tv Washington Journal Kimberly Robinson CSPAN December 8, 2021 11:15pm-11:41pm EST
this morning kimberly robinson, supreme court reporter with bloomberg law. kimberly robinson, the president to set up a white house commission to investigate possible structural changes to the supreme court. remind our viewers what led to thiswe commission. >> guest: that depends on who you ask. i do think that part of what was behind appointing the commission
was some of what we've seen surrounding the supreme court the past few in years in particular in 2016 the majority leader mitch mcconnell held open the seed to saying o that it was an election year and who is going to pick the next supreme court justice but then fast forward to just last year when the republicans filled the seat despite it was just a month away so i think there was a lot of angst from progress moves prs surrounding those circumstances and so we pushed to make some changes to be more responsive as the american voters desires to see who goes on the supreme
court. we had this report as kind of a way to kick the can down the road so that president biden who doesn't seem to see the changes can kind of weight before making any decisions. >> the commission approved on a final vote of this report. what were the highlights of it? >> i think it's important to note that it wasn't meant to make any recommendation to adopt any changes so there's not any recommendations that they areth imposing term limits. instead it's more of a tool for congress to be writing legislation. so it's really more of a book report to highlight what are the pros and cons of the different proposals. >> what happens next, what will
the president do? >> the white house press secretary doesn't really know what's going to happen. the president will review the support and there's no expectation of what's going to follow next and to do some of those structural changes like legislation in congress or a push to adopt a constitutional amendment i do think that there's going to be some pressure in that way. >> on expanding the court although there is widespread agreement among the legal scholars that congress has the constitutional authority to expand there is profound disagreements on the court expansion at this moment in time would be wise. we do not seek to evaluate or judge the weight of the
arguments into the commission takes no position on the wisdom of expansion. profound disagreement, explain. >> expanding the number of the justices in the court is one of the easiest things that can be accomplished. it's one of the least agreed-upon things and then we take the flip side of that for the conservatives and progressives and that's one of the hardest things to do and one of the things that emerged from the report. what do we do if we are looking from a progressive standpoint
when a conservative is in office is it going to get to the point we have the justices on the supreme court and what is good to be the long-term implication of the court. >> what proposals were given on term limits? the principal proposal that has the purchase having staggered 18 year terms where he there's two appointments per term. but whether or not that can be done by a legislation or if it's going to take a constitutional
amendment. as well as action by the supreme court and oral arguments into the cases that are before the high court this term. republican (202)748-8001. the democrats (202)748-8000 and independent, 748-8002. you can also text, include your first name, city and state. what was the overall reaction and the first commissions charged they will point out it doesn't always speak well for
the justices heard last week one of the key cases in the term what do you think the outcome could be? >> guest: the supreme court would come up with this kind of middle ground the kind of chip away at it. the responses from either side then the more conservative justices there's no middle ground.d. or overturn it.
>> during the court on that argument. >> i think we have a pretty good idea w about kind of the most conservative justices and i was looking in particular to justices cavanaugh to the trump appointees once this question to overturn roe v wade so we have some concerns about whether or not there is a burden of planned parenthood and under the safe haven laws and where the constitution is on this question so that seems to overturn. >> host: north carolina, democratic caller.
>> caller: i am old enough to remember when khrushchev said we would take over america by using your own laws against you. mcconnell put in over 300 judges up and down the appellate court circuit court and the supreme court wouldn't even present. people don't realize when she says we are originalists like all of the conservative judges. they think it should be written hard and well and never changed. it's not a living document.
they want to do away with every program including social security and medicare. do they not realize that, and as as roberts, the first thing they did is pass citizens united. i am not sorry. corporations are not people. i h feel like we've been overthrown. >> host: go ahead. >> guest: i think the justices very much had that in mind and
the supreme court's were in that democracy and the actions to the cases played into this are so different and so i think this is a really good example of that. it is at stake if it is a political institution that changes the process at the time that's going to be a blow. on the flipside, overturning roe is crucial to the legitimacy. it should be turned over to the people and given back to the state so the legitimacy is playing on the minds of the
justices. >> caller: i think that the court should be expanded to more justices. we had a partisan republican court that doesn't believe in the constitution. they are not for the constitution and what we need is more justices that can bring to the table more opinions from the american people. our views are not even considered. they are in there for life and they could care less about whether or not we believe in
them. right now the majority don't believe in the supreme court. i believe the professor from harvard university has it right. we need at least six justices and term limits and the term limits should bee at least 18 years, no more. that way they would think hard -- >> host: sorry about that, don't know what happened there. >> guest: we started off the conversation talking about the white house commission and i think there's a lot of support behind the idea.
it would make them think hard and fast about what the public thinks. so the judges can make hard decisions like desegregation which is deeply unpopular providing them it does give some kind of protection and there are concerns doing away with that with something like term limits. >> host: democratic caller, you are up next. >> caller: i'm calling is a statement into question. at the legitimacy of the court and its historical perspectives. my question is can you name any
particular caseses in which the supreme court justices of the united states or recused and how that can be done about the ethics code and listeners may be surprised to know the justices are not bound by any ethics code but they consult for other federal judges it does recommend the supreme court or congress adopts an opinion that would go tot these issues that did pop p
from time to time at the supreme court. as an alternative in the courtroom the court could continue his current practice of live streaming audio of arguments given the long-standing opposition to a continuation of simultaneous audio would be a step towards enabling the media and interested members of the bar to followd the work. but then it seems they've been
hearing arguments remotely, they eyreturned to the court that the continues to be live streaming that allows the public to hear in andnd so it's gone off pretty well. it's got to be hard for the justices to roll that back and they do come around to cameras in the courtroom. that's probably notot going to happen. a.ob >> a democratic call in washington, d.c.,. welcomed to the conversation. >> one of the reasons for thinking about changes, it appears partisan these days as opposed to being an independent body it doesn't seem to be like a war in court as you mentioned
the segregation was on the popular but they made the right decision constitutionally. a supreme court that's put forth united about the campaign finances and also persons property can be taken for a greater private good and ier wonder sometimes whether or not the court did more partisan is it just a perception of the american people, did they make a finding regarding that that there is some need to make changes to the court because of what seems to be a lack of independence of the body of the supreme court itself.
this is one of the big plans from the commission. while some may differ on how they see politics playing into it i think as a whole. the commission as a whole takes the opinion that isn't a political institution going around in the various speeches that they give me. they are motivated by the judicial style.
rape and incest is number one that if you can't get an abortion on either one of them you figure a child that's raped by a father or an outsider it's ridiculous that you cannot get an abortion. i'm against that wholeheartedly you should be able to get that through rape and incest i don't care if it's a child or a woman, there should be something done about that. with of these exceptions that states have two and act with regards to rape or incest as you mentioned they shouldn't have to
appeal so the supreme court is not going to get into whether or not the specific exceptions will be required and answering the question about the states or fundamental right. >> that is just my opinion. term limits i don't know if i would agree with that. and the supreme court i think is it should stay the way it is.