tv Washington Journal 10152021 CSPAN October 15, 2021 6:59am-10:06am EDT
view of government. we are sponsored by these cable companies including mediacom. mediacom support c-span as a public service giving you a friend proceed to democracy. >> here on c-span washington journal is next to live with your thumb calls and headlines from -- phone calls and headlines. later a house natural resources subcommittee looks at dropped conditions affecting the colorado river -- drought
conditions affecting the colorado river. later ben williams from the national conference of state legislators joins us to talk about how states are purchasing -- approaching state redistricting efforts. ♪ host: good morning. a presidential commission is getting ready to meet this morning to consider a variety of proposals aimed at overhauling the supreme court. these include proposals to reduce term limits and increase the number of justices. what reforms would you support?
republicans, (202) 748-8001 is the number. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. a very good friday morning to you. you can start calling in with your suggestions for the supreme court. some information on this presidential commission on the supreme court -- that is the group meeting at 10:00 a.m.. it was established in april by executive order by incident biden -- by president biden. it is a bipartisan group of commissioners.
the final report is due in november. the discussion draft was released last night. it includes a variety of proposals like term limits and adding members to the supreme court. on the issue of adding more justices, " we conclude congress has broad power to structure the supreme court by expanding or contracting a number of justices. the question is more difficult and commissioners are divided on whether court expansion would be wise. court expansion today could lead to a continuous cycle of future expansions.
that draft report notes that the inclusion of particular arguments does not constitute a commission endorsement of one or the other. these are all discussion points. we will see where individual commissioners come down on those points when they meet today at 10:00 a.m. eastern. bob bauer, codirector of nyu's law and legislative process and chris tina rodriguez -- christina rodriguez of yale law school.
some information about this commission if you want to watch it live you can do so at 10:00 a.m. eastern. this draft report was the subject of discussion in the white house press room yesterday. [video clip] >> they are examining is the membership and size of the court and the courts selection rules and processes. the next step will be a public meeting of the commission on friday. they will not issue a final report until november. they will be publicly available but there is a process that will proceed. host: yesterday from the white house briefing room.
we will take you through more parts of this draft report but mostly we want to hear from you. john is up first out of brooklyn, new york. caller: thank the lord for c-span. we need more of y'all. host: we have three! go ahead. caller: do they all ask questions like you do? you say you have three c-span's. host: on c-span two can watch the senate gavel-to-gavel. i hope you watch a lot of the c-span networks. caller: my thoughts on the supreme court, there should be time limits.
that would eliminate a lot of unfairness. i think it was the republicans who caused a lot of these problems who held up president obama's nominees. before they started holding up these nominees, it was fun. -- it was fine. now that mitch mcconnell held up nominees for a whole year, they have made a mess of it. thank you very much. host: term limits i part of that draft document. next, akron, ohio. caller: we are one of only 18 countries still involved in the ancient barbarism of prisoner
murder because of the supreme court. only two states this year have been involved in execution out of 50. agatha christie said that a judge murders within the law. a judge who executes has been involved in cold premeditation. it is time for the six republicans on the supreme court who call themselves pro-life to stop being involved in the serial murder of prisoners. host: this is dennis, battleground, indiana. caller: i will tell you what i think needs to happen -- they need to leave the supreme court alone. everything this guy touches, it
goes south. leave it alone. they do not want term limits on them? do not put term limits on these people. host: this draft document is 200 pages released yesterday ahead of this meeting. it does not take a commission position on any reform. here is what they have to say about term limits -- " there are principled reasons favoring term limits for supreme court justices. they would ensure the court's membership is broadly responsive to elections over time. a system of term limits such as
the proposal for staggered 18 year terms would advance our constitution's commitments to checks and balances and popular sovereignty. it would ensure that presidents have the opportunity to appoint to justices to the supreme court in each term they serve. a more specific concern relating to term limits involves what justices would do after their terms have expired." houston, texas, democrat, go ahead. caller: this is patty anderson. i am a democrat and a woman. when you get on the supreme
court, you are supposed to be -- i am a republican i am going to do what the republican say, i am a democrat i will do what they say. they cut down everything that president obama wanted to put on the supreme court. now that is all they vote for. they try to do everything. they do everything to undermine our democracy. it is just not right. as a woman, if you get raped, they cannot stop that. then they say " they have a
right to wear a mask," but then they say a woman does not have a right to take her own body. host: june in oklahoma is next, a republican. caller: i am calling as a recent republican. recently i was a party official in our county for the democrats. i changed because of the policy changes the party has taken on. i think we need some stability. the country needs to be able to depend on a certain structure of government and on the knowledge that certain things are going to be deemed right or wrong. term limits have taken place
here in oklahoma years ago and what happened in our legislature is we got in some people who were good, decent people but the money that got them in was not so great. they did not have the knowledge base, the experience, they do not understand how one decision that problems in another area -- led to problems in another area. even though i do not agree with many of the decision of the supreme court, i think the stability for the country is patty -- better if we leave things how they are. caller: i am in favor of term limit. this is the most partisan court
i have ever seen in history. it is the product of 30 years of work by the federalist society. brett kavanaugh bragged about being a partisan. they acknowledged being the most partisan court of all time. as far as stability and consistency is concerned, you will not get it from this court. i am in favor of adding foresee to balance the power -- four seats to balance the power. if you can get a simple majority of the members of the supreme court, you can make the constitution say anything they
want it to say. that is what they are fixing to do. host: you say you teach constitutional law -- are you at the college level or postgraduate? caller: yes. i teach it as a political science subject. there are three branches of government in washington and the most political is the judicial branch. they are beholding to the federalist society. host: that is john in illinois on the idea of expanding the supreme court, one of the
interest groups on that topic has been demand justice, running web ads. here is one of their recent web ads on the issue of expending the supreme court. [video clip] >> reform means expanding the number of justices. you know they supreme court has nine justices but did you know -- the supreme court has nine justices, but did you know that number is not in the constitution? you know who had no problem with changing the number of court seats?
republicans. they have done it with state supreme court's across the country. no they have manipulated their way to a -- now they have manipulated their way to a 6-3 supreme court that is out of step with the entire country. host: mike davis was from the article three project. he was back on the program in april. this is what he had to say in that interview. [video clip] >> we have the first constitutionalist majority in years. now we have a 6-3 republican
appointed supreme court. democrats do not like this. they have lost their grip on the supreme court. it is the final backstop to keep democrats from four control in this country -- full control in this country. host: if you want to watch that interview, you can do so online. mike davis is his name if you want to find it online.
is a term republicans have used -- " packing the supreme court will destroy our democracy." " democrats are on a mission to change the rules and pack the supreme court in their favor to impose their radical agenda on montana and the american people." " in over a century we have not had a more partisan supreme court than the one we have today." back to your calls -- joe, hugo, minnesota, independent. caller: another point i have
experience with -- seems that it would be nice if some of our judges were not coming from the longer pool -- lawyer pool and were able to fight back against some of the corruption going on in the courts. host: what other job besides lawyer would be a good job to prepare someone for being a judge? caller: i think anybody could do it. we could figure something out. i have been waiting -- host: relief on what, joe?
caller: emergency relief. i cannot get any information. i do not know what is going on. host: you do not have any trust for lawyers, joe? caller: my concern is the way that lawyers work together and not be afraid to oppose each other. host: stanford, virginia ,-- stafford, virginia, republican. caller: i think most conservatives, the thing you learn as a person is if it is not broken do not fix it.
if we must, and i don't believe that we should, i justices, -- add justices, make it so that three congresses in the future is when it goes into effect. the 120th congress is when adding justices is in effect so whatever party is in the presidency, and is unknown. put a sort of sunrise on it in the future and that will bring people back to reality. if you do it now, you have too much control. if it must be done, let's do it, but add risk.
that is life. host: it is a matter of letting people know what is going to happen and then letting them vote a couple of times in between to see how they feel about it? caller: let's say house resolution, whatever the number would be, they pass it and now it is 12 justices. the law should be written such that the 120th congress is when the adding of justice will take effect. i'm not saying it should be on the ballot, voted on back in forth -- back and forth. host: the 27th amendment regards
compensation for members of the house and senate. any changes to members' compensation does not take effect onto an election has happened -- until an election has happened in between. there is some precedent to what were talking about -- what you are talking about. douglas is in florida, democrat, good morning. caller: let me say one thing -- i do not believe in term limit. i do believe that the courts
have changed precedent. we need to put more justices on the court to even it out. host: maine. caller: i have one comment. someone told me once -- hello? maybe it was during thomas's appointment. when lawyers are willing to lie in a group they can get anything done. something has to change. when new have our senator here in maine susan collins standup on the senate floor for 45 minutes and give a speech that was all lies, kavanaugh's good
friend squeaky wrote a book and they blocked it because the republicans were in charge. you can say all you want. you can put mitch appear -- up here. they blocked obama. someone should have to explain that. because he was black? because they did not like his policy? that is the republican party today. host: a couple of recent polls on some of these reform ideas, a marquette law school for from
late last month on the via -- idea of expending the supreme court, 56% said they oppose, 42% said they would support it. on the issue of term limits for supreme court justices, 71% said they would support it, 28% oppose. more of your text messages this morning -- " packing the supreme court would set a terrible precedent. when would it stop? when republicans regain control what in today then have the opportunity to add more --
wouldn't they then have the opportunity to add more justices?" " leave the supreme court alone." " no one should have a lifetime appointment." " only reform i support whidbey cameras allowed in the courtroom while cases are being argued -- would be cameras allowed in the courtroom while cases are being argued." we carried audio recordings -- live audio live here on c-span. we showed you pictures of the individuals who were talking
over there live audio. here is a little bit from the presidential commission on supreme court reforms on cameras in the courtroom. " proponents of cameras in the courtroom besides the importance of transparent the and the potential educational and civic benefits of being able to see the justices. those in opposition to cameras, continuation of near simultaneous audio would be a step forward. perhaps further experience with simultaneous audio will encourage the court to try cameras as well."
