tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 5, 2015 7:00am-7:46am EDT
, a supreme court preview, upcoming docket, and some of the major decisions of the last term. ♪s always, is monday,morning it october 5 2015. the supreme court begins a new term today with the nine justices of the roberts court returning to work amid the backdrop of the 2016 election cycle. docket that will likely include issues like abortion and affirmative action. the court possible rulings are sure to be scrutinized by candidates up and down the ballot. we are asking our viewers to take a moment to tell us what you think about the institution of the supreme court on this opening day. do you trust the court to be a fair arbiter of the law or do
you think the court has become too political? republicans can call in this morning at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can also catch up with us on social media. on twitter, facebook or e-mail .s at firstname.lastname@example.org some of the headlines in some of the major papers, eight not to the political prism through which much of the supreme court term will be viewed. the front page of the "washington post." the new york times, the headline this morning, politically charged cases await the supreme court as new session opens. to the front page of "the washington times," political eyes on roberts as high court begins. court polls on the
showing public approval and trust at the court is at all times does. disapproval of the u.s. supreme court reached a new high in gallup possible latest poll with half of americans saying they do not approve of how the nation's highest court is handling its job. historically the supreme court has remained largely insulated from the politics of washington. most polls from the 4 july 2012 showed a strong majority of americans approved the court's actions. republicans have a more disapproving stance, reflective of recent decisions that put the nine justices in the middle of political battles. read more on that in the u.s. news and world report. we want to hear from you this morning on this question, has the supreme court become too political? this opening day of the new term of the supreme court, a view of
what happens at the court with lawrence hurley, a supreme court correspondence. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: what happens on a first day of the new term? guest: the first day of the term is when the justices sitting in court room together for the first time since june when the previous term ends. hearwill be assigned to oral arguments in new cases. also, adding to the cases they will hear this term. they are sifting through the cases. host: how much of the 2016 andet is set before today how many more cases are likely to be added? guest: they will be adding cases for the next few months. they already have a decent amount including some high-profile cases that will be argued in the next couple of months. host: what are they going to be talking about today? guest: today, they will be
announcing a list of cases that they are rejecting. cases they decided not to hear. last week they announced new cases they would hear. they are hearing a couple of arguments in low-profile cases. host: what is an example? guest: there is a case about an american woman who had an accident when she was in europe on a train. the question is whether she courts even u.s. though the accident did not take place here. host: though the term officially begins today, the unofficial beginning perhaps yesterday as the red mass in washington, d.c. ceremony.atholic quite a lot of the justices are catholics and they usually
attend. host: how many catholics are there? what is the religious breakdown of the justices? justice ginsburg and kagan are jewish. the others are catholic. host: lawrence hurley is a supreme court -- i would ask you about one of your -- laura turley is a supreme court correspondent -- lawrence hurley is a supreme court correspondent. guest: these big high-profile cases the court takes up, they also take up these colorful tales that arise from court cases. this one is about a moose hunter in alaska who likes to use the holocaust to get up to the hunting grounds and was told by
the national park service he hovercraftse his in federal land. waswaterway he was going on a federal land because it was owned by the state which would allow him to use his hovercraft. the dispute is over whether he can use his hovercraft or not. host: lawrence hurley, covering big cases, small cases, and everything in between at the supreme court. appreciate your time this morning. guest: thanks a lot. host: has the supreme court become to political? we will take your calls in the first 45 minutes. we will talk about the supreme court throughout today's shows -- all of the segments of today's show. if you want to call in, republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002
mike is calling in from north carolina on the independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. they need to have their wings clipped just as the president has usurped his authority. i am dismayed. i think that congress should really look on passing a constitutional amendment. i don't understand how ginsburg rolled on it which he performed a gay marriage. there is no such thing as gay marriage. happen that you serve part of god's ordain? nature.not assert four men and four women -- it is just common sense. i think they need to have their wings clipped. host: what do you mean?
