-span at 4:00 usual time. russell, republican line, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. justice scalia was a good man, and i think that our government, we have to have someone in there in the next
eight months, because they need to make a lot of decisions, and the country is so divided already. i'm sure whoever they vet will make sure he's somewhat in the middle. i think that's the only way we can do this. the word is compromise, which seems to be a bad word the last seven years. i would like to hope that we could get through this process and somehow work like they did back in the old days, with old tip and the boys did their thing. that's about all i can say on that. host: russell, thanks for the call. chris has this comment. the republicans won't even take up obama's budget. how much less will they work to confirm a jurist who will end conservative hegemony? sorry about that. that's from chris in alabama and the twitter. let's go to james joining from us wisconsin, independent line. good morning, james. caller: i'm a graduate of a big ten law school, so i have read a lot of legal cases. there's two things that people haven't mentioned. justice scalia, even though his
terrific public service record, he was the one who ordered the , which ting the votes has always bothered me. host: you're talking about the december 2000 bush v. gore ruling? caller: yes, it was basically kind of a rigging of that election bed will i scalia, which i never really agreed with. the other thing is i think that the democrats would be better to leave it vacant rather than have a compromise, middle of the road candidate, because the lower courts are more democratic, and they probably would come out better. plus i think there's going to be a lot of unintended, unanticipated consequences from having a deadlocked supreme court for a year and a half. host: thank you. this is from john in north carolina, replacing justice scalia, who, like him, wants to transform america, would be
catastrophic. here's more from our interview with justice scalia. this took place as part of his book, "reading law,, the interpretation of legal text," program.ur "q&a" brian: are there personal feelings? justice scalia: i don't want to talk about it. brian: let me do, this the answer you were talking about earlier, about what you write in your opinions, has there ever been in your past, when you make some strong statements, personal, you know, fallout from that? justice scalia: you know, identify criticized the opinions of some of my colleagues, and we have remained friends. just as they have criticized my opinions we have remand friends. look, kind of a job, if you can't disagree, even disagree vehemently on the law, without taking it personally, and the person, you
would have find another job. so, you know, that's it. that's it, done, done. brian: why do you sometimes have -- i mean, anybody that knows you, knows you are a jolly fellow. why do you take such an intense, you know, when you're dealing with this subject, you look like you're mad. justice scalia why, with what subject? his whole business is the law. should i look jolly when i talk about a very serious, heart-felt issue, one in which what used to be -- the stuff we set forth in this book is orthodoxy. it was the traditional approach to judging until about the middle of the 20th century. we are trying to bring that back. it's a very significant issue
giving udges go about effect to democratically enacted legislation and to the democratically ratified constitution. it's a terribly important matter. then you smile and look jolly, i don't know. i think i should look impassed when i talk about it, because i do care passionately about it. i'm not angry. i'm just impassioned. brian: what makes you mad in dealing with the law and the court and dealing with lawyers that come before you, issues, the press? justice scalia why, well, the press gets -- look, if you read it, it gets under your skin. don't much read it. you get used to it. you get used to the fact that you can't respond, so they can say anything at all. host: justice antonin scalia. "the washington post," republicans will pledge to
appoint strict constructionist to follow the lean of justice antonin scalia and they will also be under pressure to pledge the choices would roll back the court decisions that upheld the affordable care act and legalized same-sex marriage. democrats will press for nominees who would overturn court decisions such as the one that opened up the floodgates for unregulated money in elections and who would 40e8d the line against efforts to narrow voting rights protections and access to abortion. from louisville, kentucky, good morning, republican line. caller: good morning. politically this couldn't come at a worst time. thoughts and prayers are with scalia's family. but larry from the university of virginia had a book a few years ago about how to improve the constitution, and the constitution doesn't dictate how many justices, and he recommended we increase the number to about 13, and you would do that over several presidential terms.
nobody would get to impact the court, and i wish people would talk about that more, because i think we need maybe 13, and when you lose the justice like this, it wouldn't be such a traumatic blow to the system. you would have a better mix of people, complain, used to be all nine men in robes, and now you got just nine persons up there making these decisions. it might be time to add a few more justices to get the diversity on the court of opinion, and then when you lose a justice, you wouldn't have this blow to the system that we're having. host: thanks very much for the call. richard rogers has this tweet, saying bush v. gore, the supreme court took away the presidency from the candidate who won the popular vote. jeez. and richard from new milford, connecticut, is joining us, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. my thoughts and prayers go to the scalia family.
one of the things that i found reassuring about the court is the relationship between ruth bader ginsburg and antonin scalia. it was very civil, friends, opera buddies. i hope that that continues with the next nominee as well. host: richard, thanks very much for the call. fox news is reporting on a report, looking into alleged misconduct at one of the v.a. hospitals in cincinnati, focusing on prescription drugs. veterans affairs, the issues that we talked about with senator johnny isakson, our guest on "newsmakers," we also talked about the winners of the new hampshire primary, what it says about veterans issues on the campaign trail. "newsmakers" follows the "washington journal." here's an excerpt. senator isakson: he was chairman before me. he proposed some things that were pretty good, put we were not as active a committee as we should have been. the arizona debacle took place
during his watch, and we didn't respond at that time, and it was a response later on. in terms of the nominee, donald trump, i don't know that he has served in the military or used v.a. services, so i think he is regurgitate ago lot of what he reads in the press. i would never criticize the press when i'm doing an interview with them, but i will tell a lot of the things that reported happened a long time before we all came along. the v.a. is making substantial changes, are addressing the concerns that took place in denver, that took place in raleigh, that took place in atlanta, that took place in phoenix. one by one, we're correcting those things. i think when you see the accountability legislation we'll be doing sometime this spring, you'll seep a full response to all those things that have happened. it's an easy thing to find fault with, but when you have 314,000 employees, which is what the v.a. has, and you're serving 22.5 million people,
there's always mistakes, but there are lots of people that are being helped because they conserved our country. >> one specific followup, mr. trump frequently cites numbers of veterans who died, specifically because of delays in service. what has your committee investigation shown up? how many deaths have you actually been able to pinpoint that are due to the justice delay? senator: one death is too many. >> understandably, understandably. senator: there's not a number that's acceptable. i've never looked. i know we had one in arizona. one is all i need to know. that's inexcusable, and we're going to do everything we can to see to it that number is zero. host: the chair of the senate veterans affairs committee is our guest on "newsmakers." you can watch it following the "washington journal" at 10:00 eastern time, and also listen ginning us here is "wall street journal" supreme court correspondent. thank you very much for being
with us. a lot to talk about. but first your own personal recollections about justice scalia and the impact he had on the high court. guest: with him it seemed that what you see is what you get. he was gareluss, sometimes extremely etimes intense. the personality that i saw on the bench when justice scalia was conducting oral arguments was the same one i saw when i interviewed him, when we had lunch occasionally. the guy was very authentic in a place where some people aren't. he was credibly, i would say he was among the most elite minds on the court. he was a true intellectual. but he was in no way pretentious. he was extremely down to earth as a person. he liked to try to draw a connection between, i think, the human scale of what he was
doing and the kind of loftier ideas that motivated his writing. someone who is completely unapologetic, always someone who is 100% sure he was right, someone i think as a reporter had the fantastic gift of being quoteable in almost any circumstance. justice scalia was someone who wrote to be quoted. he wrote his opinions hoping that people would read them, would pick up the important lines. and he wrote for many audiences at once. he wrote for the sound bite that you might hear on television or we could use in a story. he wrote for law students knowing that his opinions would be excerpted in case books. wrote for lower courts and law professors. but one thing that he was not, though, was a compromiser. he didn't look at his role as making incremental changes in the law. that, i think, had an effect on the sort of legacy that he leaves us. >> when you got the news
yesterday afternoon that he had passed away, he was in texas for a weekend hunting trip. but as you indicated just a moment ago that he had been traveling extensively over the last couple of weeks. what have you learned? >> he was on a 12-day trip to ashe visiting universities and aw schools with a legal writer professor at southern methodist university. the two of them have written several books about law and legal interpretation, and they ere lecturing on this topic. they've done around the country and world. i spoke to mr. garner yesterday as soon as i heard the news. he told me that justice scalia had been in fine health on their trip. that he had been quite vigorous. and there was no sign in his mind that there was anything wrong with him. so this was a complete shock to me and i think to watchers of the court who have seen him in recent weeks on the bench being
his vigorous self. sometimes i think about just over ten years ago the last justice who died in office was hief justice rehnquist and chief justice rehnquist had a long debilitating illness for months he had thyroid cancer and there was a lot of speculation whether he would resign. he decided not to. he believed that his prognosis was good. unfortunately he died. so that was less of a shock for us. this was both out of the blue. and i think that for many people who watch the court for many years it's almost been conceiveable to watch it without without him up there. >> watch justice kennedy and breyer. we could see more changes if there are retirements on the court. >> that's true. stevens still
apparently doing stevens still apparently doing quite well at age 95, talking, writing, quite out there. so it's i think he is -- all of us are at the age where you never know what's going to happen. the odds, uncertainty increaseses as we get older. justice ginsberg, justice kennedy and breyer, could be there for years, for months. but that is really true for all of us. but of course it does bring attention to the age of the court, the advanced age of some of the justices. i think back to the late 1960s, early 1970s when there was sort of a big burst of vacancies on the court. first the resignations of chief justice warren and fordice and shortly into president nixon's turn followed by the death of justice black and harden. that's certainly not something we will or won't know what happened. but it is a court that will be
undergoing some changes in the years if not months ahead. host: did it surprise you in the statement by the president in the statements by congressional leaders and presidential candidates, of course paying tribute to justice scalia but then almost immediately talking about the battle to replace him? guest: i was surprised at that. normally there is at least a 24-hour period where the focus is on a great figure who has passed. it seems a bit crass to immediately begin discussing his successor. as they say, he hasn't been a funeral, we don't even know whether what the official cause of death. we haven't had a chance to hear from his family. it seems in some ways to reduce his legacy to turn him into just sort of a vote on the court that has to be replaced
by one side or the other. i was surprised personally that the first out of the box was the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell who said that the seat shouldn't be filled at all. vake ht back to other sis when there were elections upcoming. and while some of those have been fought by the opposition party, usually, every time i can think of there was an actual candidate that they objected to. it wasn't anybody this president picks is ill legitimate or unworthy of conversation. that i haven't seen before. and that seemed to obama responded and he then spoke later in the day saying after raising justice scalia's intellect that he had move forward. >> justice kennedy was confirmed in 1988, elected in 1987.
