A vacancy battle on the Supreme Court at this stage of an Election Year. We learned late yesterday of the sudden and tragic death of Supreme CourtJustice Antonin Scalia. An intellectual and conservative thought leader, a man president obama last night called one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court. Scalias death of course is a personal tragedy for his family and colleagues, but it is also bursting with Major Political implications. What will his loss due to the balance of power on the court . Will the Republican Senate even consider someone nominated by president obama . How long will this vacancy paralyze the court, and perhaps the u. S. Senate . And at last nights republican president ial debate in South Carolina the candidates made clear where they stand on this issue. I do not believe the president should appoint someone. And its not unprecedented. Theres no doubt in my mind that barack obama will not have a consensus pick. The senate needs to stand strong and say were not going to give up the u. S. Supreme court for a generation. I think its up to mitch its called delay, delay, delay. Were going to hear from four of the leading republican president ial candidates this morning, donald trump, ted cruz, marco rubio and john kasich. The Democratic Candidates meanwhile were also quick to respond to the vacancy. Supreme court of the United States has nine members, not eight. We need that ninth member. Elections have consequences. The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice. And the senate has a responsibility to vote. Well also be taking a close look at the democratic race and how Hillary Clintons team is working overtime to try to turn this contest from being a referendum on her to a referendum on Bernie Sanders. A lot to get to, but we start with the impact and the implications of scalias death nobody better to join me on this than our justice correspondent pete williams. Pete, welcome back, sir. Let me ask very quickly, were in the middle of some contentious cases on the Supreme Court now. What happens right now . The most one with political implications is the immigration decision. Right. When you have eight justices it creates the possibility of a 44 tie. When theres a tie its as though the Supreme Court decision doesnt count, the Lower Court Ruling stands and the Supreme Court decision has no president ial value. So for the immigration policy it would be a defeat for the administration because it would leave standing the Lower Court Rulings that blocked it. For such abortion question which is coming, it would leave the tough texas restriction on access to abortion clinics standing. Might encourage other states to try the same thing. For Public Sector unions though it might be a victory because they won in the lower courts, defeating an effort to try to restrict their ability to raise union dues. All right. We are headed for the potential of if the president wants to nominate somebody, hes made the Republican Controlled Senate doesnt want to consider it. Its possible terms of the Supreme Court begin in october and end in june. Right. So at this point under this scenario we might go an entire term, october of 16 through june of 17 without a Supreme Court justice because even if the next president appoints it takes time to get through the process. Two haugt ethoughts, majority decisions are not close votes. The court will continue functioning and do a lot of its business. It does raise the possibility that you wont get what only the Supreme Court can provide, and that is the final answer. Only the Supreme Court can resolve these things for once and forever. So a lot of these things will just have to keep coming back until the Supreme Court gets the right combination to make the decision. Scalia, the way cases are heard, once theyre heard, theres an immediate vote that takes place among the nine justice. Thats right. Does scalias vote count posthumously . No, not unless the decision the rule is votes can shift and opinions can change, you have to be present for your vote to count. I want you to talk about one candidate i think we may see nominated. Its a judge by the name of merrick garland. If theres a Republican Senate, this is a guy they think they can get through the Republican Senate. Hes considered more moderate than other liberal justices, why . Because of his record, experience in the justice department, widely respected. I mean, the thing is now president s tend to want younger nominees. If you look at the most recent trend, theyre nominating people in their 50s. Thats not merrick garland, but hes the right kind of ideology. All right. Pete williams, going to be a busy 18 months for you on this confirmation process, i think. Indeed. Joining me now is the first of four republican president ial candidates who are on with us this morning. Its donald trump. Mr. Trump, welcome back to meet the press. Good morning. Let me ask you first on the doyou have a litmus test . Do you have a litmus test on row v. Wade . Citizens united when it comes to who you might appoint to the Supreme Court should you become president . Well, i think we have some great people out there. Diane sikes from wisconsin from what everybody tells me would be outstanding. We need a conservative person. I think that certainly we have some great people. We lost one of the greats. Id