Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Parties Bicker over Late Justice's Replacement; GOP Candidates Push to Delay Supreme Court Nomination; Pope Francis in Mexico; Trump Criticizes Pope Francis; Remembering Justice Scalia's Legacy; US, Russia Criticize Each Other Over Syria. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired February 14, 2016 - 19:00   ET

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

[18:59:45] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: One final note tonight, I get to do a lot of very special things in this job. This is one of the most special. We got to celebrate my father's 85th birthday earlier today. It was an honor,and I just wanted to wish him happy birthday on air. Dad, we love you very much. There is no better father or grandfather we could ask for. Happy birthday, Dad.

Welcome. It is 7:00 p.m. Eastern. Thank you for joining us today. I'm Jim Sciutto in today for Poppy Harlow.

And this weekend with one tragic event, the landscape of Washington politics has changed. The balance of influence in the American judicial branch changed. And the men and women elbowing to be the next U.S. president got a huge new issue to battle over.

The tragic event is the death of U.S., Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Condolences to his family quickly turned to ice-cold politics when arguments began flying from all directions about who will replace him and whether President Obama stands a chance of getting a replacement through senate confirmation.

The Republicans currently in control of the Senate saying no way, urging the President not to even try to get a nominee through. They want to take their chances in the election in the fall and the possibility that a Republican president could then name a new justice.

President Obama, on the other hand, promising to honor his constitutional responsibility, and put forward a nominee -- his words -- in due time.

CNN Supreme Court reporter Ariane De Vogue is with me now, also a litigator with lots of experience inside the U.S. Supreme Court as a member of the Supreme Court Bar, Elizabeth Wydra -- great to have you both on.

Ariane -- if I could begin with you. When you look at today's newspaper headlines about Justice Scalia praises come across like powerful voice, lasting legacy, a force for conservatism -- understatements, really. You begin to get a sense of the hole he leaves behind on the court. Already lots of talk about the makeup of the Supreme Court, this is a decisive vote there for the conservative wing. In the meantime though as you battle this out, you've got a 4-4 tie in effect from the conservative and liberal wings in general. What happens to the cases that are before the Supreme Court right now?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, like you said, this is a monumental shift on the court. And when the court only has eight members, and it's 4-4, then it really doesn't make the decisions. What it would do is uphold the lower court decision.

And this comes as we're halfway through this major term. We've got cases like abortion, affirmative action. The President's executive actions on immigration -- they're all there. One case in particular, for instance, in a public unions case, a lower court ruled in favor of the unions. This is a very carefully-watched case.

But coming into Supreme Court arguments, when the justices heard the case, Scalia and Kennedy and the conservatives, they sounded like they were going to reverse the lower court decision. Now if they are 4-4, that means that the liberals, the ones supporting the unions are going to get this unexpected victory.

There are several of these other cases that are pending, and it's causing confusion. Something the Supreme Court does not like to play with less than its nine players.

SCIUTTO: No question. I mean interesting irony, the idea that this delay from led by the Republican side could actually lead to some decisions that the Republican side would not be happy with. But President Obama saying no serious consideration about a replacement at least until the senate returns from recess in a couple of weeks' time. What kind of timeline could we then see for him to deliberate, perhaps float some names, do some final background checks, et cetera, before he would come with a name to the senate judiciary committee?

DE VOGUE: Well, you know, in normal circumstances, usually, the time period between the announcement and say the confirmation is about six to seven days. That's the average. But we're not in normal circumstances right now. The climate has been bad for these confirmation hearings and now it's really at the worst so I'm not sure that that 60 days holds.

Think about it, if this goes to the next president, then maybe there would only be a nomination in February, maybe only a confirmation next spring. Which would mean the justices would spend not only the rest of this term one short, but all of next term, too. That's what's at stake.

SCIUTTO: Right. Certainly another demonstration of the enormous political and ideological divide in the country.

Ariane de Vogue watching it from the Supreme Court.

With me no, also in Washington, Elizabeth Wydra. Elizabeth -- you've a litigator, a member of the Supreme Court bar. You've been inside the courtroom when these justices are hearing cases, presenting opinions. Just for a moment because listen, this is just 24-hour old news. Let's set aside the politics.

Tell us about the presence that Antonin Scalia had and projected from the bench.