so to hear this argument it's been 80 years. it really hasn't. >> i haven't counted all the years but i don't know that those mean anything. in some way it's a political elected or the branches. justice kennedy was the third choice of president reagan to fill that seat. by the time he turned to his first nedy nominee had been rejected. the second nominee withdrew under some controversy. and the reagan administration knew that the clock was ticking and that their time was counting down. so justice kennedy was not as nservative as the reagan folks would have liked. they basically picked the most conservative side guy who would get through the democratic
senate. they show he has not been as docket rinyir on many pivotal issues. such as gay rights and same sex marriage. >> the ranking democrat, with the democrats in the minority, he issued a statement and then said a following. the president and the senate should get to work without delay. guest: in this instance, president obama has already filled two seats on the court. so his administration is familiar with the process. the they have vetted other candidates. we know who is on the short list before. we know who was interviewed before. certainly we would assume they would start with the people they already looked at as well as seeing who may have else entered the field since then. to the extent they are preparing for a vacancy, i expect they were looking who
might succeed ruth bader ginsberg. d there been some pressure for her to step down so he could replace a like-minded successor. the administration now though, with the republicans say ing we don't want to hear any -- we aren't going to consider anybody that obama nominates, i guess we have to see how serious that is. if obama was convinced that anybody that he puts up is going to just not get a they have to pose make some -- even greater political calculations and typically take place in supreme court nominations. what are the so-called optics going to be of a candidate walking up the senate steps and the door being closed or what have you. does obama pick someone who he thinks is a very provocative choice or does he go with the more moderate course? my sense, looking at the previous nominations, looking
at how the administration has vetted candidates, obama will probably seek to find they have make a record is very solid, sort of a moderate democrat who there are very few substantive complaints about other than the fact that he was chosen by barack obama. that is my hunch about who the administration is going to look solid for host: could it be a member of the senate or potentially even the vice president? guest: well, this is an interesting question. for example, among the potential compromise approaches, as the discussions continue, could be a sort of care taker justice. probably the republicans would be less opposed to someone who was likely to serve a much shorter term on the supreme court. that could be the vice president who is in his 70s, or a senator. senators tend to have a lot of sympathy for people in their condition, that is having been senators.
caller: good morning. i just wanted to thank justice or his service and also my condolence to his wife and their family. i also wanted to say that i think this is what bernie sanders meant when he talked about a political revolution, because you have mitch mcconnell already coming out talking about that president obama doesn't even need to attempt to fulfill his constitutional duties. and i think what bernie sanders is saying that all of the democrats from all over the united states and all the republicans who are representatives by their republican senators, need to call them and demand that they allow the president to do his constitution and they need to be stop being obstructionists. and that's what i see as a
political revolution that bernie sanders talked about. it's very difficult for presidents to do that job. so i'm encouraging those people to call their senators at the washington, d.c. office and insist that they allow their president to do what he is supposed to do. it is his duty and right to do that. i wanted to know what you think about that. host: thanks for call. e'll get a response. justice scalia was the longest serving member of the supreme court justice currently on the high court. guest: the constitution doesn't require the senate to approve a nominee. of course there have been a couple dozen who have been rejected over the years and there have been other whose have been stalled out. in 1968, president johnson tried to elevate justice fordice to chief justice and replace him with judge thornberry, also from texas. and the senate just stalled
those nominations. fordice was filibustered until nixon came in and he filled those seats. so there isn't a clear indication of what the constitutional duty is. it is odd to have the senate leader saying they don't want to consider any candidate from the current president. as far as sanders interestingly he was one of the first out of the box to put out a statement about scalia's passing. he said he admired his intellect and respected him. even though they disagreed. there wasn't anything about replacing him. then, the political rhetoric heated up about whether the seat should be filled or not and he said the senate should consider somebody right away. but initially he followed the practice of praising the figure saying they disagreed but there was respect.
>> here is the tweet from senator sanders. renev is joining us from texas, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say to the scalia family may god welcome my catholic brother. a couple things. first thing on that last caller. i believe president obama might sign an executive order to circumvent the process anyway. but my main two thoughts were when judge scalia wrote a scathing dissenting opinion saying that this law may make people feel good but has nothing to do with the constitution. and the state of the union speech where president obama was talking about being unconstitutional and judge scalia promptly reminded him of who gets to decide what's unconstitutional and
onstitutional. thank you for your time. host: thank you for the call. it could be a recess appointment? guest: almost the supreme court has narrowed the president's flexibility in making recess appointments. an appoint when the senate is not in session to consider it. there have been recess appointments to the supreme court. i think chief justice warren actually was a recess appointment as was justice brennan. but not for reasons of political expediency. the senate wasn't there and they wanted the seat filled quickly. and the senate confirmed those two justices when they came back. >> what role do they have in our society? the supreme court in 2009. justice scalia answering that question. >> i think the same role it has played. i don't think it's changed. its proper role is in the democracy to give a fair and
honest interpretation to the mete meaning of dispositions that the people have adopted. either congress in statutes or the people when they ratified the constitution. as simple as that. no more no less. i don't think we're a leader of causes. we're not pushing this society ahead. we are supposed to be interpreting the laws that the people have made. host: and that interview is on our website. he really enjoyed his job. guest: yes, he did. he loved his job. as he sometimes pointed out he was actually working for free. he had served in federal government long enough to qualify for retirement at full pay. so he continued to serve essentially free because taxpayers have to pay him the say whether he was on the bench or not. he reveled in it. he also said he actually enjoyed writing dissents more
than majority opinion because majority opinion has to be a bit more sober has to command a majority. a dissent is where he really got to speak for if ages and try to fire up, he often said, law students who would be reading them in case books. so he loved that aspect of the job. but i have to say again ifts not a close friend. just really an observer. but it seemed he was someone who loved life, who enjoyed getting out there. he was on a hunting trip we read when he passed away. he loved opera, tral. he was not a monastic figure on the supreme court. he was somebody who liked to be out there in the world, meeting people, doing things. he was the president i think than life. larger i think that is true. there's no figure on the supreme court who really matches his type of -- his persona right now. i think perhaps ever. host: we're going to maryland next. clifford on the phone,
democrat's line. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call. my sincere condolences to the scalia family. president obama will make a nomination. the republican candidates and senate majority leader have all suggest that they will not act before the election. so my question, if the republicans delay or refuse to approve doesn't that give the democrats more ammunition to get a democratic senate? and then when president hillary clinton is elected she can nominate an obama, biden sanders. is there precedent -- when presidents have an opposition party as a majority in the senate to present more moderate candidates? and if they control the senate a more provocative candidate? so should republicans take what obama gives, which is likely to be more moderate than america in 2017? host: thank you for the call.
