Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Looking Back On Life Of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Aired 10-10:55pm ET

Aired February 13, 2016 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: We are continuing to follow the breaking news tonight. The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Acalia at the age of 79. He died in his sleep of natural causes during a hunting trip at a ranch in Texas. President Obama praised Scalia as a towering legal figure in his remarks tonight, and he said he will nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia in due time, saying it is his constitutional responsibility to do so. Scalia was a hero to conservative legal scholars. He was not on the bench at the time that Roe versus Wade was decided but he stood in ardent opposition to the high court's decision in that case, and in an exclusive in-depth interview with former CNN anchor Piers Morgan Justice Scalia took Piers into his thinking on Roe versus Wade.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PIERS MORGAN: My special guest, Justice Antonin Scalia and his co- author, Bryan Garner. Let's turn to Roe versus Wade because you, Justice Scalia, you had very strong opinions about this time. I know you do now. Why were you so violently opposed to it?

U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: I wouldn't say violently. I'm a peaceful man. Adamantly opposed.

MORGAN: Adamantly.

SCALIA: Adamantly. Basically, because the theory that was expounded to impose that decision was a theory that does not make any sense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

And that is, namely, the theory of substantive due process. There's a due process clause in the constitution, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. That is obviously a guarantee, not of life, not of liberty, not of property.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

You can be deprived of all of them, but not without due process. My court in recent years has invented what is called substantive due process by simply saying some liberties are so important that no process would suffice to take them away. And that was the theory used in Roe versus Wade. And it's a theory that is simply a lie. The world is divided into substance and procedures.

MORGAN: Should abortion be illegal in your eyes?

SCALIA: Should it be illegal? I -- I don't have public views on what should be illegal and what shouldn't. I have public views on what the Constitution prohibits and what it doesn't prohibit.

MORGAN: But, I mean, the Constitution, when they framed it, they didn't even allow women to have the right to vote. They gave women no rights.

SCALIA: Oh, come on. No rights?

MORGAN: Did they?

SCALIA: Of course. They were entitled to due process of law.

MORGAN: All kinds of rights.

SCALIA: You couldn't send them to prison without the same kind of trial that a man would get.

MORGAN: But, again, it comes back to changing times. The Founding Fathers were never going to have any reason at that time to consider a woman's right to keep a baby or to have an abortion. It wouldn't have even entered their minds, would it?

SCALIA: I don't know why. Why wouldn't it?

MORGAN: Because at the time it was --

SCALIA: They, they didn't have wives and daughters they cared about?

MORGAN: They did, but it was not an issue that they would ever consider framing in the Constitution.

SCALIA: I, I don't --

MORGAN: Women began to take charge in the last century of their lives and their rights and so on and began to fight for these. Everybody believed that was the right thing to do, didn't they? I mean, why would you be instinctively against that?

SCALIA: My view is, regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad, regardless of how you come out on that, my only point is the Constitution does not say anything about it. It leaves it up to democratic choice. Some states prohibited it, some states didn't. What Roe versus Wade said was that no state can prohibit it. That is simply not in the Constitution. It is one of those many things, most things in the world, left to democratic choice. And the court does not do democracy a favor when it takes an issue out of democratic choice simply because it thinks it should not be there.

MORGAN: OK, how do, how do you, as a conservative Catholic, how do you not bring your personal sense of what is right and wrong to that kind of decision? Because clearly, as a conservative Catholic, you're going to be fundamentally against abortion. SCALIA: Just as the pro-choice people say the Constitution prohibits

the banning of abortion, so also the pro-life people say the opposite. They say that the Constitution requires the banning of abortion because you're denying someone life without due process of law. I reject that argument just as I reject the other one. The constitution in fact says nothing at all about the subject. It is left to democratic choice. Now, regardless of what my views as a Catholic are, the Constitution says nothing about it.

MORGAN: What has been your hardest decision, do you think?

SCALIA: My hardest?

MORGAN: Yeah.

SCALIA: You don't want to know.

MORGAN: I do want to know.