ELIZABETH WYDRA, CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER: You know, this really has sent shock waves through the D.C. legal community. Justice Scalia was a larger-than-life figure in the courtroom and outside the courtroom.

You know, academics will study everything and someone studied the number of laughs that each justice got at each oral argument and Justice Scalia far and away got the most laughs during oral arguments. He asked very pointed questions, often very funny questions at oral arguments and was a very big presence inside the courtroom.

[19:05:11] But he also was a big presence outside the courtroom which is a little bit unusual, because the justices don't speak that often outside of their duties in the courtroom. But he connected very well with audiences when he talked about the constitution.

You know, I think one of his legacies will be his focus on the text and history of the constitution. And he focused on the original meaning of the constitution. Not just in his judicial opinions, but in the conversations he had with the public outside the court and really engaged the public with the constitution. And I think that will be for those of us who disagreed with him perhaps on outcomes of cases, that's something that I think we all can embrace.

SCIUTTO: No question. I mean here, again, to set aside the legal and the ideological difference, replacing him as powerful voice with respect and volume I mean even laughs that he drew on the courtroom -- I mean this beyond picking someone who can get through senate confirmation or fighting that battle before the election just replacing the weight of the intellect and experience and voice really a very tall task for this president or the next president.

WYDRA: It is definitely in some sense the end of an era. He was a very strong originalist judge. And we still have Justice Clarence Thomas on the court who is also an originalist by methodology. But I think you're right. There isn't really someone who matches kind of the character of Justice Scalia.

Except perhaps his best friends, they were besties, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the notorious RBG. There was actually even an opera written about the two of them and their relationship, they were both big opera buffs. So I think that, you know, Justice Ginsberg certainly presents that character on the court and Justice Sotomayor also connects very well with the public when she gives speeches.

But he will be missed on the court in argument and his opinions. He always wrote with very colorful language. And he really -- there's no one else like him.

SCIUTTO: And that pair, too -- we're seeing pictures of them together. Amazing. Elizabeth Wydra -- great to have your insider court view on this. And ahead this hour while Democrats and Republicans brace for the fight over that open season on the Supreme Court, GOP presidential candidates were waging their own war last night at the debate. Let's just say that the gloves were certainly off.

We'll show you what happened and talk about what it means in the race for the White House.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Justice Antonin Scalia's death and the battle for his replacement already beginning, loomed large over last night's Republican debate in South Carolina. CNN's Ryan Nobles has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A moment of silence for Justice Antonin Scalia.

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It did not take long for the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to get political in the Republican presidential primary debate.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think it's up to Mitch McConnell and everybody else to stop it. It's called delay, delay, delay.

NOBLES: One by one, the GOP candidates paid homage to the conservative lion and predicted that any Obama nominee to replace him would be unsuccessful.

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There's no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama will not have a consensus pick when he submits that person to the senate.

NOBLES: But President Obama is pushing forward promising to nominate someone quickly and warning senate Republicans to not place politics with the court.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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.

NOBLES: Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell called on the President to wait and leave the decision in the quote "hands of the voters" and the winner of the race for the White House. Rank-and-file Republicans like Lindsey Graham said any Obama nominee will have a tough time being confirmed.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: The practical consequences that no one will be appointed -- that's not a consensus choice.

NOBLES: And as the President and senate leader squabble it will be against the backdrop of an increasingly divisive presidential election.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Elections have consequences.

NOBLES: Hillary Clinton rushed to support Obama's right to pick the nominee and push the Senate to confirm.

CLINTON: It is outrageous that Republicans in the senate and on the campaign trail have already pledged to block any replacement that President Obama nominates.

NOBLES: The Republican candidates vowed to stand in the way and once elected, nominate a conservative in the mold of Scalia.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: One of the most important judgments for the men and women of South Carolina to make is who on this stage has the background, the principle, the character, the judgment and the strength of resolve to nominate and confirm principled constitutionalists to the court. That will be what I will do if I'm elected president.

NOBLES: Setting the stage for a rocky few months in Washington, with the future of the Supreme Court and the White House in the balance.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Ryan Nobles -- thanks very much. So we just heard about how most GOP presidential candidates support senate Republicans delaying a nominee. The White House responding today saying quote given that the senate is currently in recess, we don't expect the President to rush this through this week but instead will do so in due time once the senate returns from recess. At that point we expect the senate to consider that nominee consistent with their responsibilities laid out in the United States constitution."