guest: that's a great point. because in a sense, assuming that the republican position holds as we heard last night, they're really sort of playing for double or nothing. obama is as you say likely to pick someone who thinks is a plausible candidate who, i guess on air might have been a consensus figure as we said justice anthony kennedy was a more moderate figure than the reagan administration wanted but they recall dealing with an election year. so they picked someone who was they thought would be acceptable to the opposition party. the republicans are banking on the theory that they will control the presidentsy and the senate in the fall. or early next year. they may. but they may not. democrats certainly have very strong chance of retaining the white house. and because of the senate seats that happen to be up more than held by republicans and some in
democratic trending states such as illinois, there is also a good shot that the democrats could retake the senate. if you have a president clinton or president sanders and a democratic senate in early 2017, particularly given how sore they will be at the republicans for having blocked obama's nominees, i think they would look to find a candidate who would be of no compromise then. they would go for probably -- they would not face the same political constraints that obama faces. host: this is a piece posted overnight. you indicated triggering a nomination battle. what names have you heard so far? what potential names do you think could rise to the top? guest: i think that so far nearly every justice has been appointed in the past half
century has been a sitting judge. elena kagen has been an exception. so initially we look to the lower courts. and two names that have been frequently discussed are on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. a court that has been a stepping stone for many supreme court justices. they are sri certain vassen. was confirmed unanimously about three years ago to the d.c. circuit court. an obama nominee. but not one of the ones subject of a fight later. he had three subsequent nominees who were blocked and there was a change in the rules and so forth. she did not promote any controversy. considered a brilliant legal mind. he's young for a judge. and he also would be the first indian american to serve on the supreme court. no one could really question his qualifications. but perhaps he's too much of a
cyber for the republicans at this point. appoint, the chief judge of the d.c. circuit gardnd is in his early 60s. obama considered him for prior vake sis, passed over him. but judge garland has a strong law enforcement background. he was a prosecutor in the justice department official who went after timothy mcvay and unebomer. well regard bid law enforcement and the justice department. considered more of a moderate jurist on the court. and at the time several republicans such as orrin hatch said that judge garland would be confirmed in a snap to the supreme court. so those are two figures that have already gained republican support in the past. they might be plausible nominees. there are others out there as well who as you say a current senator, perhaps one that is very popular with the other side. some people have mentioned she ulden white house whose is a
new hampshire senator. there are some other candidates out there who might be in that situation. i haven't heard the vice president mentioned although he is a lawyer and he was chairman of the judiciary committee for many years. host: this is the headline from the los angeles times. scalia death royals the campaign. and as stan joins us. good morning. republican line. aller: good morning. i wanted to say that the president should have nominate loretta lynch starting general. she already went through the senate. and i think that would really stir the waters and i think that it would put a lot of pressure on the republicans to i wanted act. the second thing. when the holy father came and spoke to address the congress, there were several people that didn't show up, including
justices. i urge all thinking americans to look at the transcript of what the pope had to say. they will see why things are happening in this country that shouldn't happen because people like scalia hasn't done what god wants them to do. thank you very much. host: loretta lynch. guest: right. she was stalled for many, many months when obama nominated her to succeed eric holder. no one really said it was because of any questions about her record. that was more of a political dispute with obama. she's been attorney general for over a year now. she's never been a judge. she certainly has the resume. she's been vetted. i suppose she is a plausible candidate. it would also create another
vacancy for obama to fill. host: rootsdz. good morning. aller: good morning. i am very sorry about justice scalia. my condolences go out to his family. but i think that the republican party will never, if they could possibly get it through, appoint anybody that president obama put up. they have always stood in the way of him the whole eight years he has been there. they're not going to start now. > well, the republicans -- i mean, the senate was controlled by democrats but republicans could have filibustered the two obama appointees to the supreme court. justice sotamayor and justice
kagen. but it is fair to say that -- i wouldn't say it was a squeaker but both of them got significantly fewer votes, particularly from the opposition party than justices usually get. most supreme court appointments have been unanimous or near unanimous in confirmation over the years. there have been a few battles over very particular nominees such as judge bork or clarence thomas. but in recent years there's been a very clear partisan intent to the votes. sotamayor and kagen, i don't think either got more than 60 votes and only a handful of republican votes, similar to justice alito who got barely any democratic votes when he was confirmed. i think in 2006. so i think we'll see a lot of republican opposition. there may be an interesting calculus particularly for republican senators, from democratic leaning states up
for reelection whether that was a wise vote for them or not. so we will have to say how it plays out. of all the republican members of the senate may not be in alignment when it comes to this issue. i think the interests of all the democrats in the senate are in alignment. all say that obama should have his chance to nominate a candidate. >> our topic. the death of justice anten scalia who passed away yesterday at the age of 79. our guest covers the high chourt. we welcome our listeners and also those listning on the potato us channel. -- potuss channel. we're carries every sunday. great britain. this is a headline. south te last night in
carolina. the candidates wait on a justice including this from jeb bush. >> i think the next president if i'm president i will south carolina. the candidates nominate people who have a proven record in the judiciary. the problem in the past has been we've appointed people thinking you can get it through the senate because they didn't have a record. sometimes we're surprised. the simple fact is the next president needs to appoint someone with a proven conservative record similar to justice scalia that is a lover f liberty, believes in limited government, consistently applies that kind of philosophy that didn't try to legislate from the bench. and fight for that nomination to make sure that nomination passes. of course the president by the way has every right to nominate supreme court justices. i'm an article 2 guy in the constitution. we're running for the president of the united states. we want a strong executive for sure. but in return for that there should be a consensus orientation and there's no doubt in my mind that barack obama will not have a consensus
pick. host: you get a sense of where this is going in republican guest: one interesting thing, the suggestion that the members of the supreme court have been mystery people picked out of the phone book and no one had any idea who they were. that is not accurate. the white house and the justice department do extensive vetting of the candidates. republicans have an focusing on the chief justice john roberts and arguments by some of the candidates that he was not properly vetted or didn't have a track record. i cannot imagine a more solid conservative track record than john roberts had when he was nominated for the supreme court. he has spent his entire life as a legal policy official in the reagan administration. in the first bush administration.
his nomination to the d.c. circuit court was blocked by the democrats. he was immediately nominated to the d.c. circuit court where he had a very strong conservative nothing in it that would indicate that he was not a can's -- a strong conservative. there is nothing or little on his supreme court record to suggest he is not a conservative. there is disagreement over to opinions that she's just -- chief justice roberts wrote. regarding the aca. he was not the only justice or judge a had a point of view. judges considered very solid conservatives found that the law so to suggestonal that john roberts was not vetted is not accurate. no president can know in advance what the future will hold or how a really smart person is going to look at the issues and decide
with the right answer is. >> carol sends this to eat, sharing the sentiment of many our viewers and listeners. we thank you for being with us. jackson, tennessee, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call today. i think all of our elected officials should do what they are sent there to do and i think it would be negligent of the president if he doesn't appoint someone. i think it would be negligent of the senate if they do not consider it. host: thank you for the call. guest: if they don't appoint someone or don't approve someone, this is what we are looking at. we are looking at that seat being vacant for at least a year. president who comes in one not be in a position to instantly make a nomination because he will have the ability to do the various sorts of vetting and evaluation that the
white house has. there will be time to pick out another candidate. the democrats, assuming it is a republican president, that is it is ale, assuming republican president, democrats and the senate are going to be pretty steamed about having had their last choice blocked. they are not going to be in a mood to compromise at that point. we are looking at a very bit or -- bitter battle and months and months more vacancy. we have a supreme court with eight justices or viewers -- or fewer going on indefinitely or late into 2017. that is a significant issue for the supreme court of united states because unlike lower courts, unlike many state supreme court's, they can to bring in a substitute judge. many state supreme court's will borrow a retired judge or a lower court judge if one member has to recuse himself or herself
or there is a vacancy for some reason. same thing on the federal circuit courts. the intermediate appeal courts any federal system. the u.s. supreme court does not accept substitute judges when there is a vacancy in functioning as an eight-member court or less. whatll dramatically change that institution is able to do. >> donald trump issuing this tweet late yesterday, a totally unexpected loss of justice antonin scalia. a massive setback for the conservative movement and our country. saint augustine, florida, republican line, good morning. >> thank you for listening. while i was waiting, i formulated several questions that i didn't have before. speaking to the past history of frank and eleanor roosevelt tried to stack the -- frank and
eleanor roosevelt tried to stack the court and how that is representative of whatever president would like to do. i'm also wondering if the senate judiciary committee cross examines these candidates that the president would nominate, to the questions of the senate judiciary committee asked, do they influence the final decision? the issues that they asked the nominee? host: to her earlier point? populardr was a very president and had a big economic problem when he came in in the depression and passed a lot of aggressive laws seeking to address it. the supreme court in the 30's was very conservative, very hostile to the new deal and struck down many of those initiatives, making fdr very frustrated. in 1937, to get around the supreme court, he proposed a plan to add an additional justice for each one who turned
70 years old and dear rationale was they are old and tired and the work load is too heavy. this will help them. if you do the math, you would see that he would instantly be able to appoint a majority of the court, or at least he would have enough votes on the court to likely support his initiative. that was the famous court packing plan by coincidence or not. the supreme court shortly thereafter began affirming new deal programs and some of the justices who had been hostile to fdr's position retired. he was able to fill seats on the court. that episode, the court blocking -- packing plan is considered eight if he for fdr. tore was a lot of opposition altering the court for political reasons. in particle terms -- practical terms, even on a threat never came to fruition, he started
getting what he wanted out of the u.s. supreme court. of thequestion, do any questions asked of the confirmation hearing have any impact on what i justice does later? i think we can safely say no. chuck schumer of new york, democrat, said news, indeed. he pointed out that justice scalia was a brilliant man, a great son of queens, and a genuine joy for life. john from all of branch, mississippi, democrat line. caller: how are you doing? thank you for c-span. if the supreme , what go by the law difference does it make if you have a republican, democrat in there. are they supposed to go by the law? it doesn't make a difference if you are democrat or republican
to follow the law. that is my question. i wish we would explain it to the american people. >> the interpretation of the lies the issue. >> at what they lie required in every century -- circumstance was crystal clear, we would need any judges. the reason they are there is because there are often ambiguities about what the law means in any circumstance. a law is written before certain events take place. how toyou don't know apply different parts until you're confronted with specific facts. there are certain -- it is fair to say that a lot of it, at least for the supreme court is not that hard. 40%, 50% of the decisions by the supreme court are unanimous even now we see such term of this disagreement and other decisions. are tens of there thousands, hundreds of thousands of legal cases followed in the united states every year.