the sun is rising here on capitol hill and we are taking your phone calls. (202) 748-8000, if you are a democrat. (202) 748-8001, if you are a republican. (202) 748-8002, if you are an independent. caller: it is amazing how horrible americans have.become these three newest justices -- americans has become. these people are disrespectful too. pack a supreme court seems like another situation of getting the federal government involved in things.
the mayor of chicago wanted to bring in federal police rather than hire more police. it is another part of having the government to cover. these people on the supreme court, you have to do something a long time before you are good at it. by giving someone a lifetime appointment, they can do what they have to do without worrying about blowback. look up the facts. host: david, georgia, independent. caller: i am going to keep this philosophical. the constitution says the president sends down an
appointment and it is the senate's job to have a hearing, not delay it. there is nothing in the constitution saying they can delay having a hearing for an appointment. when you break your oath to the constitution of the united states, that makes you a constitutional criminal. what we have is a judge on the supreme court who is a conspiracy with a constitutionally criminal act. there is a remedy for this kind of thing. it is called impeachment. it has to be settled in congress. when is it ok to break your oath to the constitution of the united states?
i would like to -- you are mature. host: david in georgia. i was looking up article two section two of the constitution that states the president shall nominate and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint justices of the -- judges of the supreme court. susan is in california, republican, go ahead. caller: i say just leave it alone. it is set up the way it is so that congress cannot bully our pressure the supreme court -- or pressure the supreme court. i do not like the idea of
packing the supreme court just to get your own way. -- to get your own way. obama did not have the senate the year that merrick garland was goat supposed -- was supposed to have that hearing. host: on the history of adding justices to the bench, the last president to try to add justices -- franklin roosevelt. the high court has had nine justices 1869. before that, it fluctuated between five and 10 justices. jim, pittsburgh, independent.
caller: i do not support changing a system that is not broken. we need to elect an ethical president and u.s. senate members. host: who is an ethical person narrative pennsylvania who should be in congress -- person out of pennsylvania who should be in congress right now? caller: i can't name anyone. host: who was the last president you thought did a good job of obeying his oath of office. caller: i don't think any of them do in my lifetime. host: who in history with you .2
/ -- who in history would you poit to? caller: george washington. old hickory, president jackson. host: this is dena, princeville, hawaii. caller: it seems to me instead of calling it packing -- what he wants to do is bring balance. host: so it is all about how you frame this discussion? caller: this discussion should not be about packing the supreme court.
it should be about expanding and balancing it out. host: what would you say to folks who push back and say " democrats could balance the supreme court if they won the presidency more often and appointed justices with another justices retire?" caller: it seems to me that in the past, mcconnell blocked the appointment that were being made by democratic presidents. what i am saying, it seems to me it is a little unbalanced. there are more conservatives on the court and there are middle-of-the-road or liberals.
why not expand the number of political opinion on the supreme court? the supreme court is not supposed to be medical, but in -- host: what happens the next time that that balance gets out of balance? what happens when there are more appointments as liberal justices -- appointments of liberal justices? caller: i think this has been a difficult period of time. let them live it out. i just think -- certainly,
mitch mcconnell did his best to block any appointments of democratic nominations for judges. host: what is it in hawaii? caller: 1:37! i like to stay up late. host: mark is next in maine. caller: i think we should, in light of what is happened, since mitch mcconnell would not give obama his rightful piquant justice scalia died -- pick when
justice scalia died, we know he put justice barrett on the bench two weeks before the election. all this lighting the republicans are doing is -- lying the republicans are doing is a shame for the country. if you look back at an article that retired appeals court judge, he thinks the courts should go to 19. host: if 19, why not 27? why not 35? caller: we don't need that much.
even if it is a republican or a democrat, the president needs to balance the court. host: market in maine on the idea of adding justices to the court. the commission's meeting at 10:00 a.m. eastern today to discuss these various proposals. the new york times notes a recent interview with stephen breyer who said he was wary of increasing the number of justices, saying that doing so could erode public trust in the court. " think twice.
if a can do it, b can do it." jerry is in broadway, virginia. caller: if it ain't broke don't fix it. at that is why this country is indeed terrible shape it is in now. this administration is trying to fix everything that is not broken and it results in tragedy after tragedy. they do not obey the the supreme court anyway. the supreme court ordered them to reinstate the mexico policy. have they done it? caller: first of all, it should be six years and you are gone.
no lifetime appointments. clarence thomas doesn't do anything. six years, you're gone. also, you have to show your work report. i can't imagine anyone getting to sit there and do nothing. these are not respected, wonderful people like we used two think. they were -- to think they were. they have to be held accountable for the work they do. six years, you are out. when you get to be 80, think about the shortness of your
mind. we all know about what happened with brett kavanaugh. mitch mcconnell needs to go. host: it sounds like you are talking about age limits for supreme court justices. caller: yeah. let's be real. no lifetime appointments. host: that is my grade in kansas this morning. -- margaret in kansas this morning. " what problem of the core are we trying to solve -- court are we trying to solve?"
" supreme justices don't have to be lawyers. we could appoint a person like professor wehle who was a guest yesterday as a justice." " all supreme court pix should be certified by the people at the next election after the senate confirms the. tec -- the pick." about 15 minutes are left in this segment. caller: good morning, john, and good morning black americans. what happened when obama was in
office, -- if they have to take those cases and it is a time between the justices, they'd take that back to the state. what does that do? then it just gets held up. there is no justice in that holdup. why would they do that? mitch mcconnell has held it up for nothing. what is the reason? just because he is a black american. i lost my state -- my case
against my employer. i would not take that to the supreme court. they could say you lost in your own state court. what are they therefore? host: back to leavenworth, kansas, maxine. caller: i have often wondered of the three branches of government, which is the most powerful? i say the most powerful is the spring court -- the supreme court. they can decide whether the law
is lawful or not. three people decided who would be president of the united states. there was no recourse for any americans. there is no court in the world we could have gotten -- gone to for a redress. the supreme court decided to the president was going to be. it was already packed. mitch mcconnell has made sure that the judges in this country are packed by republicans. it is a 6-3 majority of republicans on the supreme court right now there is nothing
anybody in this country can do about it, nothing we can do to override a supreme court decision. host: what do you think is the least powerful branch of government? caller: the executive ranch and the legislative branch are equal to each other --executive branch and the legislative branch are equal to each other. congress makes the law. if someone doesn't like it, they take it to this up in court and the supreme court says " that law is unlawful." host: tiny in texas. caller: have a blessed day.
they should leave the supreme court as it is. we see what is going on now with what the democratic party is doing. our own president is breaking laws with all of these illegal immigrants coming in. if they want to packed the courts so they can take over a citizen's right to vote -- the supreme court is fine as it is. they always wanted to bring up what happened with obama. we are living in 2021. what is going on today matters.
the supreme court is fine the way it is. host: about 10 minutes left in this segment. we have a lot of discussion. the white house is closing in on former food and drug administration commissioner robert tallis as it twice to serve as that agent's -- choice to serve as that agency's head. they write, " under federal law president biden faces a mid member deadline to either nominate woodcock our pagan alternate leader for the agency,
which plays a central role in regulating vaccine and other medical products." jobless claims numbers were released yesterday. new applications declined to 293,000 last week, marking the first week since the pandemic began that jobless claims fell below 300,000 although applications remain above 2019's average. those receiving jobless benefits also fails to the lowest level since march 2020. santa barbara, california,
independent. caller: i grind my teeth every time i therapy both calling us a democracy. we are not a -- i hear people calling as a democracy. we are not a democracy. we are a constitutional republic. in every other country -- look at all these european democracies -- there are law of the land can be changed -- their law of the land can be changed by parliament. no country in the world has the kinds of protections that we have. wish people would stop referring to us as a democracy.