SCALIA: No, it's the dullest case imaginable. There is, there is no necessary correlation between the difficulty of a decision and its importance. Some of the most insignificant cases have been the hardest and --

MORGAN: What has been the one that --

SCALIA: It would probably be a patent case. Do you want me to describe it , really?

MORGAN: No.

SCALIA: Of course.

MORGAN: All right. What has been in your view the most contentious? What's the one that most people ask you about?

SCALIA: Contentious? Well, I guess the one that, you know, created the most, most waves of disagreement was Bush versus Gore. OK? That comes up all the time, and my usual response is get over it.

MORGAN: Get over the possible corrupting of the American presidential system, Justice Scalia?

SCALIA: Look, my court didn't bring the case into the court. It was brought into the courts by Al Gore. He is the one who wanted courts to decide the question. When Richard Nixon thought that he had lost the election because of chicanery in Chicago, he chose not to bring it into the courts. But Al Gore wanted the courts to decide it. So the only question in Bush versus Gore was whether the presidency would be decided by the Florida Supreme Court or by the United States Supreme Court. That was the only question, and that's not a hard one.

MORGAN: No regrets?

SCALIA: Oh, no regrets at all, especially since it's clear that the thing would have ended up the same way anyway. The press did extensive research into what would have happened if what Al Gore wanted done had been done, county by county, and he would have lost anyway.

MORGAN: When people say about you that you're this fantastic justice -- no one disputes that. An incredibly charismatic and you ask the most questions. Apparently you get --

SCALIA: I don't ask the most questions.

MORGAN: Apparently, you do.

SCALIA: No, that's not true.

MORGAN: Apparently someone has said that in the last 25 years --

SCALIA: No, no, no, no.

MORGAN: -- you are the guy that asks the most questions.

SCALIA: No, I used to be.

MORGAN: You ask more than Justice Thomas, right?

SCALIA: That's a low bar.

MORGAN: I mean if he just (inaudible) it's just a bit weird that a guy can join the Supreme Court and literally not ask any questions?

SCALIA: No, that's not so unusual. Thurgood Marshall rarely asked a question. Bill Brennan rarely asked questions. In fact, a lot of them didn't -- I was the first one who started asking a lot of questions. I appeared before the court once before, before I became a judge. I was serving in the Justice Department. And I got two questions the whole time of my argument. They both came from Byron White. It was not at all unusual for justices not to ask questions.

MORGAN: Let's take another break.

SCALIA: So leave, leave, leave Clarence alone.

BRYAN GARNER, CO-AUTHOR "READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS": In fairness to Justice Thomas, he has a principled reason. I mean he told me in his interview, and this is all on the record, he does not ask questions because he thinks it's too cacophonous. There are too many questions as it is, and he doesn't want to add to the cacophony.

MORGAN: That's one way of looking at it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: All right. Ahead, Justice Scalia opens up to Piers about his relationship with those eight other justices.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARLOW: In 2012 there were rumors of a rift between Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts. That's after Roberts joined the court's liberal wing in a decision that upheld the Affordable Care -- Health Care Act, or Obamacare. In his exclusive in-depth interview, former CNN anchor Piers Morgan asked Scalia about his relationship with the other justices on the bench at that time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Inside, the kind of man you are, are you a good colleague? How do you get on with your other Supreme Court justices? Because you all must be -- you're all highly intelligent, very opinionated people. Are there clashes there?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCALIA: There are clashes on legal questions, but not personally. The press likes to paint us as, you know, nine scorpions in a bottle. That's just not the case at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Well, the big buzz at the moment is that you and Justice Roberts have had a bit of a parting of the ways, you've gone from being best buddies to warring enemies.

SCALIA: Who told you that?

MORGAN: I think I read it in some of the papers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCALIA: You shouldn't believe --

MORGAN: Credible sources.

SCALIA: You should not believe what you read about the court in the newspapers because the information has either been made up or given to the newspapers by somebody who is violating a confidence, which means that person is not reliable.

MORGAN: So you've had no falling out with Justice Roberts?