fewer than 100 make it to the supreme court. that is because they are considered the toughest questions. the supreme court believes it needs to step in to resolve them. the lot -- a payment of the law is no excuse. on the other hand, what the law exactly means can be a question. as chief justice john marshall 1803 and the marbury versus madison decision, it is part of the judiciary department to decide whether lies. as far back as the early days of the country, the courts were aware that sometimes, it is not crystal clear how they should apply to any particular situation. senator with this tweet, i was honored to know justice scalia and appreciated his constitutional expertise as well as his warmth and humor. that last part continues to come up. his humor. guest: he was a really funny guy. there is a professor at boston university who compiles statistics on how often the term
laughter appears inch's -- supreme court transfers. justice scalia routinely if not always comes in first as the funniest justice as judged by the audience laughter. he was a great weight on his feet and certainly in writing. host: this is from richard, going to your earlier point, how would a caretaker arrangement work? who would set the caretaker term? say that would be up to fate, but if you chose an older candidate, odds are they are not going to serve as long as a younger candidate. there was a very deliberate reagan and the bush administration to get nominees in their 40's or not older than 50 or early 50's to serve on the supreme court. the expectation that they would be there for many decades into the future.
you look at elena, she was 50 years old when she was nominated. the democrats coming around to that effort. someone if they chose 70's, thater 60's or is someone who is less likely to serve as long. i don't think it would be a formal caretaker arrangement where someone says i'm going to step down on a certain day, but we connect's -- assume an older candidate will not be there as long as a younger one all things being equal. host: democratic senator blumenthal saying a son of an a gifted writer and/or tour, justice scalia lived a uniquely american life. foley, alabama, good morning. >> good morning. caller: i wanted to share a couple of observations about the supreme court. it seems in the democratic society, the supreme court being powerfulnch, equally
as one of the three other branches is very disturbing. the way it is structured, the way it is staffed. the judges appointed, in a democratic society, it is supposed to be representative of the people. let's look at it. we have fully one third, three out of nine justices that are liberal jews. what is the population of america? probably not 1%. on the other hand, protestants, white protestants make 50, 60, 70% of the population. not one single white protestant on this judiciary.
the first jewish justice was appointed by justicet wilson, mcreynolds refused to sit in the same room with him. refused to sit for the court portrait with him. wouldn't acknowledge him at all. anti-semitism on the supreme court has a history, as well. the supreme court is not a representative body and it is not designed to be one. particularly because one of its principal function of dutch functions as affecting minority rights. majorities have to have limits under a constitutional democracy , the united states has established. himself, although he is a conservative icon and is not someone who was doctrinaire in always supporting the majority over the rights of a minority or a dislike party. if that were so, you wouldn't need courts at all.
for example, justice scalia voted to uphold the right to burn the american flag. that is a very unpopular act. it struck down laws in texas and elsewhere that made that a crime. he said he personally dislike people who did it and if elected him personally, he would lock them up, but the constitution protected that form of speech. likewise, justice scalia also voted, often together with justice ginsburg, a more liberal justice, to protect the rights of criminal defendants to confront their accusers and to challenge evidence that was collected through illegal searches. again, criminal defendants, not a popular group. it is the court responsibility to protect them for that reason. justice scalia, while definitely a conservative, like all of the justices, takes that function of the court quite seriously. john roberts did provide c-span with unprecedented access to the supreme court. it was a
documentary that aired back in 2009. it is on our website. you can check it out at www.c-span.org and some of the interviews we haven't showing you this morning from antonin scalia are based from that documentary. it is also a book. naomi is joining us on a democrat line from louisiana. good morning to you. >> morning. , i wouldy question is like for him to explain is it not that president obama is the president of the united states? also, why are, republicans all of in a who whooraher it? -- in a over it? guest: it is no secret that the president and those on capitol hill don't see eye to eye on those issues. there's probably no bigger prize
that a president can award that a supreme court appointment. republicans are gambling that they might have the white house next year. i think it is purely a political calculation. they say that they -- they are essentially saying whatever the voters said at the last election in choosing obama has basically expired past its sell by date. whatever legitimacy he had in making nominations has worn out. we should wait until the next president comes in. it is a political argument more than a constitutional one. the senate has a role, as well. they have a role to approve appointees who are chosen with the advice of consent. i would say the best way to look at it is as a political dispute rather than a constitutional one. host: john kasich was running for president issued a statement saying his death is a serious loss to our nation. he was an essential, principal force for conservative thought
and is a model for others to follow. his dedication to the constitution and love for and service to our country will be deeply missed. tom is joining us, independent line from your he, pennsylvania. eerie, pennsylvania. caller: i do like the way i am hearing this conversation this morning. i have no doubt that antonin scalia was a decent, brilliant man. , what you could never forget is that he was the main proponent behind installing george bush as the president what he did not win the vote. the other thing is the citizens united. he was the main proponent behind that. these people are destroying our democracy. -- if heare if he has a decent, moral man or not. if he can't stand back and look
,t the effect of his decisions we have a problem in our democracy. i also have a problem with c-span having an ultraconservative newspaper on this morning talking about this. let's hear from the other side. let's hear somebody talk about all of the decisions that antonin scalia has been instrumental in implementing in our society and i will repeat again, the two biggest tragedies where the citizens united decision and installing george bush in the presidency. that is exactly what was done. your callk you for and your point. if you watched a conversation for the last 45 minutes, you would agree that he has in providing a balanced look at the court and the decisions by the associate justice and what is next road we invited him here to talk about his expertise. table.to get that on the we respect your opinion.
let's talk about those two decisions. citizens united and bush legal or. they remain controversial. he was a leading voice by those decisions. guest: there was no name attached to the majority opinion. scalia was in the majority in both of those decisions. they have the effect that he said. the opinion halted the counting of votes in florida with george w. bush ahead in 2000. --t was a decision that was we certainly wrote about it a lot. everyone knows that it had a ofe impact over the course the court's own legitimacy and on the nation's history, whether al gore would have ultimately prevailed or not, we don't know for sure. some projections say he wouldn't have. in theless, scalia
conservative majority along with four other justices in bush legal or in 2000, citizens united, again, yes, he was in the majority joined justice kennedy's opinion. a consequential decision. justicese liberal signaled they were -- they are -- they don't consider to be a legitimate choice and are perhaps likely to overturn if they get the chance in the future. a stalwart conservative in his approach to the law. you did not see any constitutional right to abortion. opposed toa firstly gay rights as a constitutional matter all the way through his 90'son the court from the through the year before when same-sex marriage was found constitutional and another opinion by justice kennedy.
he rarely voted to strike down the death penalty. he frequently ridiculed certain doctrines that liberals propounded, for example, he often said the phrase that he found most offensive, or one of the most offensive phrases was one chief justice one point in 1958 when he said the eighth amendment, the ban on cruel and unusual punishments must take its meaning from the evolving standards of decency, mark the progress of a maturing society. justice scalia said how do we know that society progresses? how do we know that it doesn't rot? of a livinghe idea constitution, that the constitution should take meaning from the present day. he often said it was a dead document, frozen in time and the job of the court was to apply it as its authors understood its words to mean. he insisted he was not rigid about that but had a reasonable approach to it, to the fourth amendment, written for there were cell phones, written before
there were automobiles. newto be applied to advances in technology and society. some people accused him of being hypocritical from time to time, being selective in his use of history, cloaking his own personal preferences and high sounding legal rhetoric. those are debates that take place all the time. the best thing you can say about someone who has his position is there is no hide the ball. it is all out there in his writing. inting that he puts forward the often telling criticisms of , asices on the other side well. when you want to assess his legacy, i think the president on -- obama on down, obama specifically wrote in his book audacity of hope, that he thought a lot about justice scalia's approach to the constitution, respected it, didn't agree with it, that the constitution has to look at more modern events in its application
today. no one is pretending scalia was not someone on the right end of the court, that is not -- he was not always in lockstep with other conservative justices. that is certainly where he ends up. i am not here to praise or criticize the conclusions he reached, but rather to try to give you a sense of what they were. the one the several gavel award, wrote for the san francisco chronicle and the l.a. times. now to the wall street journal, let me ask you about a more immediate issue. the oral arguments that have it isplace in this term, a four-forecourt based on democrats and appointees. what happens with the oral arguments are really heard of the pending decisions if there is no replacement before the end of this term? guest: this is an important question. there are a number of high-profile issues before the court that we expected would
break down, likely a long 5-4 lines. we often look at justice kennedy as the potential swing vote in those cases. rules do notourt say what happens if a justice dies or resigns or leaves the court before an opinion is issued. a voteelihood is that cast before an opinion is vote ord is a tentative justices can always change their vote at the last minute. it doesn't happen often, but it is happen historically. the votes of a have cast at this sense, tentative votes even if justices really change them later. scholars andon, other court expert to i have spoken to say that unless the opinion is actually at the printer right now, his votes one count. we have to look a certain cases where that is likely to matter. for example, a case involving whether public employees can be required to pay fees to unions.