we are a constitutional republic and that is important. host: you want to get to the supreme court? caller: i think we should leave things the way they are. mitch mcconnell had no idea that trump was going to get elected. how did he steal? all the democrats had to do was when the election -- win the election. enjoy the program, john. host: surely, mansfield, ohio -- shirley, mansfield, ohio. caller: the supreme court is not
balanced. i would like to see it a little more balanced. if we had three democrats, three republicans and maybe some people in the middle -- it will not be the same after donald trump. we are a leader of the world and people are losing respect for us because we are fighting amongst ourselves. the supreme court, i do not have the respect for them that i used to have. i know this is off the subject a little bit, but misses trump has not said a word about her
husband running for president. misses trump does not want to ever be in politics again. ask the wife and to see what she has to say! host: waynesburg, kentucky, bert, go ahead. caller: in today's climate, we are asking the applicants for the justices -- it is impossible. i have lost so much confidence in our legislative ranch that i don't know we can ever agree on
the person that is nominated. remember the term justice is blind? we are so far away from that now it is pathetic. we have to take politics out of the equation here if that is possible. just a recommendation -- the person to be chosen may be is nominated by in student the president the leader of the minority branch in congress, then chosen or confirmed by an equal number of members from each party, say six numbers from each party. if it is deadlocked five times in ebro, -- in a row, and the
person is so overwhelmingly qualified that the other party will give in, -- i don't know. i do not have all the answers. we need to do it differently than we are doing it today. politics are king and that is wrong. host: just a few minutes left as we hear from you. we are having this conversation i had of this 10:00 a.m. hearing meeting. a draft report outlining the history and arguments of various reform proposals was released yesterday. the white house is showing that
meeting live at whitehouse.gov. 10:00 a.m. eastern is when that starts. we noted an ad earlier. the executive director, of that group, seemingly not impressed by what that just report outlined. " progressive groups expressed frustration with the overly cautious approach in this draft report. 'this was not even close to being worth the wait,'said brian fallon, the executive director
of demand justice. 'the paralysis by analysis reflected here is exactly what you way to from a commission made app of mostly academics, including several diehard conservatives who are fully content with the status quo.'" george, bloomington, illinois, republican. caller: i have been watching c-span since it was founded in 1979. the discussion this morning reminded me of president biden's comment in the past that the court has gotten " out of
whack." that reminded me of senator schumer's mantra that they supreme court is " out of the neither one of them has legal meaning. i do believe with regard to which branch is most important, article one establishes the congress come article to the executive branch, article three the judicial branch. that gives you an idea of what the founders thought was most important of the time. i believe the constitution is
timeless. but the caller from a while ago said the constitution is fine as it is. i believe that is correct. it should not be fixed if it isn't broken. frankly, it all depends on who's ox is being born. the conservatives have a 6-3 majority, depending on whether chief justice roberts is considered a conservative. but these comments come out of whack or out of the mainstream, just don't have any legal meaning. they can't be found in a legal dictionary. what the words separation of powers, that is not in the constitution. never has been. and yet, you hear it all the time. separation of powers came about because of a 1948 u.s. supreme court decision, and later became part of our lexicon, but never
part of the constitution. so without belaboring the point too much, we need to have labeled conditions -- have legal definitions of what we are speaking of. out of whack and out of the mainstream just don't cut it. host: do you think enough people are reading the constitution these days? caller: enough people reading the constitution? no, i certainly do not think enough people read the constitution. that is why i support hillsdale college in michigan. been there since 1848. never taken a dime of federal money. they teach the constitution. president reagan use to the hillsdale college. the president of hillsdale is a former biographer of winston churchill. it is a wonderful school. more people should read the constitution, yes sir. host: never a bad time to read
the constitution, so i will go through article two, section two again. the very large section that says what the president has to do when it comes to appoint its. "the president shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provide 2/3 of the senate present confer, shall appoint ambassadors and other public ministers and counsels, judges of the spring court, and all other officers of the united states whose appointments are not herein provided for." article two, section two of the united states constitution. keep having this conversation about the supreme court and the
reforms, so go ahead and keep calling in. rosemarie in st. petersburg, florida is a democrat. you are next. caller: hello? hi. how are you doing this morning? i was calling because i think the supreme court judges should have a term limitation on their stay in the supreme court because everything in life has changed since the constitution was written. we have to change with the times that we are living in because i don't think it is fair to just put someone in a lifetime position that is so very important. we should have people in that position who have views of everyone, fresh views, up-to-date views, as opposed to just sitting there like bumps on a log because that is exactly what they look like they just -- like. they just look like a bunch of people who don't even read what is coming over their desk half the time. first of all, we need to have
limitations on the supreme court. host: that is rosemarie in florida. this is doug in missouri, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. how are you doing? host: i'm doing well. caller: i would like to say leave it as is. but if it was flipped democrats to majority, there wouldn't be a problem on the left. they wouldn't be crying and whining that the court is out of order or whatever they are saying. host: so what do you think the solution is here? caller: just leave it as is. host: doug in the show me state. this is roy in baton rouge, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing the call.
this country is not what it was in 1789 when the court was created. the political atmosphere of the president shouldn't change the court because these are justices that we consider the highest justices. people should them stand the rights and the needs of the people. if we continue this political climate with the supreme court getting out of whack, six conservatives, four democrats, however you want to look at it, it is going to create an imbalance in this country. when imbalances come, nothing good comes behind it. so something has to change. because you have a lot of groups in america, and they just can't be represented by two different
groups of people, liberals and conservatives. host: you say the supreme court should be made up of justices that we look up to. are there any justices on the supreme court right now that you think are worthy of looking up to? caller: no because they don't truly represent what america is. i trouble this country -- i travel this country. there are a lot of different groups in this country. this is not what it was in 1789. the slaves are free. you've got people that want to see it go back to the way it used to be, and that can never happen. i am in agreement with other people when they say the lifetime appointment of judges who are still thinking like it is 50 years ago, it's not 50 years ago. it is today.
so don't let what happens in the presidency or whatever else affect it, and then everybody will feel represented. nobody would have to say they can complain about i am not being represented. [indiscernible] or if i am a republican, i do the same thing. no, because they are not representing the country. host: that is roy in louisiana. time for a few more calls. jan in laguna beach, california, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am doing well. caller: i appreciate being able to weigh in on this topic. i do feel that lifetime appointments should remain as written in the constitution, and
i don't feel, sadly, we are such a divided, polarized nation over the last number of years, but i don't feel the court should be changed to fit the political narrative. i think the constitution should be followed, and i don't think that their decisions should change the constitution based on political ideology. sadly, mitch mcconnell held up garland's hearing. i think that was wrong at the time. however, i don't feel that garland is a constitutionalist, and i am actually glad he was held up because of his weaponizing the doj now. his calling people demerit
terrorists i think is wrong. i would not give garland a lifetime appointment. [indiscernible] host: that is jan in california. it is about 8:10 on the east coast this morning. a slight reshuffling of our schedule, if you have been looking at it online. here is where we are expecting to be today. najibullah quraishi of pbs "frontline" joining us to talk about his new documentary, "taliban takeover," about the weeks in the wake of the u.s. withdrawal of afghanistan, we are expecting him between 9:00 and 9:30 eastern, and then ben williams of the national conference of state
legislatures, between 9:30 antenna clock a.m. -- between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m. a bit of reshuffling, so thank you for staying with us as we do that. we will continue talking about the supreme court in the wick of this draft report that came out yesterday from the presidential commission on the supreme court of the united states. it is a commission meeting at 10:00 a.m. this morning. that is being streamed online at whitehouse.gov. they will be studying a number of proposals. the one that gets the most attention is term limits for justices, and adding additional seats to the supreme court. that is going to be a big part of the discussion, but plenty of other proposals being talked about today. cameras in the courtroom another proposal. this 200 page draft report comes out yesterday. the commission meeting today to talk about it and then giving
their formal recommendations to president biden mid next month. ahead of that meeting, we want to hear from you. what supreme court forms would you support? republicans, it is (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000, and independents, (202) 748-8002. i want to take you back to the white house briefing room yesterday. press secretary jen psaki was asked about this commission draft report and what is next here. these were comments yesterday. [video clip] >> what they are looking at and examining are the court's role in the constitutional system, the length of turnover in the court, the size of the court, and court rules and practices. these are draft preliminary discussion materials because the next step will be a public meeting of the commission on friday, and they won't issue a final report and submit it to the president until mid-november. so that was meant to convey that
it will be transparent, they will be publicly available, but there is a process that will proceed and the president won't get the final report to review until mid-november. host: jen psaki from the white house briefing room yesterday. back to your phone calls, asking you what supreme court reforms you would support. gary in maryland, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the supreme court, in my opinion, definitely needs to be revamped. i do want to reiterate one or two colors who called in before, one who said this is a constitutional republic. that is absolutely correct. it is a constitutional republic. we have a lot of politicians, democrats and republicans, who don't seem to adhere to that constitution. the prime example is going right back to one of the callers who said mitch mcconnell didn't even have a hearing. he allowed donald trump to go ahead and put in someone, but when obama was in office, he
wouldn't let him put it in. when he was asked why that was the case, he said just because i could do it. just because. i think that is a real problem here, this hypocrisy that we keep seeing either from democrats and republicans. in my opinion, should the democrats be able to go ahead and change term limits change people who are on the court? according to one of your callers who said democrats or obama didn't have the senate -- ok, you have the senate now. you have the house now. you have the white house. i don't understand why the democrats aren't doing anything the republicans did in the last term, when they didn't give a rat's booty about anybody, and they passed any bill that they wanted to. pass everything. get these people out of here, especially l of these older people. they need to get out. your time to govern is over. there is a new generation, and
you guys are refusing to allow anybody, anybody other than your old selves, to govern. get out of the way. host: who specifically would you like to see out of the way in terms of democratic leadership? who do you think is time to step aside? are you talking about anti-pelosi and steny hoyer? are you talking -- about nancy pelosi and steny hoyer? are you talking about joe biden? lost the color. jeff is in maryland. caller: i know this kind of a sensitive topic, and sorry, i am a little nervous. i believe the lifetime appointments should remain because the other vitriol and retaliation for people who don't do what people perceive want to happen just seems so forefront in our society right now. the justices need to be confident that they can rule on decisions and not have to face consequent is have to face -- have to face consequences.
there should be a minimum of how many years they serve on the bench before they can be considered. but at 75, a voter can pretty much see when there will be an open seat and take it to the ballot box to have their opinion pretty much heard. i would love to see the political appointees be more transparent. i want to see what a senator has to drill a possible future candidate with. what are you talking about behind closed doors? what are your opinions? if you want to make it really fair, have one party submit three nominations, the other party submit three nominations, and then have the legal system basically vote for which one they believe would be the most effective candidate on the bench. you can say, look, the first person with the highest votes, or if you are the first person, you get five points, then of the six people that are put forth, the person with the highest score, that person would represent the people on the spring court.