Republican strategist Evan Siegfried joins me now. So Evan -- let's just talk about reality here. We know the hurdles. He's got to get 15 votes to get over a filibuster in the senate potentially. We know, it's an election year -- you've already heard the comments on the race.

Is there a candidate that the President can come forward, a nominee, rather that could get approval from a Republican-led senate?

EVAN SIEGFRIED, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Absolutely. I think there is a judge in the eastern district of New York, Judge Brian Cogan who is actually a conservative judge, but loved by Chuck Schumer and Loretta Lynch. And Judge Cogan presided over the case where the Catholic Church sued the Obama administration over the Obamacare contraception method.

SCIUTTO: Who appointed him?

SIEGFRIED: I'm sorry?

SCIUTTO: Who appointed him?

SIEGFRIED: George bush.

SCIUTTO: Ok.

SIGFRIEND: And Senator Schumer loudly cheered the appointment.

SCIUTTO: You have other candidates mentioned earlier. Sri Srinivasan who was unanimously approved --

SIEGFRIED: On the deal to end the judicial filibuster.

SCIUTTO: Ok -- fair enough. But does that not give the possibility that he would attract enough Republican support --

SIEGFRIED: I don't think you'd get that much Republican support -- It's sort of like saying that Donald Trump is not a conservative. He's partly conservative.

SCIUTTO: That's the battle, that's Republican/Democrat. Let's talk about the Republican-on-Republican battle here. Because of course, you have every Republican presidential candidate saying you know, should be a Republican who decides, it should be the next president, I will pick a darn conservative nominee.

But who has the advantage there in terms of Republican voters? Who do they trust to pick a conservative-enough justice in their view?

SIEGFRIED: I think Marco Rubio is trusted the most. He's outlined since day one of his campaign a clear and conservative message that has resonated with people and shown that he is the kind of guy that we need to take on Bernie Sanders in the general election.

SCIUTTO: Really. But I mean listen -- Ted Cruz has his hard-core conservative followers as well. And after all he's argued cases there before. Can he not make a case?

[19:14:58] SIEGFRIED: Absolutely he can. I just think Marco Rubio is light years ahead of the pack when it comes to that. And when you look at people like Donald Trump, there's a big fear and it's rightly so that Donald Trump might actually nominate one of the people he supported of the many Democrats that he supported.

SCIUTTO: Right.

It's -- we had on earlier, who as you know advised at least four presidents by our count and he made the point which is really remarkable when you think about it. This year you have the senate up for grabs, you have the White House up for grabs and you have the Supreme Court up for grabs in effect. Three branches of government.

I mean, and we also have as you know, a very divided country. Have you ever seen anything like this in recent memory? Or studied anything like this where you have so many things up for at stake this year?

The only place we've seen this in some sort of Aaron Sorkin type of teleplay. It's a really exciting time for people like me who just love this and politics is just the most fun past time. But no, I have no idea how certain things are going to break. Because everybody, myself included, said Donald Trump was going to fall on his face by October and here we are in February.

SCIUTTO: Let's talk about the dangers here for the Republican Party. If the senate doesn't let this come up to president -- he's president, he comes up to a candidate who is fairly middle of the road for this White House. Is the -- are the Republicans in the Senate, Republicans on the hill in danger of a -- kind of shutdown scenario here, where they push the obstructionism too far and voters, particularly Independents punish them in general?

SIEGFRIED: There is that risk but I think that the public will realize that the senate has the constitutional obligation to advise and consent on judicial nominees.

SCIUTTO: Which means a vote, does it not? We're talking about no vote.

SIEGFRIED: If they're taking a vote in the judiciary committee on a nominee and saying well, we're not going to advance it into the full senate that them doing their constitutional duty and I don't think the American people should hold the senate negatively because they actually fulfilled their constitutional duty.

SCIUTTO: Is the duty not an up or down vote on the full senate? Is it just to not let a name get out of committee? Would that fulfill it in your view?

SIEGFRIED: I think if the committee were to vote down the nominee, they've done their duty. And that is what the constitution allows them to do.

SCIUTTO: Ok. Now, from the President's point of view, we were talking about this in the break. It's not just Republicans who have said listen, you got to wait until the general election.

Chuck Schumer who you mentioned earlier said this in 2007 during a George W. Bush's administration. But the fact is we looked at the history here. You have had Republican presidents nominate Supreme Court justices and the Republican presidents I will name who have done this within a year or so of the general election -- Reagan, Ford and Nixon twice.