many of usase that expected would go against the unions on a 5-4 vote. in that case is not already being printed, it may be a for-four vote. when the courts with 4-4, the lower court opinion is left intact. in the case, the unions won the lower court. there are several other cases of significance that fall into the same line. several are coming up that may be significant for the same reason. an example, there is immigration case coming up later this term. a case involving contraceptive coverage under the affordable care act which looked to be a potential 5-4 case that has not been argued yet. a 4-4cases, if there is split, the lower court will be affirmed. in some cases, that may lead to conservative outcome. the immigration policy obama put
forward was blocked by a lower court in texas. if the supreme court splits for-four on that, that injunction will stay in place. most of the opinions, most of the cases before the supreme court are more liberal opinions that are being appealed it justice scalia's likely vote on the conservative side isn't there. that lower court decision would remain in place. host: one other moment i want you to react to before we let you go. a 2012 interview, c-span's q&a program and scalia's book. ask you about,to one of them as you mentioned, one of the justices often in the book, joseph story. joseph story, as you know, was the youngest justice ever. he also has another thing in common with you. he had seven children. that is pretty good. you have had nine? i should ask you at this point, last time, you have 28
grandchildren. i asked you to gain them all and you are offended by that. justice scalia: i continue to be offended by the upper that is unfair. 33. 34 is not unreasonable number of grandchildren. give me enough time and i will come up with all of them. guest: he liked to be a regular guy even of the liked the finer things from time to time. considering his legacy, certainly, there was a written legacy. some of his opinions seem very angry, particularly in dissent. it is worth noting that his longtime closest friend on the court was justice ginsburg, a liberal justice who didn't agree with him on much. they were able to hang up their differences at the end of the day. they traveled to india together. they appeared a supernova nares in opera together. they often spoke of each other with great affection. his other close friend on the
court seems to be justice kagan, a more liberal member. someone who he has taken on hunting trips and, again, perhaps unlikely friendship, but a reminder that at the supreme court, even though there -- they are quite heated in there and -- in electoral disagreements, is different than some other institutions in which there was a baseline of respect that even people of tremendously different views had at the end of the day. joining us today to talk about the passing of justice scalia and washington, jess bra vin. we appreciate it. reaction to last night's debate if you're the opportunity to watch it on cbs and to see it on c-span television at 4:00 eastern time, thanks to cbs news for granting us permission to show that debate. ,or republicans, 202-748-8001 for democrats, 202-748-8002 --202-748-8000.
who won last night's republican debate? a line for those of you outside of the u.s.. --202-748-8002. theook back 50 years to 1966 hearings focused on vietnam. it was the first televised congressional hearing on the vietnam war. here is a portion of the program that will be airing later today on c-span3's american history tv. wereey vietnam hearings some of the most extraordinary hearings ever held by congress. they were hearings of an investigation into a war that was still being fought. theress, and particularly senate wanted to know why we were in vietnam, what the ministrations's work. they wanted to hear from opponents of the war. they gave equal status to critics of the war as they did to supporters of the war. a real debate.
the judge was one of america's most distinctive diplomats and was he who wrote an article for the magazine foreign affairs, signed at mr. x because he was a diplomat. he couldn't take sides in this issue. suggesting that the policy of the united states -- they needed to follow was containment. the containment theory was the rationale for the united states to send troops to vietnam. here was the author of the containment theory saying no, it doesn't apply here. this is a mistake. is clear that however justified our action may be in our own eyes, it has failed to win either enthusiasm more peoplence, even among normally from the to us. our motives are widely misinterpreted. , the spectacle emphasized and reproduced in
thousands of press photographs and stories that beer in the press of the world, the spectacle of americans inflicting grievous injuries on the lives of the poor and helpless people and particularly, people of different race and color. no matter how wanted by military necessity or by the excesses of the adversary, our operations may seem to us to be or may genuinely be, this spectacle produces reactions. among millions of people throughout the world, profoundly detrimental to the image we would like them to hold of this country. i am not saying this is just all right, i am saying that this is so. and that it is bound in the circumstances to be so. a victory purchased at the price of further such damage would be a hollow one in terms of our world interests. >> washington journal continues. come back andto
take your phone calls and talk about the debate last night. it aired on cbs and will be reairing today at four clock eastern time. this headline from the state newspaper, the largest publication in columbia, south carolina focusing on the passage of justice scalia and singly republican candidates want to wait on a justice, asking the senate to hold off until the election is over. also, a lot on 9/11, george w. bush. by the way, president bush and laura bush will be campaigning for jeb bush tomorrow evening in north charleston, south carolina. we will have live coverage of that at six a clock eastern time. here is one of the moments from the debate in greenville last night. jeb bush: i'm sick and tired of barack obama blaming the president for all of the proxy is have. it is bloodsport for him, he enjoys it, i'm that he is happy about it. i am sick and tired of him going after my family.
my dad is the greatest man alive in my mind. [applause] was buildingtrump a reality tv show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. i'm proud of what he did. [applause] -- as the gold to go after -- the gall. trump: that is not what i said. jeb bush: my mom is the person i know. this is about the south carolina families who need someone who can be a commander to me. i am that person. moments in last night's debate. the hill newspaper is reporting on these -- on cruise and rubio. they write the newspaper, ted cruzival -- rival the debate for a pattern of lies
. this is a disturbing pattern. he has been just telling lies said senator rubio. florida senator saying he had lied about ben carson in iowa. his comments come as both he and the texas republican battling over their stance on the 2013 fight in the senate over the immigration reform bill. let's get to your phone calls. who one in last night's gop debate? james, thomasville, georgia, democrat, good morning. >> i think john kasich the one who won the debate. try to pull them together and be civilized and not do all of this attacking each other. donald trump needs to learn to keep his mouth closed one other candidates are trying to speak. he is so disruptive. nobody can get their point across. i think it donald trump becomes the president, he is going to get so many american people killed, soldiers, the simple
--son is when he said that he will call iran and say that america doesn't have $150 billion to send them. things, these world leaders are listening at what he is saying and i don't think he would be good for america, period. host: thank you for the call. the chair of the senate veterans affairs committee is our guest on c-span newsmakers program coming up in one hour. steve, cloverdale, virginia, republican line. did you watch last night? >> i did. i consider myself a job supporter, but i think cruise and even bush made really good points. i would say overall, probably ted cruz in my opinion may have
won the debate. there is something going on. i wanted to make a statement, there is something going on out in the audience. you can say -- entitlements and elitist type status. i know that is a contradiction being in support of donald trump, but i think that he is -- he saw the light and he sees these different things were if you call people out, a certain ethnic race or religion or social -- the gentleman in your previous show talking about the protestant on the supreme court and so forth. it moves on to a horse and pony show with the presidential campaign. i think a person can change. evangelicals will support trump in the end. that is what i am doing. anyhow, thank you for your show. you get called out on it, racist, anti-somatic, that is the pulse of america, a lot of the people that work are really fed up with the things in
washington, the horse and pony show. thank you for my comment. host: john dickerson of cbs news was the moderator. he began the debate yesterday, calling on the candidates for a moment of silence, to have an from the washington post. justice scalia's death looms over the gop debate in south carolina. this was that moment and the start of the debate. an exchange between senator cruz and donald trump on the issue of planned parenthood. here's how that unfolded. donald.e he is an amazing entertainer. his policies for most of his life -- thank you very much, i appreciate it. most of his life, his policies have been liberal. for most of his life, he is described himself as pro-choice and a supporter of partial-birth abortion. today is a candidate, he supports federal taxpayer funding for planned parenthood. i disagree with him on that. that is a manner principle. you're the biggest liar.
you are probably worse than jeb bush. me tell lies -- let you. this guy lied about ben carson when he took votes away from ben carson in iowa. he just continues. sayingwe had robo calls donald trump is not going to run in south carolina where i am leading by a lot. vote for ted cruz. this is the same thing he did to ben carson. this guy will say anything. nasty guy. now i know why he doesn't have one endorsement from any of his colleagues. >> back from the buffet. >> he is a nasty guy. >> i will say it is fairly see donaldto defending him after he called him pathological and compared him to a child molester, both of which were offensive and run. doesn'tnotice donald disagree with the substance that he supports taxpayer funding for planned parenthood? he has this weird pattern.