host: who gets to vote in that process? you say the legal system votes. does every lawyer who has passed the bar get a vote on who should be a supreme court justice? caller: i would basically put it into the legal system as far as judges and academia, that congress could pretty much establish and say we are going to take it out of our hands. we will be responsible for nominating the people. but you, based on your experience with these individuals and how they have behaved in the courtrooms and your rulings, do you believe them to be constitutional lists -- constitutionalists? do they know the law of the land? you have that community judge who they feel should be the most ardent person on the edge. that way it is no longer, will the democrats but this person and the republicans put this prison. it is the senate's consent, so when mitch mcconnell held up garland, it is because he saw the american people rebuke obama and the election and put the
republicans back in charge of the senate. he went to the american people and said after this vote for presidency, we will let the american people decide if they want a republican nomination or a democratic nomination, and then he just gets blown out of proportion when people start saying with amy coney barrett, it was different because you did it this way. well, it was the same president and the same senate, so that was with the consent of the senate. that is what the constitution says, that is what they did. it kind of angered people. the country is going to try to do what it can to make it work. and so many people got upset. there do need to be a little bit of changes, but nine on the court, that one seems the right amount of people. you could throw two of this, two of that, five men, five women, two white, two black, two hispanic, and it is never going to make everybody happy. nine people, if their names are put forward, if the community can go ahead and vote and put the best candidate they think, and get away from whether a
republic -- host: so you are talking some sort of independent commission who would get to vote on this. it sounds like you're talking about a very expensive independent commission, but as i understand it, this is something akin to when it comes to redistricting. there have been battles over gerrymandering and what is fair in redistricting. some states have set up independent commissions to come up with these new congressional maps every 10 years in an effort to take the politics, the gerrymandering out of it. i get a sense that is the idea you're looking for here, for supreme court justices. caller: that's what i am saying. you would get away from that if you said the majority, the democrats, you submit three names. republicans, you submit three names. these are the six names. first, second, third choice. the end commission, based on these recommendations, who do you feel, based on your experience, would be the best representative of your profession on the supreme court
who, based on their experiences and their interaction with them and who represents the lobby best. host: got your point, jeffrey. interesting idea. michael out of chicago, good morning. caller: thank you for having me on. several points i wish to make. one, the terms liberal and conservative do not exist in the constitution. what no one seems to be talking about here is it is the voters who put in president donald trump. there wish of what they want to see on the supreme court's so-called conservative, but it is the voters who have the right in the long run to determine composition of the supreme court. everyone wants to bypass the role of the voters in our government, and the voters totally run our government. they want to say there should be commission, it should be this. all of these are schemes like bidens a decade of orders -- like bidens executive orders to take the government out of the hands of the people, it is
important for your listen is to keep in mind that we have justices in their 70's and 80's and so on, but they should look in the life tables and vital statistics. in the year 1900, the life expectancy was early 50's for all men, so this is a relatively recent problem of the old age of the justices. host: that is michael in chicago. this is john, ohio, and dependent good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think when you nominate a justice, there should be a forensic investigation that takes four to six months to pass . no one should ever be jammed in as a judge. the second thing is no one should ever be put in by any political party. it should be a nondenominational party. it should be a selective party of three democrats, three
republicans, and free nonpartisan. -- and three nonpartisan. that way we can make sure if there is any mud in the water that this person has integrity and honor ability and the knowledge to be a representative of the united states and represent the people. remember, for the people, by the people. host: are you saying the president would still make denomination, but the senate confirmation should be a committee broken down evenly between democrats and republicans and independents evenly represented? caller: yes, but they should be investigated thoroughly. if there is anything in their background that would stop them from being a person of integrity or honor ability, they should be canceled out. in other words, find another
nominee. no one should ever be forced into that position at the last moment just because they are in charge. host: this is karen in the keystone state, chester, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. god bless brian lamb. the supreme court numbers, the members and the length of service, that is all fine. the one change i would make to the supreme court is i would make devote unanimous -- make the vote unanimous like it is in a 12 person jury. if nine of the so-called best and brightest of the country should be able to agree on a nine page document. that is what would take the politics out of the supreme court. it should be unanimous. as far as term limits, that is not even necessary. those other eight judges can
decide that one person is not acting -- you know, maybe they are getting too old. they can weed that out themselves. you know, recommend to that person that he should resign or whatever. but the numbers are fine. also, i recently saw a documentary on your channel about the presidency, and there was a really interesting comment . jefferson, who was not one of the composers of the constitution, said that this should be a living document. he said if you try to leave this document the way it is forever, it is like trying to wear the coat i had when i was a child. it doesn't fit. you have to fit the person i am now. it was a very interesting comment. but the unanimous vote would
solve a whole lot of political problems. host: karen, do you think come outside of the supreme court, the coat of the constitution fits america in 2021? caller: no, that we also need to keep the way to change the constitution. if enough people see a problem, they can change the constitution with a 3/4 agreement. i believe it is 2/3 of the senate or 3/4 of congress, 3/4 of the states, i don't member. but that is fine. if enough people see the problem, they can fix the problem. the only thing i would change is to make devote unanimous to take the politics out. it doesn't make sense that a political party and who is in power in the senate can change the constitution -- i mean, the supreme court of the nation.
that should not be. caller: that is karen -- host: that is karen in pennsylvania. we have had segments on various proposals, including one calling a constitutional convention to propose an immense to the constitution. several segments as propose amendments to the constitution -- propose amendments to the constitution. john in arlington, virginia, you are next. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i think there is some room for modifications to the supreme court. isaac nominations by the -- i think nominations by the president shouldn't be subject to the senate rules. it should be required to immediately be taken up by the senate. i think oral hearings should be made morelli -- made more readily available, given the advance in technology. perhaps video recording. but in terms of changing the
makeup of the court, whether it is the number of justices or independent commissions or any of those type of things, i think people that suggest those type of reforms, i don't think they truly appreciate history of the court. i think there is this tendency to over emphasize and hyperfocus on what is happening today as opposed to taking a look at it from the 6000 foot view. justice stevens, arguably one of the most liberal justices, had some very impactful decisions. he was appointed by a republican. he himself was thought to be a republican. i think at one point he was registered a republican. the warren court, justice moran appointed by republicans. there are so many examples of justices over the years that led
to expansion of civil rights that actually came out to have some of the more liberal decisions that were appointed by republican presidents. so i think this idea that simply because you are appointed by a republican president or appointed by a democratic president that suddenly you are going to have those decisions in mind, look at some of the justices that president obama appointed as well. some of those decisions, i think a lot of people don't follow many of these decisions unless they are reading the headlines of a major case. but a lot of those decisions i think would not align very well with whatever side they are on, whether it is the left or the right side. look at justice neil gorsuch. people talk about, oh, trump ruined everything, and trump appointments are the impetus for the need for change, but justice neil gorsuch has had some
decisions that, even from a neutral standpoint, you could say are some very left decisions, whether it is on lgbtq equality, criminal justice issues, executive power. he just expanded tribal rights, indigenous peoples rights. it essentially the entire eastern half of oklahoma has been returned to tribal land. and i feel like sometimes when we hear some of these buzzwords and soundbites from individuals talking about how broken the supreme court is, it is usually just this hyper political talk that is not really rooted in the actual decisions that are being made by the spring court -- by the supreme court. host: on that issue of americans' views, some recent polling on that from the gallup
organization. americans' opinions of u.s. supreme court have worsened to 40%, down 49% from july -- down from 49% in july, a new low in gallup trends, which dates back 2000. it came after the supreme court declined to block a restrictive abortion law in texas and rejected and abide -- rejected a biden adminstration attempt to extend the moratorium on evictions. the gallup organization poll you can see on your screen there, over the years from 2002 today -- from 2000 to today. these latest findings, gallup says, came in early september, little more than year after 58% of americans approved of the job
supreme court was doing. that was among the highest ratings in the trend over the years. just after 8:30 on the east coast. continuing to take your phone calls on court reform, supreme court reforms he would support. (202) 748-8001 for republicans to call in. democrats, it is (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text, (202) 748-8003. as you continue to call in, little but of a newsbreak for you, keeping you up-to-date on a few of the other stories we have been watching. this front-page story from today's "washington times" on union strikes and the political test they present for president biden. "scores of union workers from hollywood to the midwest have gone on strike or threatened to walk off the job. more than 100 thousands are on picket lines today and tens of thousands more could join by the end of october, potentially touching off a strike wave not
seen in the united states since the 1970's. it also sets up a political test for president biden, who doesn't want to risk his support among labor leaders, but needs to get soaring prices under control before next year's midterm elections. on thursday, more than 10,000 workers at john deere and company went on strike. they joined 1400 workers at the kellogg company, more than 2000 nurses and other hospital workers in buffalo, new york, 700 nurses in massachusetts, one hundred 60 caregivers in connecticut all on the picket lines. roughly 24,000 workers of kaiser permanente authorized the strike, and 60,000 workers in the entertainment industry have threatened to walk off the job on monday if their union doesn't reach a deal with television and film studios. more than 12,000 seattle area carpenters went back to work this week after a three-week strike that halted construction in the pacific northwest." just a look around the country at strikes taking place.
we touched on this yesterday, but looking ahead to next week's legislative agenda, specifically potential action in the senate, senate democrats will try next week to advance a voting rights measure. senator chuck schumer, the majority leader, announced yesterday. the republicans are expected to maintain their filibuster against the legislation. in the senate, mr. schumer said he would schedule a vote for next wednesday to open debate on voting rights legislation that other democrats say is needed to offset new restrictions being proposed by republican state legislatures around the country. it intensifies pressure on joe manchin of virginia, who had initially been the loan hauled out on a sweeping voting measure passed by the hout. mr. manchin -- by the house. mr. manchin helped draft a bipartisan version that he hoped would -- a compromise version that he hoped would draw
bipartisan votes, but there is little evidence that republicans have embraced his alternatives. about 25 minutes left to get your thoughts on this issue, the supreme court issu, that the presidential commission -- court issue that the presidential commission will be taking up today. they released yesterday that 200 page document, a billable on the white house website, and the white house also streaming this commission meeting in which they will be digging through this document. it is expected to be maybe a seven hour meeting today. you can watch live at whitehouse.gov. this is ray in tennessee, republican. caller: good morning. this supreme court is made up of justices, and they rule on things from the constitution. that is all they are supposed to be doing. but everybody wants to use them
as a political tool. they didn't get their election the way they wanted, so they want to change the court and all that. it has worked for 200 years. why do you want to change it now? everybody comes in this country from different countries and they want to bring all their ideas in. this country is ruled by the majority rules. if the majority wants it one way and you want it different, sorry. the majority rules in this country. we've got to get back to that. host: can i ask you about majority rules? the idea of majority rules comes up a lot in discussions about the senate and the filibuster. do you think it should take 60 votes to move legislation in the senate to end a filibuster, or do you think the majority should rule, that it should be 51 votes , or 50 if a party holds the white house? do you think the majority's ruling in the senate right now?