SCALIA: I'm not going to talk about -- No, i haven't had a falling out with Justice Roberts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Loud words exchanged?

SCALIA: No.

MORGAN: Slamming of doors?

SCALIA: No.

MORGAN: Nothing like that?

SCALIA: Nothing like that.

MORGAN: Best buddies?

SCALIA: My best buddy on the court is Ruth Bader Ginsberg, has always been.

MORGAN: Yeh. And yet you disagree with her about almost everything, I'm told.

SCALIA: Just about everything.

MORGAN: What do you like to do when you're not presiding in the Supreme Court?

SCALIA: I like to play tennis, and in my later years, since I'm Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit, I have gotten into hunting. So i do a lot of hunting of various animals.

MORGAN: You've been hunting with Dick Cheney, haven't you?

SCALIA: I have indeed.

MORGAN: What was that like? I mean you lived to tell the tale, which isn't always the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCALIA: Dick Cheney is a very good wing shot.

MORGAN: Humans or animals?

SCALIA: Ducks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: You got into trouble over that because they said there was a potential conflict in something you were presiding over. How, how carefully do you think before you accept an invitation to go hunting with Dick Cheney? How hard do you think about that as a potential conflict?

SCALIA: Well, in that case I had accepted the invitation long before the case that was the alleged source of the conflict was before the court. But -- and that was nothing. Cheney was, Cheney not personally the defendant. He was named because he was the head of the agency that was the defendant. And justices have never recused themselves because they are friends with the named head of an agency. In fact, justices are friendly with a lot of heads of agencies and cabinet officers and whatnot. If we had to recuse ourselves every time one of our friends was named, even though his personal fortune was not at stake, we would not sit in a lot of cases. So that was a tempest in a teapot.

MORGAN: When people say you are overtly political with some of your decisions - some people do, some critics do - how do you, how do you feel about that Does that annoy you?

SCALIA: I usually don't read it.

MORGAN: Is this news to you?

GARNER: I think it's patently false. I mean, Justice Scalia has a record of deciding many cases that go against his personal predilections. The flag burning is just one example. But a good judge does that. A good judge will decide cases based on a governing text that go against what the judge may think is wise policy. Isn't that true?

SCALIA: Look it, I have ruled against the government when Republicans were in the administration, and I've ruled for the government when the Democrats were in the -- I couldn't care less who the President is or what the administration is.

MORGAN: Do you think any of your colleagues act from a politically motivated manner?

SCALIA: None of them. Not a single one of them.

MORGAN: I mean, I know you can't discuss anything in the last session, but a classic example some would say would be the health care thing.

SCALIA: I don't think any of my colleagues on any cases vote the way they do for political reasons. They vote the way they do because they have their own, their own judicial philosophy, and they may have been selected by the Democrats because they have that particular philosophy, or they may have been selected by the Republicans because they have that particular judicial philosophy. But that is only to say that they are who they are and they vote on the basis of what their own view of the law brings them to believe. Not at all because. The court is not at all a political institution, not at all. Not a single one of my colleagues --

MORGAN: When you see Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, getting criticized for being political, for being partisan, (inaudible) --

SCALIA: I've been out of the country for most of that, I have to tell you, so I --

MORGAN: But when you see that happening, does it offend you that his integrity would be questioned like that?

SCALIA: It offends me that, that people point to the fact -- and they didn't used to be able to when, when, when David Souter and John Paul Stevens were still on the court. They often voted with the appointees who were Democratic appointees so that the 5 -4 decisions was not always, you know, five Republican appointees versus four Democratic. Now that they're off, it often does turn that way, but that is, that is not because they are voting their politics, not because they're voting for the Republicans or voting for the Democrats. It's because they have been selected by the Republicans or selected by the Democrats precisely because of their judicial philosophy. So it should be no surprise that the, the five appointed by the Republicans tend to have a certain judicial philosophy and the four appointed by the Democrats tend to have a different one. I mean, that's what elections have been about for a long time.