when you point to his own record, he screams liar, liar. >> where did i supported? ted, where do i supported? >> out of donald's own mouth. >> where did i supported? >> you supported when you are battling over the funding planned parenthood. you said planned parenthood does wonderful things. >> they do do -- they do wonderful things were not as a relates to abortion. excuse me. there are wonderful things having to do with women's health. >> you and i disagree on that. >> not when it comes to abortion. that is worth -- >> the reason principle matters, sadly was illustrated by the first questions today. the next president will appoint 1, 2, 3, four supreme court justices. it donald trump is president, he will appoint liberals. your second amendment will go away. you know how i know that? >> i'm turning this car around. , your brother wanted
john roberts to be a united states supreme court. they both pushed him. he twice approved obamacare. 4:00 eastern, 1:00 for those of you on the west coast on c-span. -- youo writing about heard that reference by john dickerson tried to turn the car around. cbs moderator john figures and found himself in the middle of a raging south carolina hurricane on saturday night. he threw himself in the middle of the storm, writing the current and challenging the candidates. other times, he seemed to lose control as the candidates ignored the timer and the crowd responded with light -- with loud cheers or booze. washington post looking at bernie sanders, radical today, mainstream tomorrow. look at the politics behind his candidacy. we get your reaction to the debate last night. who one on the republican line? linda from fort lauderdale, florida. how are you?
caller: how are you? -- it to speak up because live in florida. amnesty.gainst he lied to us. he turned around and join the gang of eight. shop group t is a liberal, blaming bush for 9/11. -- trump proved he is a liberal. cruz has a was been a guest amnesty. host: who is your candidate? caller: ted cruz. he joined the senate to stop amnesty. he wanted a wall in 2012. he stopped it in 2014. he is the only consistent conservative. we have to make sure we don't get another liberal judge or this country is gone. host: from national review, a bad night for conservatives in new hampshire. donald trump looming -- winning
a warmly. an article online at the national review website. bloomberg politics reporting this morning on a republican slugfest in south carolina. hitting marco rubio -- pitting marco rubio against jeb bush, john kasich against donald trump and all of them with a slugfest. nearly everyone got called a liar. according to bloomberg politics, the word lie or a variation of it was used at least 19 times during the debate. read it online a bloomberg politics.com. joining us on the democrat line from west bloomfield, michigan, good morning. >> good morning. who won the debate, the debate was won by american people. caller: the republicans keep fighting among themselves. ony want to burn everything -- blame every on president obama. obama is a make -- great president.
a transitional president. he has changed america forget. guess what happened last night? how -- 9/11, the attack on iraq has messed america up. >> edwin has this point to when rudeness and disrespect are the role of the day, we, the people are the losers. judy is joining us on the republican line from danville, virginia. did you watch last night, judy? >> i sure did. i say the winner is case like area he made the best point. -- have candidates hurling as much as they can get on broadcast television, i will paraphrase. he said look, if you guys keep doing this, you are handing the election to hillary clinton.
suggested that the debate should center, and i am paraphrasing, on the differences in opinions each candidate has. different programs they would suggest. he is so right. that is what i want to hear. i have always said wrestling happens on a college match. wrestling happens on tv. this isn't even cleaned up debbie w e wrestling. this is wwf wrestling. the whole media process has handed us first-term senator's who look nice on television. according to twitter, happily of the tweets last night focused on donald trump. the other half are passing on the other five candidates. another viewer responding to the debate last night saying jeb bush sounded like he was crying. his brother did a lot of damage. he has to on that.
former president george w. bush as we said earlier will be in south carolina tomorrow evening along with laura bush. you can watch the event at 6:00 eastern time. the caller making reference to ohio governor john kasich. he also talked last night on a number of issues and was asked about the passing of justice scalia. >> if i was president, we would have a divisions like we do in the country today. i want to reflect on judge scalia. it is amazing for not even two months after the death of judge scalia, nine children, their father didn't wake up. his wife, sad, that i wish we had -- hadn't run so fast into politics. here's my concern about this. the country is so divided right now and we are going to see another partisan fight taking place. i really wish the president would think about not nominating somebody. somebody, to nominate let's have him take somebody with unanimous approval and such widespread approval across the country that this could happen
without a lot of recrimination. i don't think that is going to happen. i would like the president for once to let the cut -- but the country first. we will have an election for president very soon. the people will understand what is at stake in that election. i believe the president should and i think wed ought to let the next president of the united states decide who is going to run at supreme court with a vote by the people of the united states of america. night's debate on cbs news, a tweet that says can't we stop the train so i can get off? a two-hour debate that ran from 9:00 until 11:00 eastern time. randall on republican line from health river, minnesota. did you watch last night? >> of course. i liked rubio. every time you watched them, you can tell he did his armor. everyone makes a gaffe on stage every now and then under pressure. the point i want to make about donald trump's backers, sooner than later, they will wise up to
the fact that he has no , noground, no personality temperament whatsoever to lead. this guy is an egotist. he is a blowhard. he is a bully. the backers that are backing him, they feel everyone has failed them for the last eight years, 12 years, whatever. the fact is marco rubio represents the future. donald trump is a disruptor, i wish that people would recognize him for the stealth candidate that he is. he is nothing more than a trojan horse with a big mouth. michael from like so, illinois. how are you this morning? caller: i couldn't disagree more with the last caller. i say the independence one. trumprosen and support -- is saying -- what we have had -- the establishment.
as far as rubio, he is a guy who doesn't do his job in the senate. he said he doesn't like his job in the senate. he goes off and talks about -- he is going to do this and that. wars, things george bush did a good job. george bush did a good job after he screwed it all up. we shouldn't have ever been there was the point. we spend trillions of dollars. we still have a problem. weise -- we destabilize all of africa. moving into europe. if you think destroying the world was good, you would like as far as -- jeb bush talks about his brother, he seems like he is crying, being a little kid. his mother, thinks is brother did a good job. they are terrible. sanders and trump in
the millennial's and everybody. these people think these other people are doing a good job. host: i can't imagine anyone wanting to watch that shutting contacts -- contest between route next. another moment between donald trump, senator rubio and jeb bush. let's watch. think you got all the time that it was george w. bush on the white house in 9/11 and not al gore. [applause] i think you can look back in hindsight and say couple of things. he kept us safe. not only did he keep us safe, no matter what you want to say about weapons of mass destruction, souza/-- saddam hussein was in violation. george w. bush did with the
international community refuse to do. i'm forever grateful. donald trump: how did he keep us safe when the world trade center came down? i lost hundreds of friends. the world trade center came down during the raid. he kept us safe? that is not safe. that is not safe. the world trade center came down. >> the world trade center came down because hunton didn't kill osama bin laden when he had a chance to kill him. george bush had the chance and he didn't listen to the advice of his cia. >> i am notn -- going to invite donald trump to the rally in charleston. >> i do want to go. >> i'm rescinding the invitation. i thought you might want to come, but i guess not a >> from -- host: in a fiery debate, bush takes on a scrappy trump. rick says this.
america was the big winner last night. we saw the gop big guns on full display. a vote for any of them is a vote for our demise. on the republican line, ronnie from hancock, minnesota, good morning. caller: good morning. i have too say that agree with that last comment. they are showing their true colors. they are coming out. finally. jobpresident did a great and every patriot knows that. i'm from a family of veterans. gets behind their commander-in-chief. for any republican or anybody from -- to see that this president has not backed our veterans is wrong. keep that in mind in your vote. joe klein in interview
with hillary clinton, do you see her now after more than four decades in the spotlight? hillary clinton is finally coming into view. this is what the cover looks like from time magazine. i know it is like to be knocked down. sherry joining us on a democrat line from rock rapids, iowa. good morning. >> john kasich said it right. the moment after the death of someone as wonderful as judge scalia, to be putting it in a sick.cal arena was they sugar 1000 phone calls or more from the iowa people to let him know that he needs to just be quiet and let the family mourn. wasdebate last night absolutely foolish. john kasich said it best.
we have got to stop the fighting. that is how i believe. host: thank you very much for the call. this from inside the unique -- the new york times, clinton e-mail released now includes three classified as secret e-mails that came out friday into saturday. stephen myers following the story saying the state department released 551 more e-mails from the personal server of hillary clinton. including 84 with some or all of the messages blocked out because they contain information that has been deemed declassified. three are classified as secret. each of the secret e-mails and closes -- includes mrs. clinton's comments discussion tension on the sinai peninsula, a visit by john kerry to
go to travis joining us from pendleton, south carolina. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thank you. my wife and i watched the debates for each party. we are true independence. we have issues that we need to the right on, others that we need to the left on. aftert help but think watching the debate that the only thing that was really accomplished, for my wife and i, i don't see any way that we vote for the republican party. host: why is that? caller: it is one of the most and nursing displays i have seen. i can't vote for people who argue like toddlers. without actually getting into any debate with any substance or merit. i just wanted to share that. have a good day. host: thank you for the call. matthew from the wilson center will join us in a couple of minutes to talk about the cease-fire that was brokered. will it be a cease-fire and what
is next for russia and the u.s. and the syrian people coming up in a couple of minutes. elmore, alabama, good morning to you and look to the program. who won last night? caller: i believe senator ted cruz one. host: why do you say that? caller: b is the only one that appeared to me to keep his composure. donald trump was a pure embarrassment to the republican party. host: let me ask you about donald trump for a moment. why do you think he continues to dominate all of the national polls? what is it about him is attracted so much support until this point? caller: because he is a tv celebrity. he is a big businessman. he is a billionaire. he would treat this country as a business and care less about the people. that a liked him.