So are the Republicans such as Rubio on shaky ground when they say in eight decades no president has done this?

SIEGFRIED: Reagan nominated Robert Bork in July of 1987 -- pardon me, I'm showing my youth. And then Robert Bork's nomination was rejected. He went to Douglas Ginsberg --

SCIUTTO: That's right.

SIEGFRIED: He withdrew and then he went to Justice Kennedy and Justice Kennedy's confirmation moved forward. But in ideally in the Reagan administration they would have had a member on the Supreme Court by October 1987.

SCIUTTO: Well would it have been February -- would you have said well, President Reagan, wait until the general election and let's let the voters decide.

SIEGFRIED: Absolutely not on that one.

SCIUTTO: All right. Fair enough. So it's politics by any other name.

Thanks very much for your thoughts. Great to have you on set here -- Evan Siegfried.

Later this eek, you don't want to miss two Republican presidential town hall events in South Carolina and hosted by CNN. All six Republican candidates will participate -- Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson will appear on Wednesday night. Donald Trump, Jeb Bush and John Kasich will appear on Thursday, both events hosted by CNN's Anderson Cooper. It will take place live at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.

The town halls will give South Carolina voters an opportunity to question the candidates and of course the passing of Supreme Court Justice Scalia. That will be addressed as well. "REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL TOWN HALLS" Wednesday and Thursday, 8:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.

And then on February 25th at 8:30 p.m. eastern, it's the last debate before Super Tuesday, join Wolf Blitzer, live from Texas for the CNN Republican presidential debate only here on CNN.

Well Pope Francis says Mexico is the land of opportunities. You'll hear more about the Pope's wish for people who want to emigrate from Mexico here to the U.S. That's coming up after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Pope Francis is in Mexico, and he just stopped by a children's cancer ward there. Watch how the children reacted to seeing the Pope for the first time.

Very happy children there.

It is day two of the Pope's visit to Mexico. So far he's tackled the issues of corruption, violence and human trafficking, reached out to clergy members urging them to take a stand to combat the drug trade. The Pope wraps up his trip with a cross-border mass on Wednesday, where he will pray for the thousands of undocumented immigrants who died trying to cross the border into the U.S.

Let's go to Mexico City live where CNN international correspondent Shasta Darlington is standing by. Shasta, Wednesday's mass is a big deal. It's right on the border. It's met some criticism here in the United States, of course, diving into the politically-sensitive issue of cross-border immigration. In Mexico south of the border what's the reaction there?

SHASTA DARLINGTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well Jim -- it's been some of the least sensitive part of his trip because the criticism is being more leveled at U.S. authorities and in fact, he's actually ruffled more feathers with his comments about corruption, about drug violence, about poverty and inequality.

He talked today for example about how the evils of wealth and power and fame are luring people and that Mexico needs to turn this into a land of opportunity instead of one that sends its young people away to perhaps die as they try and get across the border or get lost in the drug trade.

So ironically while that is one of the more prickly points for American authorities, it's one of the ones that has allowed Mexican authorities to a certain degree to breathe a sigh of relief -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: These are live pictures -- I just want to tell our viewers that we're watching now the President is driving through the streets. Shasta, I think recognize his famous Fiat there that made such a splash here in the U.S -- just a sign of his humility.

But one thing I noticed as he's driving through the streets there. There's security, but it's not quite to the level we saw here, which was just incredible. I covered his trip as he came to Philadelphia, Washington and New York. What is the security like for him in Mexico?

[19:24:56] DARLINGTON: Jim, he does have a heavy security detail. The police say they have every level of armed forces police -- you name it, they're out there. But they did say it was only about 10,000 strong which seems certainly far shy of what we saw, for example in Brazil. That was a papal trip I covered as well.

Nonetheless it's clear that they are concerned and determined to make this visit safe. Considering he is visiting some of the most dangerous corners of Mexico. From his visit today to the sprawling slum just north of Mexico City to Chiapas where he'll be tomorrow, the poorest states. And then, of course, he's going to Michoacan an area ravaged by drug wars where many country priests have even been killed. And again, ending up in Ciudad Juarez which for many years was the most dangerous city in Mexico although it has seemed to turn the corner.