caller: well, i think it should. the majority rules. that's where many minds have figured it out, the best for the majority of the people. when you get down to trying to make everybody satisfied, you are not going to get anything done. these people that want to come in and say we've got to do this for this other group, that is the liberal philosophy. we are going to break us down into little tribes all over and we will all be fighting each other. that is not going to get this country in the right direction. you come here, assimilate. this is your country. back it and be a good citizen. if everybody does that, we will get this country moving in the right direction. host: when do you think the last
time was this country was moving in the right direction? caller: well, i am thinking back in the 1950's, when i was a young man. a man worked, a woman stayed and took care of the children, and his income sufficed. now you've got to have both people working. you have to put kids in daycare. another thing, kids don't get up and eat breakfast at home. they go to school any request -- school and eat breakfast. when i was a kid, my mother made a bowl of oats before i went to school, and she was there. but it is not that way anymore, sadly. host: that is ray in tennessee. two california, mike, independent. caller: good morning. it seems to me that what is required is integrity. this was an observation informed by the supreme court justice john marshall harland, who
famously objected to the notion that separate but equal. he basically observed that there is only one class of american citizen, and separate is inherently not equal. he was an individual who actually had integrity, and it seems to me that is the key element of character that is sadly missing from not only the court, but also the two other branches of the american government. host: do you think the supreme court confirmation process in the senate, does it do any sort of job of probing integrity, of assuring the integrity of potential justices? caller: not really. when they go back to justice kennedy, i think junior high school, and issues that the
justice had when he was a teenager, i think that is way out of bounds. but it seems to me that that was a recent hearing. i should say, the hearings of the recent justice -- host: announcer: brett kavanaugh ash host: brett -- host: brett kavanaugh? caller: yes. and as a very young man, decades-old actions he had. it was absurd. and sadly so, i think. host: charles in florida, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the lady that called and said something, that it should be unanimous to change a rule --
a rule, here is another suggestion i think might work. there used to be more supreme court justices than nine. if we get more justices, it would be less political. the reason i say that is when you have a 5-4 ruling, i don't care what side. i've been on both sides, and i've never feel good because it splits the country up. if you have 18 justices instead of nine, you would have less rulings that were that close. they would be more -- it just wouldn't be as close. even though i am a democrat, i would be fine with making it five republicans and four democrats because it would allen's the scales of justice a lot more -- would balance the
scales of justice a lot more. host: on twitter, thoughts on the idea of increasing the number of justices on the bench. "to increase it by three or five in order to lighten the workload , but drawn nine straws to hear a case. no term limits nor age limits. however, there should be mental screenings to show fitness to be a justice." conrad in philly, republican. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i am calling it about may be the supreme court reform that they need. before they even solve any of that, you have to change that white house because they are the ones that set the tone. the only thing you get something done in washington, anyone calling in on c-span, let's put our money together and get us a lobby and we can get what we want. politics is all money, and you
can call in with your thoughts, but if you are not giving them no money, they are not going to bring justice to the floor. if ge wants something done, they send 20 lobbyists. host: this is catherine in new hampshire, and independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i definitely believe in mandatory retirement. this is a body of people who are going to be making rules for our future in a ration. -- future generation. i think that younger people, not 20's, but not in their late 70's or 80's. it is a learning curve. it takes a while in any job to do a good job. i do not believe in more bodies because the more people you have putting into the pot, the harder it is going to be to come up to a consensus. we seem to have just about 50-50
when it comes to republicans and democrats in the young generation. it is going to be there world. i think it is a very different world from those who are in the older years, say 70 plus. that is why i am for mandatory retirement. thank you. host: that is catherine in new hampshire. this is jennifer in illinois, a democrat. caller: good morning. i am probably echoing what other people say, just a few of them, about the idea. i don't see what would be wrong with doing and even stephen even number of democrats, even number of republicans, and then throw an independent there, you know what i mean? just so it is almost all. i also think women and men, it should be the same equal number, especially with the articles that just came out where they
have to change the rules because the men on the supreme court were constantly interrupting the women. they had to completely change their system around, which brings me to the other point about the term limits. most of the men that are on this court, you were still allowed to beat your wife when they got on. i am 41 years old, and a lot of these people have been serving my whole life, and if they last another 10 years, it is like, they will not let it go because they understand that the world is not there is any more -- is not theirs anymore. that is not what progress is. i also think, when it comes to religion, i do not think you said have radically religious people on the courts. these men believe that women are
benny's men -- are beneath men. they believe that women were only born to serve men. all of these justices have gone to colleges and said they don't believe in abortion, it is their religious views. only 22% of our country is their religion. only 22%, yet they make up the whole screen court. host: this is steve in louisville, kentucky. good morning. caller: thanks, appreciate you taking my call. keep the supreme court the same. there is no reason to change it. it is one of the few things in this country that is still the same that works. you look at the justices on that supreme court, it is a balance. we've got women. we've got men. we've got hispanics. we've got a black.
it is one of the few things that hasn't changed. it takes a long time to overcome precedent, as in roe v. wade, for instance. but they are singing about it. they've thought about it -- thinking about it. they thought about it. they are coming around more and more to see that life is precious and guaranteed in the constitution, by our creator. inalienable rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. life is the very first one. at conception, your ticket is punched. you have a right to be here, regardless of how it occurred. that is the way i feel about it. host: that is steve in louisville, kentucky. having this conversation this morning ahead of this meeting of the commission for the supreme court of the united states, a presidential commission, having it as the 2021 term of the supreme court is already underway. one of those key cases this term was heard this week, back on wednesday, united states v.
tsarnaev, a death penalty case involving one of the boston bombers. you can see that on our website if you missed it and watch it in its entirety. some dates of other key cases, a key gun rights case, new york state rifle and pistol association v. bruen is on november 3. december 1, dobbs v. jackson women's health organization. also, december 8 is carson v. macon, a religious liberty case that is getting a lot of attention this term. again, live audio arguments being aired here on c-span as they happen, and the idea of going from live audio arguments to a live camera in the courtroom is one of those
proposals for reform that is expected to be talked about today by this commission. part of the commission report including an entire section on cameras in the courtroom. i should note that cameras any court room certainly something that this network has argued for over the years. from that commission report, the draft report that came out yesterday, "proponents of cameras in the courtroom emphasize the importance of transparency and the important educational and civic benefits of seeing the justices at work. given the court's long-standing opposition to cameras, near simultaneous audio would better enable the media to cover the court's work while enabling interesting numbers of the bar and the public to better follow the work of the court. perhaps further experience with simultaneous audio will encourage the court to try cameras in the future as well." again, that discussion happening this morning, 10:00 a.m. eastern
on the white house website, whitehouse.gov. they are also streaming it on youtube. pamela in new york, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i hope there is not too much static on the phone. it is a landline i am having a problem with. but i would like to make one comment before i mention anything about the super court. i tried to get in yesterday , and i hope the men that said trump did so much for the veterans is listening because trump appalled me when he said that veterans were losers and suckers. i hope he googles that if he doesn't already know about it. host: before we get too off course in these next 10 minutes, come back to the spring court for me. -- the supreme court. caller: what my view is, i am 73 years of age, and i have lost complete faith in the supreme court since clarence thomas was
appointed after he was accused of sexual impropriety, as well as now kavanaugh. if we are going to have any kind of supreme court, we have to have the absolute elite like they have at west point and annapolis and anywhere else. it is the same idea. they have to have an absolute pristine record in order to be in the highest law of the land. until we stop doing this kind of thing, women are at risk, just like that little gabby who was being abused and is now dead. we have to start realizing that until we change our attitude towards what men are allowed to get away with with women, in the supreme court, that is obsolete outrageous. i don't believe either one of those women would put themselves at risk, would jeopardize their futures with the majority of people who didn't believe them. it takes a lot of courage to get up there and say this is what
happened to me, and they were appointed anyway. and i lost complete faith in the supreme court, and yes, i believe in terms. term limits, absolutely. host: back to the bluegrass state, to kentucky. adam, one of our regular colors here on "washington journal." good morning. caller: how are you guys? tons of good comments today. i really enjoy listening to it. the one thing i will say about the supreme court is i would say 90% of the callers actually don't listen to any of the supreme court. i listened to the tsarnaev hearing, and it was great. everyone was well balanced, respected, great arguments for and against. i think people get caught up in the political circus, and they
actually don't even listen to the content. [indiscernible] so to the point of the term limits and that kind of stuff, i would say maybe an age limit, and maybe there are some callers who have come in -- the twitter comment was great. you test out. you have some type of testing. but i also think at the same time, it is quite ironic that the white house and other legislative branches are pushing for term limits for other people, but don't push them for themselves. just think that is kind of ironic. but we've got to listen to the court. host: you said you listened to the nine have -- the tsarnaev case. talking about getting too caught up in the politics, do you think you would have gotten more out of watching the argument's live? i know you said you were on the
road, so you wouldn't have been able to watch anyway. but if you had, do you think would have gotten more out of seeing it live? or do you think seeing the justices when they question the two sides, would that get us caught up in the politics? that is the argument, at least one of the arguments, for those who don't want cameras in the court, that we will study the facial expressions too much or that things will be taken out of context from what we see as opposed to listening to the legal arguments and the merits of the case. do you thing he would have gotten more out of seeing the arguments live versus listening to them? caller: that is very interesting. i did not know that was the argument for against cameras. host: it is one argument that gets put out there. caller: of course. i would say transparency, have cameron the court. -- have cameras in the court. i listened to sotomayor and her
arguments, and obama pointy. i listened -- and obama appointee -- an obama appointee. i listened to kavanaugh, a trump appointment. the cameras, i don't think -- their words are what they mean. so i don't think the cameras are going to influence me one way or another, if you are pragmatic in your thoughts and you listen to these people. you're going to make a sound judgment call and hopefully you are not just looking at the screen and saying this is this guys face and i am mad about it. i think it all goes back to everybody has got to calm down. everybody get off of facebook, get off of these social media websites, and start talking to each other and listening to each other. host: thanks for the call, and think for calling in -- and thanks for calling and. once a month is what we ask viewers to limit themselves to,
a 30 day window between your phone calls. you can call once a month every month, i would want to hear your opinions. adam one of those folks who is one of those regulars who call in. about five more minutes of taking your phone calls, continuing to get your thoughts on reforms you would support for the supreme court. scott is in toronto, -- godfrey is in toronto, canada. what is your take from north of the border? [indiscernible] caller: well, my feeling is that reforming the supreme court, apart from little stuff -- [indiscernible] -- the democrats to do what they threatened to do during the election time, which is to pack the court. i am stunned that the public are allowing such excessive overreach by this white house.