if they were to vote for him. host: thank you for the call. we conducted what was a brief interview with donald trump last sunday in new hampshire. it is on our website as is all of our programming. check it out at www.c-span.org. the caller making reference to senator take cruise. he paid -- two senator ted cruz. he paid tribute to justice scalia. ted cruz gone he was a legal giant. someone i knew for 20 years. he was a brilliant man. he was faithful to the constitution. he changed the art of american legal history. his passing tonight, our prayers are with his family, his wife, -- he, who he is george adored. it underscores the stakes of this election. we are one justice away from a supreme court that will strike down every restriction on abortion adopted by the states. we are one justice away from a supreme court that will reverse the heller decision, one of
justice scalia's seminal decisions that upholds the second amendment right to bear arms. we are one justice away from a supreme court that would undermine the religious liberty of millions of americans and the stakes of this election for this year, for the senate, the senate needs to stand strong and say we will not give up the u.s. supreme court for a generation by allowing barack obama to make appointee.liberal for the state of south carolina, one of the most important judgments for the men and women of south carolina to make his who on this stage has the background, principal, character, judgment and strength of resolve to nominate and confirm principled constitutionalists to the court? that is what i will do if i'm elected president. host: ted cruz last night in greenville, south carolina. a two from a viewers saying last night gop debate was proof that they are more entertaining with donald trump than without. from the washington post this
morning, headline, gop rivals turn fears in the run-up to the -- turn fierce. in two weeks, south carolina democrats. the unit the last word from harrisburg, pennsylvania, independent line, one last night debate? caller: i would say that kasich one. the gentleman not allowed to stand outside of the security permit or to take a photograph here and donald trump does nothing to enhance the dignity of the office. host: thank you for the calls and comments. as we said earlier, the debate afternoon athis 4:00 eastern, 1:00 for those of you on the west coast. our thanks to cbs news. coming up in just a moment, matthew joining us from the wilson center to talk about what is next in syria. this broker-deal, the truths workedout -- the truce out into the u.s. and russia. will it hold? you are watching the washington
journal on this february 14, valentine's day. back in a moment. ♪ >> the reality is the best presidents, the greatest presidents have been willing to recognize -- they want the smartest person in the room. to surround themselves with people they thought were smarter than themselves. >> tonight on q&a, former secretary of defense and director of the cia, robert gates, discusses his book a passion for leadership, lessons on change and reform from 50 years of public service. he has served under several presidents, most recently george w. bush and barack obama. >> at the end of the cold war when i was director of central intelligence, i came to believe very strongly that the american people had given cia a pass on a
lot of things because of this x essential -- existential conflict with the soviet union. after the end of the cold war, we were going to have to be more open about what we more open abt we did and why we did, and even to extend, how we does it, to help the american people better understand why intelligence was important. to the government, two presidents, and why value -- presidents values it. is presidents' day weekend, book tv has today's of nonfiction books and authors on c-span2. here are some programs to watch out for. eastern,t 9:00 p.m. the factors behind the search and downturn in violent crime in america from the 1960's to present right he is interviewed by a senior fellow for the
policy advisory group at the urban institute. >> we had this demographic old after the war, when the soldiers came home, and given the posterity of the country, we had many people marrying and having children, having families. these children, the baby boom generation, reached their most energetic years in the late 1960's and early 1970's. book rescuingthe social change from the culture of tech knowledge he -- technology. arguing that it is not the main driver of progress. , all weekend, every weekend on c-span two. television for serious readers. >> washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome back matthew rojansky, he is the
director -- he is the director of the institute. i want to talk about this agreement, and whether or not it will stand threat but first i want to ask you about the people inside the country. how life is like for them, horrific it is for them. guest: this has been one of the political emphasis is to create an achievement. it is unconscionable that we are allowing this level of suffering that is as a lady you have the migration crisis that is bringing me problem to european shores. you have the humanitarian living in of people occupied cities, occupied by isis and other forces. you have ethnic cleansing going shia andn cnet -- sunni smaller tribal groups.
you have been reading about the situation in the northeast of the country. the openuse of fighting, much of which is now being driven by larger outside powers, including russia and the united states, it is very difficult or humanitarian assistance to reach the people who needed, because they are literally on the front lines of a war zone. biggestimately was the motivator when you talk about why world powers come together in munich and begin a process 40 cease-fire. it was not that we are any closer to a political settlement in we have to be seen to be relieve theing to suffering of the people and to stem the tide of refugees leaving the country. host: what is the framework for this agreement, and wisest of tenuous? that's why is it so tenuous? it is a cessation of hostilities. the more words to its use, usually the last meeting there is to them. the idea was that they would simply get a temporary path and
the fighting or bombing to take effect cannot last week, but theoretically a week from last week. in a few days time, if it is going to happen. that i primarily would be for humanitarian access. the russians from their site were prepared to guarantee you military access and territories essentially called by the dutch controlled by the syrian government, which is not something that the west was able to achieve before because we are not talking directly to bashar al-assad. they also control the airspace. in fact, they would be able to guarantee humanitarian access, if they are committed to that. likewise, the territory where the moderate rebels are working with the u.s. and saudi led coalition, that we would be able to deliver assistance in those areas. this is very tenuous, and entire notion is that if the cease-fire toks, and they are able trust each other on the minimal
level, but maybe we can go from there and have a dialogue about 20 settlement will like to look like. host: for the moment, president bashar al-assad remains in power. guest: it seems for the moment and for the foreseeable future, because what is happened over the last six months since the russians came into the conflict, actively, in september, bashar al-assad gained a world-class air force. he now has the russians doing air operations for him. he has had iran and hezbollah backing him on the ground. he has a limitless flow of weapons and ammunition things to his agreements with the russians on that front. he has been able to regain ground. his military machine is much more powerful than it was a year ago and it does look like, at least in the population dense portion of the country, all the way to aleppo and to the turkish a supplyhich has been line for the rebels, he may shut
that down and he may infect control the bulk of the territory and population that is left. host: i hate to frame the question this way, because there are so many losers in this and situation is so dire, but who comes out ahead, if anyone? russia definitely comes out ahead. the bigger political context is the russian intervening in the political devolution happening an seizing ukraine. ukraine. crimea from are now going to bring the wrath of the international community down on you, so the united states throws russia out of the deal yet, -- out of the g8 with support of the other countries, with sanctions so the russian response is patient,
saying we're going to remind you of a few of those areas like iran nuclear deal where we were a pivotal player, and they'll syria, or russia is a global great power. russia is a power that if you do not do business with them and you do not treat them as an equal, and you do not establish the basis of working trust, you your interests done, you do not get your mission accomplished. they have done that very successfully. host: we will get your comments in just a moment. you are at the coming institute at the wilson center. you saw an excerpt of what we were going to air today. testimony back in 1966. guy, because of his experience on the ground, he had his early training in ofope, in the german school russian studies, and lazio which was a printer to the soviet union when we did not have
diplomatic relations. and serving in the soviet union when we established relations there. in his biggest message was know your adversary. do not imagine these people are. do not pretend they are a mirror image of the united dates. know what they want, know what works and does not work in their system. the most effective thing we can do in response is have a system that works. that was his biggest criticism of vietnam, that we were showing that we did not know how to solve problems. but we got dragged ideological toblems we did not know how handle, and the we stayed in bullheaded nest, which made it look like the soviets. that was the biggest criticism we heard. host: you mentioned something that i thought was fascinating. a memo he wrote in 1947. a telegram dealing with russia. what is in it, and how is that applicable today?
an incredibly deep message. it has a lot of heart. i encourage folks to read it. trying basic message is to understand who russians are and where they come from, rather than just listening to the soviet leadership. understand the soviet leadership as well, understand the communist system, that is number 100 number two is to develop a compelling and successful is somethingo this that was as true in the aftermath of world war ii as it is today. time was indeed trouble. it had been crushed and destroyed by a war, and europeans were looking for a bright future. they were looking for some system, some idea, some great power they could put their faith in. that is something that is going on today. if we want to prevail against fromnk that is pervading our adversaries, including vladimir putin, which left a promise something that is going to solve real problems for real people. ukraine is a test of that today.