Security is a big issue on this trip and I don't think they're taking it lightly -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: One final thing. He, of course, came here to the U.S. during a very divisive time in terms of politics and he spoke -- he challenged that. What I found interesting was that both sides really welcome him. It's hard to argue with the Pope or kind of criticize him. Mexico has its own divisions. What's his reception there among Mexican leaders as he speaks some tough words on some of these issues like corruption and the drug trade?

DARLINGTON: You get a similar balance here, Jim. In the sense that on the one hand he is critical of the institutions, he's critical of the government in the sense that things like the drug wars and crime have gotten out of control. But on the other hand, you do see the Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto trying to capitalize on this visit, trying to focus on something positive.

Mexico is the world's second largest Catholic country, more than 80 percent of the population is Catholic and they're turning out in droves to see him -- hundreds of thousands of people lining the streets. So the government does want to have their name aligned with him even though what he has to say isn't always positive. I suppose they're just trying to -- they're hoping that people aren't listening too closely to him.

SCIUTTO: Well Shasta, it must be exciting to watch again. We're seeing live pictures of the Pope driving through streets of Mexico City.

People in Mexico may be happy to see Pope Francis, but Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is calling him out. He's criticizing his upcoming trip to the border town of Ciudad Juarez where he will pray with immigrants.

CNN's Miguel Marquez has more on the controversial comments from the presidential candidate Donald Trump.

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Donald Trump is at it again -- staking out a position that on the face of it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense but may actually work in his favor. This time it is Trump versus the Pope.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Pope Frances, donning a sombrero Mexico-bound and stirring controversy in the U.S. presidential race.

TRUMP: The Pope is a very political person. I think he doesn't understand the problems our country has.

We're going to run the table.

MARQUEZ: That's the brash billionaire turned presidential hopeful from a Fox Business interview taking on the Pope or as Catholics believe, God's representative on earth.

TRUMP: I don't think he understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico.

MARQUEZ: The pope who has staked out traditionally liberal views on everything from climate change to capitalism to the poor is headed to the northern city of Juarez where he will hold a prayer service with immigrants in the shadow of the fence separating Mexico and the U.S.

If elected, Trump promises to transform the fence into a wall.

TRUMP: I think Mexico got him to do it because Mexico wants to keep the border just the way it is, because they're making a fortune and we're losing.

MARQUEZ: It's not the first time the pot-stirring candidate has called the Pope out.

TRUMP: I have great respect for the Pope. I like the Pope. I actually like him, he's becoming very political. There's no question about it but I like him.

MARQUEZ: And oh what a difference a political campaign makes. Following Francis' election, Trump tweeted "The new pope is a humble man very much like me which probably explains why I like him so much."

So what gives with all the papal pooh-poohing now.

CHIP FELKEL, THE FELKEL GROUP: It is pandering, no question about that in terms of positioning himself with that evangelical base.

MARQUEZ: Chip Felkel, a South Carolina Republican consultant and long time adviser to GOP candidates says Trump may be crazy like a fox.

FELKEL: Donald Trump taking on the Pope gets him attention and gets him on the radar in South Carolina.

It's a way to try to have some kind of connection with that evangelical vote that Cruz is expected to do well in.

MARQUEZ: Trump has consistently bested Cruz by double digits in South Carolina polls. But it seems after tasting defeat in Iowa and victory in New Hampshire, he prefers to win leaving no political stone unturned.

[19:30:00] MARQUEZ: Well, Felkel and others say there are very few Catholics in South Carolina. But this may end up back-firing on Trump in later states where he will face far more Catholic voters. They say for now this is a high-stakes gamble that the entertainer and businessman is making. Hoping that it garners him more attention and votes in the South Carolina primary.

Miguel Marquez, CNN, New York

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Miguel Marquez, thank you.

