Our top story on Midday Edition the repercussions of death Antonin Scalia or being felt from Capitol Hill to the campaign trip appeared to 79 died of natural causes on Saturday at a resort in Texas. Justice Scalia was on the Supreme Court for 30 years becoming a strong conservative voice on the court and the man who called himself the originalist and his views on the Constitution. He was spam is for his blunt questioning during Supreme Court arguments and his sometimes scathing language in traditional pinions. He was also the central figure of the conservative voting block on the court which is why name and his replacement has quickly become a major political issue. Earlier today I spoke with Samuel Hopkin a professor of political science and an author of the candidate, what it takes to win and hold the White House. Peers that interview. Seminal pop can think of the joining us. Two the pleasure is always to be speaking with you. When else print court justice dies, after inappropriate time of mourning, the president nominates a new justice to the court. But many Republicans are saying that is not what should happen this time. Can you explain that for us next well, there is a lot of stress and strain, even more than usual for a presidential gear in the Republican Party right now. And any decision to hold hearings would put some Republicans at high risk in the election. Some senators in particular, either for opposing or supporting a nominee. And the safest way for the party to proceed and still a very risky way, is to job aligned in the sand and say there is no one Obama to the scope Obama can nominate worth talking about. Two has this type of delay ever happened before when there has been a vacancy in the court? There is always storm got a port at the end of the term cop honest prima court appointment when there are so many important cases, it is unusual. I am never going to say never in American politics, at the last appointment going back to school he in Ginsberg etc., whether they were confirmed or not, it's usually within three months everything is settled. I have heard some Republican saying the same thing has happened when LBJ, nominated Abe fortis. That was turned down. It turned out there was a small, there was a very Siskel impropriety in payment as a Justin's from a foundation. And that had taken a lot of time. But that how long it has been since anything has to happen. How important Sam is the Supreme Court nomination to conservatives? Is everything. Because they have been counting on the five Because they have been counting on the 54 court to save them from unpopular positions by saying our position is constitutional, whether everybody likes it or not. And every one of the cases that were Scalia would be a 54 boat, I think one exception is almost certainly known to go the way that Democrats want. Because when a court at his honk at four for the lower courts order holds. And in every case of a controversy along, the lower court with one exception has gone the Democratic way. On mandatory fees for public service union, on issues about accommodations for people who want birth-control copper work for religious organizations. You go down the list, and the death of Scalia has hurt badly. The Republican prayers, or peeling them out. Do you see room for compromise on this between the president and the Senate? I think that even compromise, just this week, the three largest papers in Texas came out broadsides against Sen. crews, urging everyone in Texas to bow, in my case for John Kasich and for Jed Bush. This is a divided party. Anything they do will really increase the internal bloodshed. And I think Sen. McConnell has made a mistake by being so open about it. But I think what he had to do is make it clear there is no one in hearings. So therefore, do you see this battle moving on the battle over this vacancy become a central issue in the general election? Some Republicans will want that and some will play that does not happen -- pray. What about the Democrats? I think from the point of view of the Democrats, the battle is not much more good than bad. Because immigration is open, birth-control, all sorts of issues with her popular side is not the Republican side. This is not always the case. I want to make it clear, it is often the other way around but this happens to be a time when a very large number of suits were brought up as Hail Marys to rescue popular positions. Remember the Republican war when the Supreme Court said, yes all states have to recognize gay marriages, and when they said the bad grammar does not invalidate the state getting their Medicaid extension. All of the issues were once were prayer that the Supreme Court would save them. And it is because of the split in the party. Now there are 24 Republican Senate seats up for election this year. And most of them where there is a battleground. And the last thing these people need is opposition to a reasonable candidate by the tea party. Therefore call you fear the name of judge Judge St., Boston of the DC circuit who was just recently confirmed bipartisan in the United States Senate for that position. If someone like that, a compromise candidate will put forward by Pres. Obama, do think of reluctance of the Senate to go on a Supreme Court nominee would have an impact on those races and those purple states? From the point of view from the Republicans majority in the Senate, the question is is it worth to let the purple 24 bow on it, or to force the others to defend it, in their elections? Is a very bad situation for the party. Right now, to people are praying never win an election are having well over 60% of the votes. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The prayer for Casey Corr Bush or bark or will be oh to somehow paper this over, is being heard every day on the Wall Street Journal, the national conservative magazines, world magazine among the angelic calls, national review, Buckley magazine, weekly standard. This is a very powerful defied, as bad as when the Republicans were divided and George Wallace letter walkout. This sort of a risky strategy for the conservatives in the Republican Party because if the Senate does delay the bow, and the Democrat wins the White House and if the Senate were to go Democratic, there is a chance that not a compromise candidate would be port for Porter Supreme Court by true liberal will take over Scalia's seat. Now that is a big risk? B yes yes. They would do exactly what you said. But you, the party is not a corporation with the doors, the only people who get to say or the Congressman, and the Senators. And they are not willing to take a chance on the future of the party if it hurts them right now. I have one last question for you Sam, I know that you have worked as a consultant for candidates in the past, are you working for any candidate in this election cycle? No I am not, I am just writing about the election at this time. I am a Democrat but I am not engaged in any campaign. Smack you are just watching on the sidelines this time. Yes I am. It is amazing to see the Republicans more bitterly divided been the Democrats were in the 70s 1970s. They are the ones knocking off incumbents and dividing themselves between almost good enough and purity. It is an extraordinary thing to see go the other way. I have been speaking with several Hopkin, and author of the candidate, what it takes to win and hold the White House. Sam, thank you. I pleasure. Smith joining me now is Glenn Smith, California Western school of Law. The death of Antonin Scalia is a title way for constitutional jurors. It is. He was a very powerful proponent of an approach to interpreting the Constitution, focusing on original intent but plain meaning of texts that have fallen into disfavor. He almost single-handedly through his to some extent of his writings on the court copper even more, his speaking and his books, and his books becoming really the senior statesman's of this position it made a big difference, both on and off the court. Can you encapsulate what that means being an originalist when it comes to the Constitution? It means first of all, you are basic job is to figure out what the intent of the drafters of that Constitution provision or statute was. It does not mean some type of hidden intent but some Republican intent. He said before being an originalist, he was a textual us, he wants to try to figure out with the plain meaning of language is. And follow it where it leads. Occasionally by the way it leads to liberal, pro-defendant results. And that is one of interesting twists on the Scalia legacy. There is a popular procession that Scalia had an impact on the ontology of the supreme chart shipping it to the right would you agree with that? He certainly is the author of some majority opinions that did make some significant ships in pre-speech costuming gun rights and free exercise. I think that he didn't as much though, lead the core in a different direction as lead the conversation that affected the core and affected lots of people in the body politic and public officials. People in another area that I cover, statutory interpretation, many people think he didn't alter the results in the case as much as he has altered the way the court argued about it and the justice is defendant results. He shifted the focus onto plain meaning of words and what the dictionary and definition is, those types of things, more than will have been the reigning Orthodox before. Now there are some very big cases of poor decision before the High Court this year, which ones do you think Scalia step will affect the most? The one that is the biggest clear of fact, and the clearest impact from California, is the challenge to California's law that allows public employee unions to assess nonmembers. The cost of their winning benefits for those nonmembers. That had already been argued before the court, and it seemed on the chopping block. 54 if the court decides to affirm a bite in equally divided phone, it will be a major sigh of relief for California and for public employee unions. Did that threaten the power of unions to raise money across the country? Definitely affected their ability to function and depending on how broadly the opinion was written, the court overruled a past present, anything those unions did was inherently political, could have a huge effect and stepping back from unions in general. Since the successful unions these days are public employees. The union movement in general was really feeling a lot of phone mobility, which it does not face at this point. By the way, if the court decides the case for four, to what is called of farming by an equally divided court. I said if because there is the option and some of these cases can hold them over for argument -- the argument before a new justice appointed to the court. Of course whether they are willing to do so depends on the gifts and permutations that Sam Hopkin in Utah talked about earlier third we have the top order by the president, that is also one that we thought might be divided by 50. There is one where the ninth circuit and public employee case ruled for California and unions. Failing to the first that keeps a liberal status quo. In the top of case is the opposite. Both against the ministration. The only hope for the administration to