can you imagine if you flipped a coin and had five supreme court justices appointed by a democrat president and four appointed by avery and president, and trump was in the white house? and there is a commission to reform the supreme court. the democrats would be up in arms. the media would be up in arms. they would do anything to undermine trump. but here -- [indiscernible] there is nothing wrong with the current composition of the supreme court, but the democrats are just unlucky. they didn't win the election in the past. so they are looking for ways to get around it. host: godfrey in toronto, canada speaking of presidents. one other news item to note, former u.s. president bill clinton recovering after two days of treatment for an infection. he is in a california hospital recovering.
the 70 five-year-old admitted to the university of california irvine medical center on tuesday evening for a non-covid infection, according to his spokesperson. the reuters story with a quote from that spokesperson, saying that president clinton is "on the mend, in good spirits, and incredibly thin for pd doctors, nurses and staff who provided him with excellent care. he is up and joking with hospital staff." john in baton rouge, your thoughts on reforms for the super court. caller: good morning. my suggestion would be to add two more people to the supreme court, and put an age limit on justices. unfortunately, we don't want to face the facts. one person -- once a person gets
to their late 80's, 90's, their cognitive abilities slow down. the decisions they make are very important. i want to make another comment. the lady who suggested term limits, i wouldn't go for term limits, but if it happens, i wouldn't cry about it. host: how many years do you think would be appropriate, and what age do you think is too old to serve as a justice? caller: i think terms on the supreme court should be no more than three six-year terms, which would add up to 18 years. the age limit should be maybe 85
at the most. host: this is alan in arkansas, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. i thing i am saying this again, i should be invited on for half an hour. i'm a retired american history teacher, and listening to this this morning is about as aggravating as it was yesterday morning. "washington journal" should be retitled let us prove the endurance of the citizenry -- the ignorance of the citizenry for three hours. host: well, alan, what would you recommend? why are you frustrated? caller: just for an example, the quick solution on the supreme court photography issue is let them take a photograph every 60 seconds. that will be sufficient enough. show the act of folks participating. it would not have to be moment by moment, rather than the still
photos that they use. i am calling to make a quick comment. the purpose of the u.s. supreme court was to create a cooperative organization between the states. each state had their constitution. these folks are complaining about the supreme court ruling today, it is allowing a lower court ruling to stand. the cases are being resolved, but the closer representation is our state's opinion where. the history of the u.s. supreme court, talking about it so gallantly does not explain. it is so frustrating. the supreme court was organized along with the federal government, subsequent to the
seven-year war of independence, which we forget about. it took seven years to win our independence. wrangling like we do today between the states. they said, if we do not organize a federal government, we will lose our unity and purpose of freedom that the states are organized with this independence. you get the federal government, and the whole purpose was to help resolve issues, but look at the first amendment. the issues do not interfere with worship, do not interest -- interfere with speech and petition. they are elements of tierney that the kit -- tyranny.
we are going to be sure to stop any of these top line abuses. it is working fine. for these people complaining about older folks, that is the absolute supremacy of bigotry. they improve over a. unless a disease affects the brain. the higher order thinking skills -- there are six of them. knowledge, comprehension, application and analysis synthesis. the highest order is evaluation, making judgments. that is what the supreme court is. host: in harrisburg, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: hello. i have three reforms for the replacement process.
they can be moved by unanimous vote of all the other justices, if they resign or die -- they must be replaced within 60 days and the approval process must begin immediately. three, if they resign for any of the reasons, they must wait until the next presidential election. host: the system that we have right now, how much faith do you have any? caller: i do not understand what you mean? host: the system that we have right now, the supreme court as it is set up right now. do you trust the supreme court and think that they are doing a good job? caller: i do, so far. the people that they are choosing are at least highly
mentally competent and very experienced in their job. they do know the constitution and law. they understand president, so far. it is to overbalance, if you look at it politically, but the supreme court should not be political at all. host: independent, good morning. that is you. caller: i had the privilege of having actually heard anthony scalia at one of my dinners. he made a point that he did not like being labeled a conservative. he called himself a constitutional originalist. that is what we have to look for in our supreme court justices.
in terms of the number, i could live with nine or 11, but it should be something that is fixed in the constitution. it should not be used as a tool to influence the judges that are there. we saw that it was used like that to get many programs of the new deal. i think to an extent, i would agree with the case that later found some of the provisions legal, but some of the sweeping provisions were found legal only after the intimidation of the judges on the court. they should not be subject to that kind of intimidation. the number has to be fixed and not adjusted by the party in power, at the time. we have to look at the way that
the judges are confirmed. the 17th amendment did not just change the way that senators were elected. it changes their constitution. they are no longer a deliberative body that are there to represent the interests of their state as an entity or representing the masses within the state. they are like two at-large representatives, as opposed to what was envisaged in the court. if anything, we should be looking at changing the amendment to going back to electing senators to be representatives of the state, as an entity. host: on the idea of justices on
the court, do you think congress -- that fdr tried to add justices to the supreme court, a democratic congress opposes that move. do you think they missed an opportunity to do what you are talking about, to put it in the constitution that this is the number, whatever it should be. d think after the experience of going through that, who actively trying to add, do you think they should set what the number should be? guest: i think they did miss that opportunity. i would hope that the present congress thinks about that. we lost the deliberative body
that the senate used to be. host: this is mike in santa cruz, california. good morning. caller: i think we should speak to the docket. nine is too many. i think we should have closed captioning included with the audio. we should possibly add a spanish channel. there are a lot of people in this country who could benefit from all of these things. host: do you think we would benefit more by having a camera in their to see the justice's actions? caller: no. i do not think that makes any benefit at all. host: why not? caller: why not? it adds to the concept of it being a theater.
the supreme court should be less theater and more deliberation, in my mind. i do not think any camera would benefit. host: d think the house and senate are more of a theater deliberation? caller: what will be interesting is if the cameras were in the corners to catch people who are not in view of the camera. but there is enough going on. cameras do not really add anything to the understanding where the depth of what is going on in congress. host: mike, just some insight, c-span does not control the cameras that are in the chamber. it is the individual house and senate that control the cameras. on occasion, c-span is allowed to bring in other cameras.
that is when you see other shards -- shots of the chamber. in general, we get the feeds provided to us by the house and senate and we have committed to airing them in their entirety, but i think we would be on board with you on the idea of having more cameras and showing different parts of the camera. this is tony in fort lauderdale, and independent. caller: good morning. you keep things so partisan and divided. there is a proposal put forward that would take away the hot button issue of appointing each individual justice. it would be done incrementally, over a series of administrations. this way, no president could pack the court.
why haven't you mentioned that this morning? this is such a vital idea. all you want to do is play the same partisan left and right-wing. stop it. host: i am actively trying to find what you are talking about. we are not trying to say anybody is bad. we are trying to talk about ideas and what will happen with this commission that is meeting later today. we are discussing some of these proposals. this is your chance to weigh in. they will be talking amongst themselves and this is your chance to talk here on c-span. but i look that up. -- will look that up. caller: good morning.
i am calling in regards to the supreme court. based on the numbers -- [indiscernible] most people are talking about retirement. let's work on the retirement of those in congress. let's start there. some of them have been there for decades. they have been there for decades. [indiscernible] about the cameras, i think that is a great idea.
we want people to be confident about the transparency of the court. somebody mentioned an assessment based on the videos they are watching. i do not think there will be any problem regarding that. retirement is being pushed. another problem -- we should also look at the edge. they cannot perform. people look at it differently. another one is -- host: time for a couple more phone calls. good morning.
caller: good morning. i was trying to watch. they were talking about these judges. in 1974, there was a rule made up that they could not judge anything that was a conflict of interest. whoever is involved, i know it is a conflict of interest. 700 judges -- over 100 have taken these cases. it is illegal. it is a conflict of interest. millions of dollars to straighten it out.
host: sheer is one of the op-ed's from april 4, 2019. noting that for a couple of decades now, jonathan turley has advocated for the expansion of the supreme court to 19 members. i will scroll down to get to his actual proposal. he said, my 19 member proposal avoids giving advantage. the increase in size would happen slowly. no president would be allowed to point more than two additional justices during a term. natural turnover would start to regulate its natural makeup with no one president pushing it in one direction or another. why 19? that is roughly the size of our
federal appellate courts. i would add a rule that each year, two of the high court justices would be dispatched so that they do not lose touch with the case that rises to the supreme court. that would leave inactive court of 17 justices. it could expand the high court to 17. jonathan turley, a law professor at washington university, his proposal that a caller reminded us of. jonathan turley has appeared on this program several times and you can watch some of his previous appearances in their entirety. an independent, good morning. caller: i had to say that i lost faith in the supreme court
during the bush v gore decision. i think it was obviously a partisan set up. something else that people need to remember, if neil gorsuch -- wasn't neil gorsuch the one that replaced -- that took the seat that merrick garland should have had? host: can you ask that again? caller: wasn't neil gorsuch the one that took the seat? host: the first appointment from president trump. caller: if the man had any honor, he would have refused the appointment. to me, that is obvious that there is a problem there. the next thing is, you ask yourself the question, when you ask -- when you look at somebody like cavanaugh.