MORGAN: When you lose a -- or a case goes against what you would like it to go, what do you do? Do you go and have a few drinks? Chill out with (inaudible). How do you deal with failure like that? Because these are big deals. You know, you're a Supreme Court judge.

SCALIA: Probably mutter something under my breath or something. But, no, I mean, you know, you play the hand you're dealt. That's all and you can't take it personally.

MORGAN: Let's take a final break. I want to come back and talk to you about family because I know you're a huge family man.

SCALIA: OK.

MORGAN: You've been married a very long time to a long-suffering woman, would you say?

SCALIA: I'd say so, yes.

MORGAN: I'll find out just how long-suffering in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Welcome back to our breaking news coverage tonight on the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The President saying tonight he does intend to nominate a justice to replace Scalia. What will happen next is in the hands of the Senate. This is touching off what could be and will be a huge political fight inside the beltway. Former CNN anchor Piers Morgan sat down with Justice Scalia for an exclusive interview back in 2012. Here's more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Back with Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner, co-author of an excellent book, "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts." Have you ever broken the law, Justice Scalia?

SCALIA: Have i ever broken the law?

MORGAN: Yeah.

SCALIA: I have exceed the speed limit on occasion.

MORGAN: Ever been caught?

SCALIA: Oh, yes. I've gotten tickets. None recently.

MORGAN: That's it? That's the only criminal action in your life?

SCALIA: Yeah, I'm pretty much a law-abiding sort.

MORGAN: I like the phrase "pretty much." It gives me somewhere to go.

SCALIA: I'm a law-abiding sort.

MORGAN: What is your guilty pleasure?

SCALIA: My guilty pleasure? I don't have any guilty pleasures. How can it be pleasurable if it's guilty?

MORGAN: I've got lots of guilty pleasures.

SCALIA: No, you don't.

MORGAN: Yeah, I do. Everybody does. Nothing you get up to that probably wouldn't want to read about?

SCALIA: That I think I shouldn't do? Smoking?

MORGAN: You've been married for how long?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCALIA: Fifty-two years.

MORGAN: An amazing marriage, nine children.

SCALIA: Yes.

MORGAN: How many grandchildren?

SCALIA: Thirty-three.

MORGAN: Amazing. What has been the secret of such a longstanding marriage, do you think?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCALIA: Maureen made it very clear early on that if we split up I would get the children.

MORGAN: We said before the break that possibly she was a long- suffering wife. Did you mean that?

SCALIA: She has, she has worked very hard.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

I have not gone after the dollar for most of my life, so we didn't have a lot of money and she didn't have a lot of help at home, and raising that many kids without, without a nanny or without, for many years, even any, any people to help with the housework, was hard. She worked very hard.

MORGAN: I ask this of all my guests and I don't see why you should get away with not answering it. How many times have you been properly in love in your life?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCALIA: Properly in love? I think Maureen's it.

MORGAN: You struck gold.

SCALIA: Oh, yeah.

MORGAN: Will you ever retire?

SCALIA: Of course I'll retire. Certainly I'll retire when I think I'm not doing as good a job as i used to. That will make me feel very bad.

MORGAN: And as we sit here now, what would you say your greatest achievement has been as a Supreme Court Justice?

SCALIA: Wow. I think despite the fact that not everybody agrees with it, I think the court pays more attention to text than it used to when I first came on the court, and I'd like to think that I've had something to do with that. I think the court uses much less legislative history than it used to in the past. In the '80s two- thirds of the opinion would be discussion of the debates on the floor and the committee reports, and that doesn't happen anymore. If you want to talk about individual --

MORGAN: I mean, on that point, on the legislative history point, again, critics would say to you, well, hang on a second, because you're such a constitutionalist and always go back to the way they framed the Constitution and so on, they debated all that. I mean that is in its way legislative history, isn't it?

SCALIA: What is? What is? What is?

MORGAN: The framing of the Constitution. The framing of amendments and so on. What's the difference really?