like to have the person tailored to be just like Justice Scalia, Justice Scalia was truly a great judge. And respected by all. Both sides. Thats what i mean, how will you determine that . How will you determine whether you got somebody well, i mean, look, you never know what happens, chuck. You look at where a guy like ted cruz pushed very hard for Justice Roberts. Everyone thought that was wonderful. And Justice Roberts let everybody down by approving obamacare, twice. I mean, he really did let us down. Thats largely cruzs fault and the bush fault because they put the wron guy in there. That was a shocking decision. So, you know, you never really but at the time he looked okay. But hes that was a ted cruz mistake because he pushed him very hard. Look, we need great intellect. We need i say absolutely conservative. But i think the real plan for it would be Somebody Just like Justice Scalia. All right. I want to move on to the debate last night. By the way which is hard to find. Yeah, i think a lot of con terve sieve servetives will agree with you. I want to go to the debate last night. Your 2008 comments about george w. Bush were brought up and this idea that you were surprised at the time that thenspeaker pelosi had ruled out impeachment. Did you believe that and i just want to clarify this, did you believe that there was enough there to bring up impeachment proceedings against george w. Bush in 2008 over iraq . No. I was in the private sector, so i didnt think about it too much. But certainly the war in iraq was a disaster. No, not to be impeached, but the he just made a mistake. We went into iraq, we lost thousands of lives but you dont believe its an Impeachable Offense now . You were implying it might be in 2008. Well, thats for other people to say. Look, that is for other people to say. I can say this, it may not have been impeachable because it was a mistake. I think it was a mistake. But it was a horrible mistake. Number one, there were no weapons of mass destruction. So did they know there werent or not . That would tell you something right there. But there were no weapons of mass destruction. Chuck, the war in iraq was a disaster. We end up with absolutely nothing. Iran is taking over iraq as we sit here right now. And as sure as you can be iran is doing pretty well worldwide. They take 150 billion, we get nothing. Theyre taking over iraq. Theyre getting the oil. It was a disasterous decision the war in iraq and you were saying president bush lied. How do you know he lied about wmd . I think that people knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. I think they wanted to go in there. I think they thought it would have been easier. They didnt prosecute the war well. It wasnt well prosecuted and they ended up getting i mean, leaving. Now, i have to say he made a mistake getting in. And im the only one on the stage that said we should not go into iraq. That the war in iraq is a mistake. Everyone else said, oh, you know, all the other people on stage i should get points for vision. Because everybody let me pause you there. Chuck, it took right. Let me pause you it took jeb bush five days wait a minute. It took jeb bush five days to say that the iraq war was a mistake. He went back and forth, back and forth. Then finally his pollster told him what he had to say. But jeb bush then he admitted it was a mistake. I mean, look, hes got no chance anyway, but it almost cost him well, i want to for what its worth politifact that has never been able to find, none of us have been able to find any instance where before the invasion you came out against this war. Why is that . Well, i did it in 2003. I said it before dont forget, i wasnt a politician. So people didnt write everything i said. I was a business person. I was as they say world class business person. I built a great company. I employ thousands of people. So im not a politician, but if you look at 2003 there are articles, if you look at 2004, there are articles in fact i saw somebody commenting on it last night that trump really was against the war. I was against it look, im the most militaristic person, im going to build the military bigger, better, stronger, hopefully well never have to use it, but nobodys going to mess with us. But i will say this, the war in iraq, it was a mistake. Anybody would have realized iran and iraq they used to fight. Theyd go back, forth. Chuck, you destabilize the middle east, im the only one that called. You made it clear that you wanted to remind people that 9 11 happened, i believe you used the phrase, during george bushs reign. Do you believe that george bush kept america safe . No. Because the World Trade Center was knocked down. Look, thats another myth. I wish he did. I have nothing against him. I dont know him. I dont know that i dont think i ever even met him. I dont think i did meet him. I have nothing against george bush. Im just saying when jeb bush gets up and says my brother kept us safe. How did he keep us safe when the world trade during his time in office, i lost many, many friends that was the worst tragedy in the history of this country. Worse than pearl harbor because they attacked civilians. They attacked people in office buildings. And you think george w. Bush could have prevented this . Well, according to if you go back, you will see the cia and other agencies had information