Law students all over the world will study the decisions of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. My next guest, a legal expert, weighs in on Scalia's legacy and how the justice's brand of staunch conservatism may be remembered.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: No autopsy will be performed on the late supreme court Justice, Antonin Scalia. The 79-year-old passed away yesterday from natural causes in his room at a Texas ranch. Scalia was known as a colorful man and iconic conservative justice. In a CNN interview, Scalia explained how he viewed his role as a Supreme Court justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONIN SCALIA, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I sleep very well at night. Knowing that I'm doing what I'm supposed to do. Which is to apply, to apply the Constitution. I do not always like the result. Very often I think the result is terrible. But that's not my job. I'm not king. (END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Let's talk about Scalia's legacy with CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos. Danny, I think (INAUDIBLE) law school here but the word on him in addition to being conservative is that he was a strict constructionist. Meaning in effect he sort of struck to the actual intent of the writers of the actual constitution.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sorry to be a naysayer. He would reject the idea that he was a strict constructionist. Because a strict constructionist, for example, would say that the first amendment only protects the words that are in that first amendment. The speech, the literal interpretation. He believed in reasonable interpretation. In texturalism, originalism and the idea behind originalism is that you give statutory and constitutional words the meaning that was intended. The reasonable meaning -

[19:35:10]

SCIUTTO: By the writers at the time.

CEVALLOS: By the writers, it was filmed at the time of enactment. And people often complain that that doesn't allow for any flexibility. He argued that yes, it did. We have amendments, you can change laws, about but when it comes to statutory interpretation, the constitution to Scalia, was not a living, breathing thing. Instead, its meaning was fixed at the time of enactment.

SCIUTTO: Even with the ten commandments, the fact kind of etched into stone, in effect.

CEVALLOS: In effect but even with the 10 commandemts, they didn't allow for amendment. So the idea behind Scalia's view, was then, in his view, uncommonly seen as restrictive, really wasn't. Because what it did was it gave power to the democratic process. If you didn't like a particular law's language, then the people could enact another law.

SCIUTTO: To change it. Let me ask a question, the criticism you would hear from more liberal people both inside or outside the court would say well actually it's an activist court, right? That they would over rule sometimes other branches of government based on that. You know based on that interpretation. Is that - a fair criticism?

CEVALLOS: Well when you talk about an activist court, Scalia rejected the idea of a living Constitution. One of the biggest things he believed in was that a judge's job, a court's job was to apply the law, by contrast a judge's job was not to look at a particular case and ask himself or herself what is the fair outcome, what is the morally just outcome?

The job was to apply the law, plain and simple and to do otherwise, to apply your personal philosophies or your personal morals or to look at the changing times and say gosh, things are just different, was essentially to take away power from the republic. Take away power from the people who enacted these laws in the first place. SCIUTTO: So you're a law student today or tomorrow.

CEVALLOS: I was, it was a long time ago.

SCIUTTO: So let's say you're a future law student. What will be the paragraph, many more paragraphs written, what would be the headline on his legacy to the Supreme Court?

CEVALLOS: Well it would be texturalism, originalism, those concepts. In terms of cases it might be the Heller case. It was the first case that the Supreme Court really interpreted the second amendment. There was virtually no case law on the topic before that. I mean that is a real piece of American history there.

But the thing about Scalia is he won't be remembered so much for his majority opinions. He'll be remembered for his dissents. Dissents are those opinions that are not part of the majority opinion. They're not the law. He said himself he wrote them for law students. He wrote them for people, he basically you're expressing your opinion with no force of law. And those dissents were pieces of literature. Whether you agreed with him or disagreed with him.

SCIUTTO: Colorful language and getting more and more colorful. Let's say you've had this kind of 5-4 balance for some time. Let's say it swings to the other side and the liberal or the whatever you want to call it wing, wins over. How long, how many years would it take to overturn some of these decisions? Years, decades? I imagine because it takes a while for these cases to percolate late up to the top -

CEVALLOS: Not only does it take a while but you need what's called the case controversy, you need an actual set of facts to come before the court. As to when that would happen? Who knows. I mean you really depending on fate and the laws of the universe to bring a set of facts before the court. Which is why if the Supreme Court decides a particular way, that could be fixed. For decades, maybe even half a century or so. Before that new case or controversy comes before the court. So make no mistake about it, the appointment of a new justice is quietly one of the most important events in American politics.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you a question, just placing this in context, considering the division of the court, but also the division in the country, when is the last time we had such a crucial vacancy on the court to fill?

CEVALLOS: They're all huge. They're all massive.

(CROSSTALK)

CEVALLOS: It also creates a bit of a constitutional crisis in that there's debate as to whether or not our sitting president should appoint or whether this should happen with the next presidency. So I mean with every single appointment of every justice, it is always a critical moment. And it's often unexpected because it's a lifetime appointment. And when we reappoint a new justice, it's when that justice is passed, often.

SCIUTTO: He said in that interview with CNN, I'm not king. But you are, justice for life. That's the thing about it.