SCALIA: I don't, I don't use the Madison's notes as authoritative on the meaning of the Constitution. I don't use that. I use the Federalist Papers but not because they were -- the writers of the Federalist Papers were present. One of them wasn't. John Jay was not present at the framing. I use them because they were intelligent people of the time and therefore what they thought this language meant was likely what it meant.

MORGAN: Why do you have such faith in those politicians of that time? You know, I mean these days if the current crop of politicians created some new Constitution, people wouldn't have the faith, the unburning, unflinching faith that you do. Why are you so convinced that these guys over 200 years ago were so right?

SCALIA: You have to read the Federalist Papers to answer that question. I don't think anybody in the current Congress could write even one of those numbers. These men were very, very thoughtful. I truly believe that there are times in history when a genius bursts forth at some part of the globe. You know, like 2000 B.C. in Athens or Cuinquecento, Florence, for art. And I think one of those places was for political science. Madison said that he told the people assembled at the convention, gentlemen, we are engaged in the new science of government. Nobody had ever tried to design a government scientifically before. They were brilliant men, and --

MORGAN: Do you wish we had few of them now?

SCALIA: I wish we had a few of them now. And I certainly do not favor tinkering with what they put together.

MORGAN: Justice Scalia, it's been fascinating.

SCALIA: Thank you. I enjoyed talking with you.

MORGAN: Thank you very much for your time.

SCALIA: Thank you.

MORGAN: Bryan, congratulations. It's an amazing book. Anyone that has to listen to that will want to go read it. It's a weighty tome. It's full of humor as the interview's been, and I think it will give people a much better understanding of what you're about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: All right, there you have it. That was Piers Morgan's exclusive interview with Justice Antonin Scalia from July of 2012. Pretty amazing insight into the court's most prominent conservative mind. Justice Scalia passed away today at the age of 79. And I want you to take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Before we go to break, you're looking at live pictures from our nation's capital where flags at the Capitol and at the White House are at half-staff, a city and a nation mourning the loss of a justice who served on the nation's highest court for 30 years.

[22:30:05] Also bracing for what could be an epic confirmation battle, essentially pitting President Obama against a Republican- dominated Senate. Much more on that next.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: All right. We are continuing to follow the breaking news tonight. The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, he died at the age of 79 earlier today. We know that he died of natural causes in his sleep during a trip to a ranch in Texas.

He was appointed in 1986, confirmed unanimously, appointed by then President Ronald Reagan. He was the first Italian American to serve on the nation's highest court.

Just a short time ago, President Obama praised the man he said "Influenced a generation." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: For almost 30 years, Justice Antonin Nino Scalia was a larger than life presence on the bench. A brilliant legal mind with an energetic style, incisive wit and colorful opinions.

He influenced a generation of judges, lawyers and students, and profoundly shaped the legal landscape. He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court.

[22:35:02] 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 towering legal figures of our time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: President Obama also said in those remarks tonight that he will nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia in due time, saying it is his constitutionality responsibility to do so.

And as darkness fell this evening in our nation's capital, the flag outside of the Supreme Court was lowered and then raised to half staff in honor of Justice Scalia.

Michelle Kosinski, CNN, White House Correspondent, is live with me tonight. And Michelle, I just -- I wonder, your thoughts on what the president said today, talking about a larger-than-life presence on the bench, even though ideologically, this is a president who could not be more opposed to a justice than to perhaps Justice Scalia.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right. Think about what Scalia wrote against ObamaCare ...

HARLOW: Yeah.

KOSINSKI: ... more recently against the gay marriage ruling. I mean, really using some biting language there, especially on the latter one. I mean, that's something that we read very recently where he was such a force for that line of though directly opposed to the White House.

But President Obama, he didn't hold back in the influence that Scalia held and what he meant to the court and to legal thought in this country. Before the president then got into, "OK, here's what comes next. Yes, I am going to nominate somebody, I expect it to be a timely hearing, a timely confirmation, which is very unlikely to happen.