that bad things were going to happen. Should have known. They were not talking to each other. There was total disassociation. They didnt like each other, all of the different agencies were a mess. They were fighting with each other. Absolutely they should have known. They should have known something. Osama bin laden hey, look, i wrote about Osama Bin Laden in 2000 in a book. I was talking about Osama Bin Laden. If i know about Osama Bin Laden just by seeing press and seeing, you know, whats going on, why wouldnt the president of the United States know about Osama Bin Laden . Well, let me ask you this. In South Carolina as you know, george w. Bush is popular among republicans. You are this is a risky stralt strategy. You called him a liar last night about wmd and you essentially said you would have been okay i didnt call him a liar. I didnt call anybody a liar. Well, you called ted cruz a liar. Chuck, i said maybe there were lies because, look, the weapons of mass destruction they said they existed and they didnt exist. Now, it was his group that said destruction. Thats why we went in. Thats why so many people got hoodwinked into going into iraq. Then they go in there, they searched high and dry. They looked all over. Destruction. Turned out that there were absolutely not no weapons of mass destruction. I dont know. If you lose South Carolina, do you think the game change moment people will point to is what happened last night and what you said about george w. Bush . But if you win, does this prove that the Republican Party is rejecting bush . No, i dontthink so. I think theyre rejecting the war in iraq. The war in iraq is a disaster. I have a great relationship with South Carolina and the people. Ive known them for a long time. Ive been there many times. I have great relationships there. Theyre very smart people. They understand that the war in iraq is a disaster and was a disaster. It totally destabilized the middle east. When you look at the migration, when you look at all of the now, it all started with the war in iraq. And you know what, we got nothing. We have absolutely nothing. Iran is getting the whole deal. Mr. Trump, i have to leave it there. Little short on time this morning. I look forward to speaking with you again soon, i hope. Thanks for congresswoman iming on and stay safe on the trail. Thank you very much. Moments ago i spoke to senator ted cruz of texas. And i began asking him about how he might go about replacing Justice Antonin Scalia on the court. Let me go to litmus tests, do you have them for potential Supreme Court justices . Well, my litmus test for any Supreme Court justice is whether he or she will faithfully apply the constitution to the law. Its not a specific issue. It is rather a jurs prudential approach. The only way to determine that is if they have a proven record, if they have spent years demonstrating theyll be faithful to the law. Thats the job of a justice. Its what liberal activists dont do. Instead legislate from the bench. A perfect example of that is Justice Scalia. Justice scalia was a lion of the Supreme Court. He was one of the greatest Supreme Court justices in history. Spent three decades on the court. But before he was on the court he was a law professor for many, many years. He was a court of appeals judge. He had a long proven record so you knew exactly what you were getting with Justice Scalia. I knew Justice Scalia for 20 years. Is this the mistake you think was made with john roberts . Of course it is. You were a big supporter of him, but in hindsight youre not. Is that because you think that he didnt have a track record . He didnt have a track record. And i would not have nominated john roberts. Once george bush nominated him, i supported the nomination as a republican nominee, but i would have nominated my former boss, a court of appeals judge, Justice Scalias very first law clerk and had a long proven track record. And, chuck, just as ronald Antonin Scalia was to the Supreme Court. He had that big an impact. And i think his passing yesterday really underscores the stakes of this election. We are facing our fundamental rights in a balance. Let me ask you, does the United States senate have an obligation to at least consider a nomination that president obama puts forward . I understand that you guys dont want it. And you would prefer to let the but doesnt the United States have an obligation to at least go through the process and have an up or down vote . Not remotely. Why . It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an Election Year. There is a long tradition that you dont do this in an Election Year. And what this means, chuck, is we ought to make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court. I cannot wait to stand on that debate stage with Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and talk about what the Supreme Court will look like depending on who wins. Sanders wins, or for that matter if donald trump wins whose record is indistinguishable from them on a great many issues, then we will see the Second Amendment written out of the constitution. Another thing well see, and this is very relevant, for conservatives in South Carolina, if donald trump is the nominee, or if Hillary Clinton is the president , we will see unlimited abortion on demand throughout this country. Partial birth abortion, taxpayer f