he would say what can we do to solve problems in ukraine, not just how can we bombastic we criticize russians and criticize and isolate them? lastly, of course he did support a containment doctrine. that means being prepared to determine your adversary, but that means when you try redline him you are clear about where it is, and you are clear you are responsible to be overwhelmed and irresistible and undesirable for your adversaries. i do not think we have the clarity in our response to the in the western and eastern europe host:. you can watch on our full schedule on c-span.org. steve is on the phone from phoenix, arizona. democrat line. good morning. caller: three cheers for c-span. my question is, if they have a cessation of hostilities, does
that mean that there will be part of the country controlled by bashar al-assad, and part of it controlled by isis? >> yes. that is what is already happening now. the latest state of play on the ground looks like ice has been pushed back part of it doesn't quite a bit in the east of the country. it is still a large amount of territory. what control they have is not clear. like government forces might be moving towards their de facto center in eastern syria. that is certainly possible that in the next week we might see an effective syrian government assault there. they're not going to expunge isis from the country altogether, and neither are we. the so-called moderate rebel eroups, supported by th united states. i think they're going to be there for the long haul. they're going to have a global
reach. that is the real problem. that they can do things like blowing up the russian airliner. even if they are relegated to some kind of very tenuous physical position on the ground, and their dreams of a caliphate do not go true, we're not going to be able to give an of them because they are one of my russian politics. become an idea, it is a people's minds, it is in the ideology in which young people, especially sunnis in the tribal areas are born and bred. host: this is from the horse, saying that bashar al-assad wants to take back his whole country. will russia help them, and what about iran? guest: russia is already helping them. at this we know that russia is acting as an air force for the government forces in syria. it is a very effective, world-class air force. they have made a lot of games. there was some reporting in the
last couple of days coming out of germany, around the munich security conference that there were accusations that the russians had already introduced significant ground forces. that would be a big deal if it is true. i have not seen any part of it. it is true, it is a big deal for two reasons. russian ground forces are going to make an impact in terms of what syrians can do. that might be a kind of them toe that allows refrain from doing that. the turks, who are nato members on the other side, that is inconceivably dangerous. host: this program is carried on series exxon -- on sirius xm radio every sunday. thee talking aboutrom tenuous truce put together for syria, and now we have an
independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. russia started in the middle east by the first country really to create the state of israel. punch beforeo the now when russia has not dominated, you should know this yourself. israel is a part of the russian base. host: do you agree or disagree? guest: i would not say that russia controls the middle east these days. sentences that it has been rolled back dramatically. -- thertainly have", but united states has sucked up a lot of bandwidth of the soviet
union used to occupy. that is for obvious reasons. the russians have not had the they, and the have not had gumption to maintain their presence. they had a deal to do arms with saudi arabia. the deal was big, with the st importer after the united states. made ited states very clear that if they wanted to do more business they would have to say no to the russian deal. they did, and so direct competition used to be so big, and now it is u.s. russian.
it is not right now, it is because the fighting is. it is the simple fact that we have seen this in every contract around the world. as long as there is a significant possibility that an age shipment is going to be , or destroyed, you cannot responsibly, if you're in international, private, or government agent, you cannot respond to listen them into a conflict. that is where we are right now. host: how large geographically is serious? -- syria? how large is the ice is isisolled area - is the controlled area? >> millions people have left the country at this point. the territory controlled by isis is shrinking. but there was a time when it was something about as thick as england.
again, you are talking about a desert area of eastern syria. this is not the fertile crescent that he might imagine. coast is muchean more densely populated. that is the territory that has been primarily control five regime. but now a year ago, two years ago, it is much more firmly in control, especially in the corridor, and up to the syrian border. just -- hee has not has a considerable population under his sway. versus the sunni population that was in the east that is now popular under isis or any other opposition groups that are quite high-stakes. the: our guest is your of
kanin institute at the wilson center. he earned his law degree from stanford. joining us from lower, minnesota. democrat line. good morning. go ahead, please. one more time. caller: hello. i did not realize i was on hold. my thoughts on the matter of the united states and russia, it is a simple thing. the enemy of our enemy is our friend. though we have had continuous disagreements with russia, i think that russia is growing. the meetingced by of the minds of the eastern orthodox catholic, and have hope. -- the pope. the people are becoming better. i think the plurality of russia is opening its doors. i think the reality of the
united states is lessening, as evidenced i, and i don't want to upset anybody, but i think the gay marriage thing is mostly run by the insurance companies. insurance companies control too much of this country come as evidenced by our prescription drug prices, the laws that support and morality in the terms of almost steadily the bible. host: i'm going to jump in. let me go back to your early point about russia. how politically powerful is at home? first, i would say to your point about the meeting of the patriarchal and head of the russian orthodox church, that sort of thing would inconceivably during the cold war.
i think that is a good reply to those who would simply dismiss the u.s., russia relationship today as being cold war two it is not cold war two. we're coming off of 25 years of in suppressing the unprecedented integration with russia and the u.s. and russia and the wider world. versus if you think about the time we were talking about at the beginning of the cold war, 1946. russia has been totally isolated for the previous three decades. revolution, you had stolen, famine, the gulags. you may disagree with me, you may dislike them about the russia we are dealing with today is much more integrated in the world. me ask you about that. this is from the washington post yesterday. ? significant? guest: yes it is significant. it is not myself going to transform the political relationship between the u.s.
and the west, but one of the more important things, as with the russian people. there has been this sense that is shared by many russians that they are not taken seriously in the west, and by the west. very often when i give interviews to russian ablications, in the course of half hour 45 minute discussion i will simply make that one point. 90% of the time that point becomes the headline of the interview. that is what the russian readers are craving to hear, that americans are prepared to take them seriously. westerners will take them seriously. response of the united states government and of many european governments to the outbreak of feed grain prices, i think there should be no doubt that they are guilty of intervening in ways that made it worse in every way.
the president called russia in 19th-century power. it has been called by members of the senate a masquerade of a country. any of this stuff may have more validity to it. but it when you're dealing with diplomacy at this level, and the toor who has the capability either support our objectives, or make them very difficult or impossible, it does not make sense to say we do not a huge seriously, setting aside the message it sends to the check all that out and white house.gov. good morning. caller: thank you c-span. looking beyond the current specifically,,o
who is behind negotiations for the sunni and the shia, and as we get around the table for long-term, plan to destabilize that area. who are we actually looking at as leaving those negotiations for more of that particular partners? >> thank you. as we look the headlight from yesterday's washington post, doubts were cast on the syrian -- while it is true that the great powers like russia and the united have the ability to declare that their military operations have ended, when it actually comes down to it was the only way to get close to a resolution to the situation in syria fell is if you have
direct dialogue between the parties. the positions of united states and russia have not changed, which is the united states is not talking to us on them a because our position is that bashar al-assad has to go. the russian position is the exact opposite. they are not prepared to talk about him. we get reports that they have softened their position on him staying, maybe they would be open, but in actual fact they have not changed their position, it is that these the only legitimate government in syria, and without him you cannot have negotiation. when we imagine that there is some kind of hearing opposition counsel, some kind of group of moderate rebels that we can reach out to and we can bring in and support dialogue between them and some representative of the regime, other than bashar al-assad, my views that this is all imaginary. we construct these agreements at and beginugh level
humanitarian aid. host: is there anything close to an economy in that country? guest: not really. host: our people surviving? guest: we hear about the oil fields. it is down significantly because oil prices, but we hear about the oil fields are operating, so they are selling oil to the turks, and to bashar al-assad. this one blows my mind. apparently, when infrastructure electrical power lines went down , p teams of government. made the trip,ws and they fixed it and drove back. anybody's guess how the game works. they are making money off of this, for sure.
it is obvious that the people syria are being left behind. host: time for one more call. here is one more tweet. guest: i would say that is in very qualified statement. i'm sure he is admired by some people living in the wrong of syria in the west. otherwise, shia, i think he has ordered an admired his pragmatic there is no one eagerly volunteering for a job. host: our last caller is john from rockford, illinois. a quick question or comment. caller: i wonder if everybody is against isis, and how are they getting their armaments? their weapons?
guest: fantastic question. i will quote you something that a russian passed along to me. when he was speaking with a senior commander in isis, they said that they were very happy when the west provided armaments to these so-called water rebel groups, because those rebel groups were the most reliable suppliers for isis. they discharged a 10% markup. host: what will the next president inherited? guest: it will be a mess. and it will be until the president makes it a top priority. from thethew rojansky wilson center, thank you for being with us. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: we will continue the conversation, as we do every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. tomorrow, thets united league of latin american citizens.
we will talk about the vote in this campaign. matt lewis, with the daily .aller, we will continue to follow all .f the double -- developments newsmakers is next. thank you for joining's on this sunday. i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great weekend. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, wiich is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
>> next, newsmakers with senate veterans affairs many chair johnny isakson. then the head of u.s. intelligence agencies and a senate hearing on worldwide threats. johnny c-span on our newsmakers program this week as senator johnny isakso, a republican completing his second term, and who has announced his candidacy for the next term. >> thank you for being with us. >>great to be with you. >> let me introduce the reporters will be with us. we are changes is with the military times, and connor o'brien covers that covers defense for politico. >> i wanted to talk about the budget announcement this week, in particular the v.a. budget and you originally said you had
concerns that the obama administration is growing more money at all the v.a.. that is not the way to solve it. what is your opinion of what the budget is? >> the increase in the budget is 9.8%, but 12% of that is mandatory because we have made promises to those who serve in the military. that is not appropriations, it is something we have to do. circumstances, being down to 5% is ok. i am down with being with where they recommended. >> have you seen the reforms they have had in their? are they headed in the right direction? we have seen dramatic increases over the last few years or so. is it sustainable to have money to this budget? >> you have to fulfill the promiseno