But the president also wanted to add his own thoughts that this is supposed to be bigger than any one party. It's supposed to be beyond the partisan fighting. This is about our democracy. And we're going to be hearing a lot from the White House along those lines, as we have been for the past several months. And when you look at some of the president's other nominations for the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, for example. I mean that took many months. The White House was furious at the delays that senate Republicans caused on that front. She was eventually confirmed, of course.

And in fact, 10 Republican senators crossed party lines to finally confirm her. But that was one example of how bad this could be. In fact, Senator Claire McCaskill, a democrat from Missouri, called that episode base, ugly politics at its worst. You kind of think, what's going to happen with this now?

This could be President Obama's last big battle. I mean, there were thoughts it could be, well, maybe some of his issues that are before the court now, maybe it would be some additional executive action he would take and Congress's reaction to that.

But now, it could very well be this. If the Senate, Republicans in the senate won't take this up or won't vote that nominee in, what that means and the repercussions it will have on cases, on the makeup of the court and really important issues for this country moving forward, Poppy.

HARLOW: No question about it. Michelle Kosinski, live for us in Washington tonight. Michelle, thank you so much.

We'll be watching Washington very closely. This was no doubt the first question in the GOP debate tonight.

We'll bring you some of that. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:40:23] HARLOW: All right. Reaction tonight at the Republican Presidential Debate to news that President Obama does intend to nominate a successor to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away earlier today. First, the candidates held a moment of silence for the 79-year-old justice, and then they weighed in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I can say this. If the president, and if I were president now, I would certainly want to try and nominate a justice.

GOV. JOHN KASICH (R-OH), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I do want to take a second as we reflected on Judge Scalia, it's amazing. It's not even two minutes after the death of Judge Scalia, nine children here today, their father didn't wake up. His wife, you know, sad. But you know, I just wish we hadn't run so fast into politics.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are one justice away from a supreme court that will strike down every restriction on abortion adopted by the states.

BEN CARSON (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The constitution actually doesn't address that particular situation. But the fact of the matter is, the Supreme Court obviously is a very important part of our governmental system. And when our constitution was put in place, the average age of death was under 50. And therefore, the whole concept of lifetime appointments for Supreme Court judges and federal judges was not considered to be a big deal.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: 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 Supreme Court justice.

And it reminds us of this. How important this election is. If 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 that understand that the constitution is not a living and breathing document, it is to be interpreted as originally meant.

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The simple fact is, the next president needs to appoint someone with a proven conservative record similar to Justice Scalia, that is a lover of liberty, that believes in limited government, that consistently applied that kind of philosophy, that didn't try to legislate from the bench, that was respectful of the constitution

And then fight and fight and fight for that nomination to make sure that that nomination passes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Some reaction tonight from the GOP Debate there. Also reacting tonight, the democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton, saying these moments ago at an event in Denver, Colorado.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Know that our thoughts and prayers are with the Scalia family tonight. And I'm also thinking and praying for the future of our country. It is outrageous that Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail have already pledged to block any replacement that President Obama nominates.

[22:45:11] Now, I'm sure we'll all have a lot more to say about this in the coming days. So, let me just make one point. Barack Obama is President of the United States until January 20th, 2017.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: And Senator Bernie Sanders said this about the justice moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I-VT) DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It appears that some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have a very interesting view of the constitution of the United States.

And apparently, they believe that the constitution does not allow a Democratic president to bring forth a nominee to replace Justice Scalia. I strongly disagree with that. And I, very much hope that President Obama will bring forth a strong nominee and that we can get that nominee confirmed as soon as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Senator Bernie Sanders there, weighing in.

Coming up next, two long-time friends of Justice Antonin Scalia tell me about the man he was, the father, the grandfather, the friend, beyond his time on the bench.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:19] HARLOW: All right. Tonight, we are looking back at the life of Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia. He was found dead this afternoon while on vacation at a ranch in Texas.

The conservative justice was known as a colorful character, jovial, with quite a sense of humor who also had a profound impacts on American Law and on the high court.