CEVALLOS: It's the closest thing we have to a monarchy and the constitution designed it exactly that way. Why? You serve for life so you are not affected by the trends of the time or -

SCIUTTO: The vagaries -

CEVALLOS: (INAUDIBLE) democracy. Yes, that's right.

SCIUTTO: Danny Cevallos, you're apparently a pretty smart law student from what I can tell.

CEVALLOS: My classmates out there are saying Cevallos is talking about the Supreme Court. I was - like many law students, I was a huge fan of the Supreme Court and of Scalia, whether you liked him or disagreed with him, he was a huge, an intellectual giant.

SCIUTTO: No question with a big legacy. Danny Cevallos, thanks so much.

As the fighting in Syria rages on, a war of words is happening a world away. U.S. and Russian diplomats exchanging accusations during a meeting in Germany aimed at peace in Syria.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:43:17]

SCIUTTO: In Munich this week, the U.S., Russia and other members of the international Syria support group agreed do a cessation of hostilities in Syria. That has not applied to the rhetoric coming from U.S. and Russian diplomats. Earlier today, Senator John McCain criticized Russia's intervention in Syria nearly five years after the war there started.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Russia has indiscriminately bombed civilians and moderate opposition groups for months with impunity. U.S. intelligence leaders have stated publicly that Russia's intervention has stabilized the Assad regime and helped it get back on the offensive. And now as we sit here today, Syrian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian forces are accelerating their siege of Aleppo. It is no accident that Mr. Putin has agreed on a cessation of hostilities when he did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: McCain's comments come a day after Russia's prime minister spoke of what he called a renewed cold war between his country and the west. Let's discuss this with Gayle Tzemach Lemmon. She is a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations. Gayle, great to have you on today on this Sunday.

You've seen the situation firsthand in Syria. You were just recently down at the border with Turkey talking to refugees. The cessation of hostilities in your view and from what you've seen on the ground, how much of a difference will this make?

GAYLE TZEMACH LEMMON, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS: If it were actually to hold it would make a difference, but it's very hard to find a lot of people who think that it will hold. The first thing people were talking to me about was the Russian air strikes and in fact one young activist broke out his phone and showed me video that he had shot of the hole in the ground where his family's home used to be that was hit by air strikes in December. And they asked where is the world, we're getting bombed in our homes, where is the world?

[19:45:10]

SCIUTTO: Now, let me ask you specific to U.S. policy there. I've spoken to officials in the region who have frankly lost respect for the U.S. role there and I'm curious what people say on the ground. For instance when they hear U.S. officials criticizing Russia for those air strikes or demanding a stop to those air strikes, or saying they're engaged. Do people believe the message?

LEMMON: I think post red line there was a lot of discussion among, particularly, the young democracy activists who really thought that there was going to be an international intervention on their behalf. Look, all along the Obama administration has struggled with this question of can you guarantee that whatever intervention America does have in the region wouldn't make it worse.

And nobody could say with 100 percent certainty that it wouldn't. And so the policy has been containment and we are seeing the limits of that. And what you hear among young people and now older people who have become refugees in their 40s, 50s, 60s is that the world has really abandoned us and the U.S. says that there's no military answer to this. But Russia is changing the facts on the ground every single day through military means.

SCIUTTO: Brett McGirk, the head of the president's point man in effect, on the fight against ISIS - he said on the hill last week that the Russian activity has not only helped the Assad regime but it is taking resources away from the fight against ISIS because U.S. allies on the ground, Kurdish forces, the U.S. has been backing with air strikes have diverted from fighting ISIS to now fighting regime forces in and around Aleppo. Is that what you're seeing? And how does the administration get around that? Because this is a case where it is actually hurting U.S. priorities on the ground. Fighting ISIS.

LEMMON: Right, and the fight against ISIS when you talk to folks is obviously urgent and certainly from the American perspective it is paramount. But the fight against Assad is always the one that folks on the ground will talk to you about first, right? So the thing is that people really do feel like they are being made sitting ducks in their homes now, in ways that they weren't before. And that whatever happens in Aleppo will have to grab the world's attention in a way that the Syria crisis hasn't. Jim, you know, you've reported on the conflict for years and years and the world has been willing to watch a low level of conflict now it evolve into a conflict that involves a number of major powers that are talking about sending in ground troops. Sending in more air cover. The question is will the world be able to stop this conflict before it escalates even further?