here is an apparent or even obvious frat boy mentality, frat boy mentality, where he felt like he could do whatever he wanted to do because he was a teenager and drunk. this is ridiculous. people have to look at this mess and ask themselves the question of who created this mess? this is what you get when you allow the republicans to take over your government. i used to be a republican. i stopped being a republican when i saw the way that they treated barack obama. it did not just disrespect the man but the office of the presidency. people have to wake up and look at what is going on in their
local governments because this is what you will get across-the-board. this is the current way of thinking for the republicans in general. they have made a mess out of the supreme court. the only thing that they did well in the last 20 years is pack the court. host: tom will be our last collar on this topic, but a lot more on this topic happening at 10:00 a.m. eastern. they will be holding that commission hearing. it will be going over these reform proposals that we have been talking about this morning. it is expected to be a seven hour meeting. they are streaming it on youtube as well. a program note for you.
we will not be joined by our guest this morning, but we will try to reschedule that interview. we had expected to be joined by him, to talk about his new documentary, taliban takeover. but we'll get that rescheduled. we do want to talk about that as well. we will turn our attention to how we are approaching the process, with that kicking into high gear. that conversation with ben williams is next. join us after the break. ♪ >> today, testimony on exclusionary zoning and affordable housing, followed by a house subcommittee at noon
eastern on c-span. c-span now. >> sunday night on q&a, senior fellow and former wall street journal economist discusses his book, only the rich can play. next opportunity zones created tax havens across the country. they gave wealthy people an incentive to put their money in poor communities in exchange for a tax break. we do not really know how much money got into them. reconciliation is a household world -- word in washington. i would say, based on the stuff i have said, we had talking about tens of millions of dollars going into opportunity zones. i think the bulk of the money
has gone into zones that did not need the money. it went to projects that probably would have been built otherwise. >> his book, only the rich can play. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our new c-span now at -- app. ♪ >> begins on c-span two, bringing you the best. saturday on american history tv, on the presidency, a look at how the legacy of woodrow wilson fairs in an age of reckoning. the president wilson house and woodrow wilson center for international scholars. two programs on the reconstruction era in america. first, from the citadel military college.
looking at why the museum is being built. join us to talk about his work on the documentary, reconstruction: america after the civil war. the university professor teaches a class on african-americans americans during the reconstruction era and how former slaves strove for rights and citizenship including choosing where they work. book tv features leading authors, discussing their latest nonfiction books. on sunday, we will feature current and former members of congress discussing their favorite books, including mark sanford with his book, today leo rose diverted -- two roads diverge.
kansas democratic representative -- and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell shares his reading list. afterwards, ben nelson talks about his book, death of the senate, my front row seat to the demise. his recommendations to restore it. he is interviewed. watch american history tv and book tv every weekend on c-span two. find a full schedule on her program guide. host: the point person for redistricting programs.
then williams explains to viewers what it is and what role you are hoping to play here. guest: it is the leading -- needs of legislators. all the legislators and over 25,000 legislative staffers are members. that is a pretty big group. our information is nonpartisan. we provide information so that they can take that information and create the best policies for their state. host: what should viewers know about how they go about redistricting? how many ways are there? guest: we like to say that there are 50 ways to do redistricting.
a couple things that they look at. is it the legislatures? one of the rules at the legislature has to follow that are specific to their state? they might be called principles in any particular state. are there any particular processes like the amount of time that it needs to be pending before it can be voted on? are there rules around public input? when you take into account all of those things, you get a wonderful mosaic of policymaking. host: what determines whether they come up with them in the state legislatures? guest: we served legislatures and we believe in the
traditional institutions. there are plenty of things that have chosen to move to a commission based process. in those states, we consider any institution that does not redistrict to be a commission. three executive branch officials to -- it is a 14 member commission that has a rigorous selection process for the members to try to filter out partisanship. it is a broad-spectrum, but if you look at the history of how they perform in court, the maps drawn are upheld by courts. host: what is the timeframe that
states are working under? how has this been impacted by the pandemic? guest: all of redistricting deadlines are sent to -- centered around april 1, 2021. that is the date that the census bureau, according to federal law, is supposed to deliver the granular data from the census. they would count happy people are living in a particular household. they use that to redraw districts to comply. that was supposed to come on april 1. because of delays because of the pandemic and natural disasters and fires in the west, the information was delivered mid august. that has led to many going to
court and asking for an extension on deadlines. or it has led to states creating special sessions to redistrict earlier than they otherwise would. host: just a reminder of what the census dale told us this year. the apportionment gains with texas picking up two seats in this round of redistricting. in terms of the states that law states, california, illinois, michigan, west virginia -- all states that lost a seat in the latest we apportionment. an effort to create new maps in states across the country. then williams is joining us to talk about it.
we are taking your phone calls for this last half-hour of washington journal. republicans, the number -- then williams, what is the biggest problem that -- been -- ben williams, what is the biggest problem? guest: the timeline is one of the biggest issues. there is a more public awareness than there has been in the past. the public wants to be engaged. we are trying to figure out how to take all that input. whether it be a hearing or something set up by the legislature, archive and consolidate it in a systemic way , rather than looking at 10,000
pieces of input and not being able to paint a picture of what is being told. host: what is your advice, coming up against that time crunch? especially when courts play a role. we are looking at stories like this. the redistricting plan. that is also going to affect the timeline, coming up on a ticking clock. guest: they are doing their best to complete redistricting on time. it is -- there will be a lot of cases filed. there have been over 25 cases filed this year for redistricting. the numbers are going to go up significantly. as of this time, only eight states of 50 have passed a
redistricting map. we have a long way to go. as those numbers go up, the court cases will go up as well. host: remind us what the supreme court decision was? guest: it said that the formula that determines which state, city and county is subject to section five of the voting rights act, which had the preclearance regime, it meant that these are localities that had a history of discrimination and voting on the basis of race. they would have to pre-approve any changes they made to their election laws. in shelby county, they said the coverage formula, written in 1965, was not tailored to current circumstances and was struck down. congress could we authorize it,
but as we stand today, it is the valid law of the land. that is one of the biggest changes. this will be the first redistricting cycle where it was not in effect. host: more on that shelby case and the redistricting. the assistant attorney general. spoke in a recent senate hearing on that case. this is what she had to say. >> we are on the cusp of a transformational moment. a new redistricting cycle has commenced. numbers show the u.s. is becoming an increasingly diverse nation with population growth attributable to increases in the number of people of color. absent congressional action would be the first in half a century without the full protection of the voting rights act.
jurisdictions might be poised to dilute the increased minority voting strength that has resulted from these natural demographic changes. without preclearance, the justice department will have limited tools to obtain documents and assess where voting rights are being restricted, hampering enforcement efforts. host: kristin clark of the assistant attorney for rights. between those concerns, court cases that always happen and the pandemic timeline, is there any chance that they may not have maps ready for when the actual election happens next year? guest: i can go to november of this year when virginia and new jersey have elections this
november. typically, they would we district on time in early 2021. they would give their data particularly early. the data did not come out until august. they will be running under old maps 11-time this november and then they will redistrict in 2022. you already have an example. i would expect them to be district. host: does it open a whole new avenue? they say they want a vote in the we map? guest: i'm not sure what it would be for a vote again.
having compliance -- if you have the old district and by we have to be district. we went to get them close to equal within the parameters. this case is do occur. there are cases like that including in louisiana and pennsylvania. it is something that we are seeing already and we can see more of in the coming months. host: very complicated redistricting effort taking place. taking your phone calls. gary is out of michigan. caller: i am coming at this as an expert on gerrymandering,
considering i have been affected by gerrymandering pretty strongly this year. this year is the first year, that we have used the nonpartisan. the legislature is doing it and it is not democrat or republican. both parties do it in whatever states that they are controlling. whichever party has the power, they are more than willing to gerrymander. i bought my house in 1976. my house has not moved, but i have been in four different congressional districts. this year, i could potentially be in a fifth one, all due to partisan gerrymandering. host: we will hear from david from gaithersburg, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my
call. it is interesting to hear about michigan because i was going to ask if you are familiar with maryland having done this new commission for the first time, that the governor set up and if you had any thoughts or how you think that is going. i was just curious. another question about the preclearance that you go -- were talking about. is there a recommendation to get people more engaged at the state level? the constitution says what it does and states have that power, so i do not know if you have a strategy. thank you. host: we have michigan, maryland, concerns about jamie wondering and votes. your recommendation for getting involved? guest: i am not surprised.
redistricting is at the front of people's minds. they are more familiar with this topic than ever before. we do not usually get involved in community engagement, but i'm sure that there are organizations within your state that work on redistricting that you could reach out to. i will throw out a couple organizations that i know are engaged. common cause is engaged in redistricting. the cato institute -- they have national outreach. in addition, you can also reach out to particular parties. the parties have what can get people engaged. at this point, they provide
organizing or advice to people on how they should redistrict. we advise people on the policies that go into redistricting, so that those drawing the lines have the best possible. host: concerns about gerrymandering always comes up, but do you think that those concerns are increasing in recent years? have concerns over gerrymandering than bigger than they are right now? guest: the original term of j mentoring comes from massachusetts in 1812. he signed into law a redistricting plan drawn by the massachusetts general court of that state. a newspaper came across it and said this is not a salamander,
which it kind of looked like. it is a gerry-mander. it is not new. politics have always been a part of redistricting. host: richmond, virginia. this is martin, an independent. caller: good morning. you guys have answered some of my questions. they are back to the red and blue split, trying to do it, but my question is, how are these computer programs that they use to optimize the algorithms -- has there been any thought given to that?