revitalize this immigration policy of importance to 4+ million people, is to get the court to hear the case and reversed the lower court. And that seems gone. That is one case, as well as the Texas abortion case, where it seems like Scalia's death.if there is a 44 that would lock in a conservative opinion below. Let's talk as we have print, little bit more but the technical aspects of having a vacancy on the US Supreme Court and having just eight justices. Does that mean that it is some obviously ties, but if it is like a 53 decision, does that ruling stand? All it definitely stands. If it is 523 or even 62 or whatever, it would represent a majority of the them binding precedent. That is why, law professors, and court watchers love to speculate about these cases and how they are going. Even on the defecates in theory, you can get Justice Kennedy aligning with the four more administration supports on immigration. You can get a 53 decision or even at six to opinion like last year's save of the Obama care law, where Justice Kennedy and justice Roberts went along. These are the cases that are most likely to be 44. But nothing is set and I and many others will be watching within the next few months to see how the courts, not only response to the particular issues of these cases, but how is responding to the broader political situation. Are they likely to get a new justice anytime soon, are we going to wait until next week spring? The core after already granting, I forget how you say it, to these cases. Can they say we will not bow on them until we have a full nine court justice? They generally do not say, what they would do. I am not aware of precedence is that say we will put the rest of the term on hold. But since we are toward the end of world argument there are a lot of cases where there are argument, and in the past have put cases that have been already argued, over for on hold for the argument. In fact of Brown versus Board of Education, the court we argued it, and then allow the new chief justice to come in and put together unanimous coalition. And in the past where there have been justices who died or retired, and there looked like there would be a successor in a few months, the court has put over for argument. That is a possibility. It is interesting as it is one of those issues where there are no formal rules about it or procedures, is more about tradition and the court has a fair amount flexibility. We'll be watching for that too. Mick talking about formal procedures, talking with Samuel about what traditionally happens after Supreme Court justice is see is vacated. But is the Senate caught if the president does nominate someone to replace Justice Scalia, is the Senate obligated to bow on that person? Is an interesting question, one where most constitutional questions are arguments to be made. The language of the Constitution says Pres. shall nominate and shall appoint. But it doesn't say the says Senate shall deliberate. I certainly ain't that, especially a good originals, and a conservative, who thinks that the Constitution needs to be protected and not vulnerable, and with things that if you look at the original term of the framers, they did not anticipate this type of political gameplaying going gone, would be more likely to conclude there is an obligation. But I would say even if there is not formidable constitutional obligation, there is a moral and system obligation for the Congress to respond. They can both the nomination down but this idea that they are going to not go in and not have hearings, I think, shows ironically disrespect for the kind of institution that they are now justice Scalia. Will there be actual repercussions if indeed there is a vacancy on the court for nearly one year? Yes the repercussions that these cases have been argue it and others that come through the pipeline, and which might split 524 would be very difficult for the court and a very closely divided issue, and some of the most important criminal and civil constitutional issues and statutory questions will likely divide that way. That would make it very hard for the court to render decisive and definitive guidance. And we do not know what issues might come up with in that time. Third exactly. The point is it is a bit? With a lot of inside the Beltway and outside the bed -- Beltway speculation. Just think it would be better if a way can be found not to throw the court. It is important for the court to have continuity and have vacancies, not going on a non-. Not linger. Yes. Stomach I've been speaking with Glenn Smith, Western school of Law. Thank you.
The sudden death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia could have a major impact on California politics.
The court heard oral arguments this term in the Friedrichs case, which examines whether the California Teachers Association can require nonmembers to pay fees.
Based on oral arguments, many court watchers thought the justices would vote 5-to-4 against the union. If Scalia's death leaves a 4-4 split, the court would have to either delay the case until a new justice is confirmed — or let the lower court ruling stand.
Capital Public Radio's Ben Adler points out the lower court sided with the teachers union.
"And so you can see here that the death of Justice Scalia has the potential to turn this union case — and by extension the powerful union politics in California — completely upside down."
Another case Californians are watching involves President Obama's executive actions on immigration. If the Supreme Court deadlocks on that case, the states challenging the president would win — and his executive orders would be declared unconstitutional.