SCIUTTO: So you have a cessation of hostilities, which sadly has a number of players, party to the conflict who are not covered by the cessation of hostilities, Russian air strikes, for instance, continuing what are the chances - I know this is an impossible question - but for the players involved do they see this ceasefire, this pause, as having a chance of laying the groundwork for a diplomatic solution?

LEMMON: So administration officials I think were, said look, this is one of probably many conversations that we're going to have. It's a step. It's not the step. I think the fact that people were having a conversation about a cessation of hostilities, was seen as positive by some players on the ground.

But some of those rebels have been saying listen, you know, why should we lay down when our arms when they are hitting us from the sky and not only that, I mean aid organizations are now saying that actually things have gotten worse on the ground since the cessation of hostilities was announced. So there's so much carnage, Jim.

I mean the population of New York has become refugees, four million people. Close to 10 million people displaced. More or less you know, Los Angeles plus New York who has lost their homes here in Syria. And so I think that there's a lot of cynicism and wait and see on the ground and there's a real question as to who actually should be ceasing hostilities and whether we will see civilians who have been caught in the crosshairs so much get a break in terms of things stopping falling on their homes from the sky.

SCIUTTO: The scale of suffering just overwhelming, Gayle Tzemach Leemon, thank you for joining us.

They put their politics aside and remain friends for decades. Today justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is morning the loss of her best buddy on the bench, Antonin Scalia. We'll have more after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:52:42]

SCIUTTO: Justice Antonin Scalia shared a unique even surprising friendship with his ideological polar opposite on the bench. He and Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved to wine and dine together. Even they took vacations overseas.

Our Pamela Brown filed this piece one year ago about their unlikely friendship.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCALIA: Why don't you call us the odd couple?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two polar opposite legal minds with the closest friendship on the bench. SCALIA: What's not to like? Except her views of the law.

BROWN: Sharing a laugh about Ginsburg's sleeping habits. At the State of the Union.

RUTH BADEN GINSBURG, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: The audience for the most part (inaudible) because they are bopping up and down all the time. And we sit there, stone face (inaudible) judges. At least I wasn't 100 percent sober. Because before we went to the State of the Union, we had dinner together and Justice Kennedy brought in -

SCALIA: Well, that's the first intelligent thing you have done.

GINSBURG: So I got a call and when I came home from one of my granddaughters and she said, "Babi (ph), you were sleeping at the State of the Union."

BROWN: The sharp (INAUDIBLE) 81-year-old even admitted she had some occasional help staying awake from now retired Justice David Souter.

GINSBURG: He had an acute sense of when I was about - and so he would give me pinch.

BROWN: Ginsburg nicknamed notorious RBG and Scalia known as Nino, have long been vacationed together with their families.

Scalia admiring his pint size partner's taste for adventure.

SCALIA: And Ruth, honest to goodness, went up behind a motor boat in a -

GINSBURG: Parasail.

SCALIA: Yes. She is so light you would think she would never come down.

BROWN: Their political differences an elephant in the room. They aren't afraid to confront or ride as they did in India.

[19:55:01]

GINSBURG: That was a rather bumpy ride.

SCALIA: And some of her feminist friends gave me a hard time or her a hard time because she rode behind me on the elephant. Big deal. I'm not kidding.

GINSBURG: The driver explained it was a matter of distribution of weight.

BROWN: Pamela Brown, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Thanks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: We have not forgotten that today is Valentine's day. So we're going to take a moment to show you some animals are who are learning to love again.

CNN digital caught up with a group called Farm Sanctuary which rescues thousands of animals from neglect and cruelty.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSIE COSTON, FARM SANCTUARY: With any animal, all, all they ever really need is to feel like they're loved and then they feel safe and secure. So they're like everyone else. You just need love, right? And somebody to jump on.

They know that you're doing something good and they know that there is such a massive difference from where they were and where they are now. We see them at their very worst. Trembling, not making eye contact. Putting their head in a corner. It's just this absolute fear. Like clearly once they calm down. This is not fear. When the babies get used to us, then she'll start to trust us. What it gets to take these animals to learn to love again is a lot of patience and time and just allowing them to be themselves and kind of reading what they need. So they can see that it's OK.

Isn't that ridiculous?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Visit the group's web site at farmsanctuary.org to find out how you can help.