thank you. host: technology and redistricting. guest: technology has certainly improved over the previous decade. ask people from the 1980's and 1990's. they were drawn lines with pencils or crayons and now we -- they were using calculators. now we have software that does that job in a matter of seconds. the technology has certainly improved. what the caller is getting at is the analysis. there are a couple different pieces here. compactness is a traditional principal. it just means, does the district have a normal-looking shape that
is tight around an area of geography? there are methods that can measure that to see if a district is more compact or less compact than others. there are new tools that were developed as part of litigation to measure partisanship. they get involved to compare election results, the votes that occur, and there are tools that can draw millions of maps in a matter of hours that are all compliant with the voting rights act and traditional principles. they compare it to a benchmark. there are a lot of new tools and i'm sure they are online and available to people. host: you mentioned one person, one vote, but how do states handle undocumented immigrants
and others who are not allowed to vote when it comes to redistricting? guest: there was a case that came out and texas, like all states did in 2010 -- to reconcile based on it, they did not take into account a person's immigration status or legal status. so, in 19, the supreme court ruled that the one person, one vote was an acceptable method of reconciling people for one person, one vote. they were silent on whether other method would be acceptable. we do not know if the answer would be yes or no, if they only wanted to be district on the basis of citizenship, but right now, total population is the answer.
they use a different. host: out of tennessee, this is on the republican line. caller: [indiscernible] host: how are things in tennessee? caller: i wanted to ask you something. i was from new york state, but why doesn't somebody do something about these landlords? host: we are going to stick with redistricting because that is our topic. we will go to roger in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. i hope that today finds you all well. this might be an exceptionally naive idea, but i will put it
out there anyways. why can we not use simple lines of longitude and latitude to cut the country up into districts? i will take my answer -- it might be naive. guest: there are states that use equal squares and arizona is one of those states. they have already released a draft map that does this. square or rectangular shapes. there are other considerations that go into redistricting that would start to deviate. i do not know -- the color may not feel this way, but there are many states that have a criteria that requires a state to keep
townships whole to some extent, when redistricting. that is because many have historical association. it might be important to the legislators and the people who wrote that language into your state law or constitution. there are other factors that go into play. there have been proposals like using a computer to draw new wii districting plans, but no state has adopted that. computers have a hard time dealing with smaller, person to person things like what is a community? computers cannot do that as well as a human can. host: should districts be as geographically compact as possible? guest: most state do not rank their criteria.
it is a judgment by a particular commission. i do not believe that there are any states that rank compactness first. you have to comply with all federal laws for you can come apply with the state. so, once you get down to the state criteria, things like preserving cities and counties. compactness is a principle that has been around for a long time. many states use it. host: is compactness a good way to avoid gerrymandering? guest: compactness is certainly constrained, the number of maps that can be drawn. there are millions of maps that can be drawn in a particular plan, but even drawing maps that are legally compact, they can have a lot of definitions.
they are drawing millions of maps for all the districts. even if it narrows the scope, it is narrowing it from hundreds of millions to maybe tens of millions. it is narrowing the scope, but there is a lot of wiggle room. that is why they typically have more than one criteria. there are so many ways to comply. host: about 10 minutes left in our program today. then williams is joining us. jenkins, ellenwood, georgia. caller: good morning. i live in a district, and it is carved out. it is like a balloon on one end.
they went three or four blocks. they went up to smyrna. it looks like a balloon that the error is out of the center. host: does that concern you with how it has been drawn? caller: yes. i was wondering why i was not congruent to the group of people right next to me. it skirts and goes around downtown and picks up around smyrna, georgia. i was laughing because of it. he took it and put two streets
and it became part of chicago. host: do you want to jump in on chicago and georgia? guest: the shape of a district does not necessarily help someone as much as they think. sometimes what you might think of as tendrils or finger is sticking out, there may be many reasons a district might have a particular shape. it is important to ask your legislators. just call your legislator and make your voice heard. they are your elected representatives. they are the people that have been given this role. this is the opportunity to get in the process.
lines change from decade to decade. host: to bruce. good morning. caller: good morning. they stayed districts and with a marker. what kind of discussion is taking place and with who before they change an area? host: you want to talk? guest: sure. ohio, you have two different processes. the legislative side, you have a commission that has already done its job. we will put that to the side for now. the congressional redistricting process, it is legislature is in charge of that. they have to have a bipartisan
vote. it is kind of a complex situation. it will go back to the legislature. they cannot get a bipartisan vote in ohio. a purely partisan vote can occur . but the map will only be in place for a few years. we would have to do redistricting again. if that were to happen, you would have multiple cracks added. the state legislature likely has hearings on the schedule or it has a website. i would encourage you in ohio and around the country to check your legislature and the website. i'm sure there is a portal to submit input.
get into contact with these folks. they want to hear from you. host: how many state legislatures are controlled by republicans? how we are controlled by democrats? guest: there are 30 state legislators controlled by republicans. 18 controlled by democrats and two are split. there is an interesting case because alaska elected a majority of republicans to their house. others formed a coalition. technically, it is a split legislature. in a soda, the houses controlled by democrats and the senate is controlled by republicans. in terms of governors -- if you have a redistricting in a legislative state, odds are that
they go through the regular legislative process. there are 27 states when the governor is a republican. you get 20 states where a republican legislature and governor controls. you have six states where it is split. or you have a governor -- you have nine states where there is a commission drawn the lines. nine states where there are commissions that draw the lines. six states are at large. so, it is more republican states than democratic states. more states had republican control then democratic control. host: is it unusual that there
are so few controls in the 50 states? guest: it is. this is the lowest number that have existed in the u.s. -- and has been over a hundred years since we have seen such a split. host: would that be a sign of how polarized the country is? guest: i think that is a fair characterization. people are moving around. people are moving from place to place. people might be sorting themselves. this is something -- the big sort is one of them. it postulates this theory that americans are moving into places with people who agree with them politically. i doubt that is the only factor.
people also change their view as well. host: 1.2 more calls. this is julia. good morning. caller: good morning. this call is in reference to the new york times newspaper, october 12, 2021, in reference to people who were incarcerated and had done their time, and they were given a bill to vote. host: julia, we will take up the idea of how incarcerated people are treated, in terms of these numbers very redistricting. guest: this is a concept.
i would encourage all the viewers to take a look at the page. it has information on all of the state policy on whether or not felons are permitted to vote after serving time. there are different rules about that. states do vary in that. there are two states that permit those incarcerated to vote in prison. in other states, there is some rule around the enfranchisement. either they are being franchised , or it has to be requested. this is something that if you are interested, i would encourage you to call your state legislator. sure there is somebody that has information on the state policy. for any one interested.
host: this is nancy in wisconsin. caller: good morning. i had to call on the independent line. the democratic line has been so busy. host: just one or two. caller: i will address the counting of the inmates in the senses. they do need to be counted, yes, but in wisconsin, we have one district that has a federal state and a community prison, but the inmates are counted, but they are unable to vote. it is very skewed on how the representatives are elected. i do not know how it gets across the nation, but it seems there has to be some way of counting
the inmates for the census. host: we will take that and give him the finalguest: what you arg about is prison gerrymandering. we call it reallocating inmate data. to give you background, the census bureau has a policy accounting people where they eat or sleep. it is the residence rule. if they are incarcerated, they are counted as living at the prison, or the facility where they are incarcerated. that can change at any particular day. wherever they are living when they take the count, that is where the next 10 years. some people believe that policy should be changed, either at the senses level or the states should enact a law that requires the redistricting to take a last known addresses of those particular residents and move
them in the data set back to the last known address, to the community where they came from prior to incarceration. there are 10 states doing this right now and a couple more than might be adding it on at the last minute. this is a minority of states but this is a trend we have seen for the past decade. only two states that this 10 years ago. we are seeing lots of bills on this. this is something we are tracking and we know is of interest to a lot of legislators and the public. host: plenty more information about redistricting and other topics at the national conference of state legislatures website. ncsl.org. ben williams is the program principal. appreciate your time this morning on the washington journal. that will do it for this friday morning. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern,
4:00 a.m. pacific. have a great day. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] ♪ >> coming up this afternoon, the house financial services committee hearing on exclusionary zoning and its impact on affordable housing. that starts live at noon eastern. later at 8:00 is doing, the house science space subcommittee meeting on the futureexpiration. you can see that tonight on c-span, online at c-span.org, or watch with the new video app c-span now. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a,
brookings institute senior fellow david wessel discusses his book, "only the rich can play." >> opportunity zones created tax havens across the country. they gave wealthy people an incentive to put their money in those poor communities and extensor capital gains tax breaks. we don't really know how much money has gone into them. as a result of that arcane process known as reconciliation, the provision that required reporting was stripped out. i would say based on the stuff i said we are talking about tens of billions of dollars going into opportunity zones. unfortunately i think the bulk of the money has gone into zones that did not need the money. they were already improving. or they winter projects that probably would have been built otherwise. >> david wessel, sunday night at
8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> get c-span on the go. watch the biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere on our new mobile video app, c-span now. access highlights, listen to c-span radio, and discover new podcasts for free. download c-span now today. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including wow. >> today, a fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. speed, reliability, value and choice. now more than ever it starts with great internet. wow. >> wow supports c-span as a
public service, along with these television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> new jersey's incoming governor debates republican challenger in their second meeting. this runs about an hour. >> live from the call in new jersey this is an j decides 2021 gubernatorial debate. facing up tonight please welcome the sitting governor of the state of new jersey bill murphy. [cheers and applause] and the cen