Earlier, I spoke with Time Warner General Counsel, Paul Cappuccio, who clerked for Justice Scalia and remained his close friend. Here's what he told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL CAPPUCCIO, CLERKED FOR JUSTICE SCALIA: He let me start by offering my condolences and prayers to Mrs. Scalia and the kids and grandkids. He loved his family so much and my heart goes out to him now.

You know, he was a pure joy to work for. He was a man who cared intensely about getting the answer right. He paid no attention to who was the plaintiff, who was the defendant. Politics didn't matter to him. He cared so much about getting the answer right, either under the constitution or if he was interpreting a statute.

You know, I worked for him when I was twenty, I guess seven years old, and he'd lock yourself in his office and, you know, it was no longer Supreme Court Justice and student just out of law school. It was whoever made the best argument prevailed. He loved that. He loved to mix it up.

He -- often said to me that if he could change one thing it was that when he's deciding a case, he often struggled long and hard to figure out what he thought the right answer was and then he used to joke with me when he wrote the case. He wrote it with a great deal more certainty than he may have had while he was trying to figure it out.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Let me ask you a question. It's Jeff Toobin here.

So, I've been talking about originalism and trying to explain why that's such a significant idea for the Supreme Court. What's originalism and why is it so associated with Justice Scalia?

CAPPUCCIO: Well, you know, there's originalism is also textualism, which is quite related, and I think Justice Scalia believed in both.

Justice Scalia -- what's important about that idea is that in a system of divided government, the default rule is that we have a democracy and the people vote and the majority wins.

And how he viewed the constitution and how originalists view the constitution is as an exception to that. There were certain things like the First Amendment, freedom of speech that we wouldn't put up to a vote.

But when you view constitutional rights in that manner, as an exception to democracy, it leads you to I think a much narrower or a word that's often used stricter interpretation of the constitution because it's a grave and serious thing to say if people cannot decide this for themselves.

So, he adhered to a view that said look, if we're going to take certain things out of the political process, if we're going to say that the people can't decide through their chosen representatives, we can only do that with a text of the document and the original intent of those who wrote the document is fairly clear.

A great defender of democracy when you view it that way. Sorry, Poppy, go ahead.

HARLOW: Oh, no, no problem at all. Thank you for being with us and shedding this light. I mean, it's very few people have actually gotten this opportunity like you have to clerk with him to see the inner workings of it and how his, you know, brilliant mind worked whether you agreed with his decisions or not.

Can you take us into, a, the side of him that was so funny, the humor is what we hear so much about. And also, into his unique friendship with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his -- sort of ideological contrast

CAPPUCCIO: Sure, what he was -- Justice Scalia was not only a very warm and a very kind man. He was a very engaging, a very interesting and broad in a very witty and funny guy.

And in a town like Washington, D.C., that's become increasingly partisan. He's a man who always had deep and enduring friendships on both sides of the political aisle. He could see the good and the valuable, and the funny and the fun, and the interesting in everyone.

[22:55:00] And, you know, he was -- he had a tremendous wit. He just, you know, he had a tremendous wit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Tremendous wit, memories from Paul Cappuccio, a former clerk and very good friend of Justice Scalia, our thanks to him.

Later this week, CNN will host two Republican presidential Town hall events in South Carolina ahead of the primary there. All six Republican candidates will participate. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson will appear on Wednesday night. Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, John Kasich will appear Thursday night.

Both town halls hosted by our very own Anderson Cooper. They both begin at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time. The Town Halls will give South Carolina voters the opportunity to question directly the candidates and of course the passing of Supreme Court Justice Scalia will be addressed as well. The Republican presidential town halls Wednesday and Thursday, 8:00 p.m. Eastern, only right here on CNN.

Washington, the government, the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia's colleagues, friends, and family all mourning him tonight, a justice who left his mark on American law. No question. A legacy that will stand for decades.

Scalia's death marks the end of an era but also the beginning of what could be an enormous political fight, with the president vowing to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia in a Republican-controlled Senate, two sides with very different visions of who should take that critical spot on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I'm Poppy Harlow in New York. Thank you for being with me tonight. Erin Burnett continues our coverage, next.