would you be in favor of term limits for justices? -- theythat or either need to pass legislation that would undo the stuff they ruled on that they have no authority, no sense. thereeed to still be in and have not gotten anything out of the red mass. i pray for them and wish them no harm. they just need to have their wings clipped. they do not have the authority they think they have. host: ron is up next in boswell, indiana. good morning. caller: it is obvious there need to be term limits. the american about
president, two terms and your local county sheriff, they have two terms. everyone across the bird -- across-the-board calls for two terms. the inept time to be corrupted so badly. i think -- a report card. what are these people voting for? is it going along with their constituents? when you get ready to do a poll or something like that, they need to come out to this area to get your pull strength because you will never get it right if you stand outside the poll place or you are in some big city. he will not get an accurate accounting. host: when you talk about term limits for supreme court justices, if you do that there will be a lot more appointments,
more turnover on the bench of the supreme court. does that give the presidency more power? there is concern of the presidency having too much power now. caller: all of these things have to be set out and talked about. i'm not saying eight years would work good but there has to be some limit. it can't put people up for a lifetime position and expect them not to be jaded by the job. it is ridiculous when you see what they are allowed to make comments on. right now we are dealing with same-sex marriage. that should have never went to the supreme court. that is up to your it -- up to you and your creator. this craziness with the abortion clinics. it is ludicrous that you would have that kind of genocide going on. that does not sound very good to me. thing that only would settle it is term limits.
another thing trump is talking about, he is bringing these things to the front. a consumption tax of some kind. you are cutting out a whole arm of the government that is willfully undermanned -- over manned and so color up -- so corrupt. host: we will stick to the supreme court on this opening day. i want to hear from callers and folks on twitter and facebook. you can follow along with the conversations on social media as well. monti writes, no partisan appointed entity can claim objectivity. bill king making somewhat the same opinion. has the supreme court become to political? it is a politically appointed position so it has to be political. that is our question, has the supreme court become too political? david is on the line for
democrats. manassas, virginia. caller: you guys do a great job and sometimes you take a lot of heat from some of your callers. i believe that the supreme court is widely over politicized right now. the rules onth money being a form of free speech. you can express it better than i can. this is preposterous, the idea that billionaires can give as much money as they want to any politician. it has destroyed our whole political system. host: this is from norman on our
facebook page. he writes, everyone says when they agree with the supreme court decisions that they are upholding the constitution and when they disagree with the decisions of the supreme court they claim judicial tyranny. in both instances the supreme court is for filling its requirement to uphold and interpret the constitution. most likely, in over 99% of cases they are rendering the proper decision. what do you think about that? caller: it is an interesting concept. no doubt people do want to hear what they want to hear. point,same time, at this i think the supreme court is being corrupted by the same influences that are corrupting all the rest of washington. isn't one of the justices a lobbyist -- justices' wife a
lobbyist for big pharma? host: we will be speaking with adam liptak. we could talk to him about the biographies of the justices. he will be coming up in our next segment. one other poll i want to show viewers this morning, american'' view of the supreme court. the question was asked in a national poll, to you think the following rulings were good decisions or should they be overturned. on ruling that women have a constitutional right to abortions, 67% of respondents said it was a good decision, 29% said it was bad. the ruling that the constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, 54% saying it was a good decision, 42% saying it wasn't. upholding the obama administration's tax subsidies for people who buy health insurance under the afford will care act, 49% saying a good decision, 44% saying not. on rolling -- on ruling that
corporations may spend an unlimited amount on political it was a0 -- 17% said good decision, 78% said it was not. we are getting your viewer -- your views this morning. don is up next in greenville, ohio. caller: good morning. i believe it is political. i don't think it is going to straighten out as long as we appointingident maybe two judges while he is in office. think the people of the united andes should vote for them they should run for these positions just like the president. .here should be term limits maybe they should settle in there for nine years and they are off and then they can come
back maybe in future time. i don't think the president should be able to appoint them. i think they should run just like the president does and the people of the united states be able to vote. , there isou do that obviously a campaign and nationwide vote on the presidential election. has that made presidential elections any less political or more? how does the supreme court become less political if they do it through that process? caller: i think it is political ,ecause if we see in the past it is only these presidents -- some of these presidents appoint two judges and right there, it is political. i believe the people of the united states should be able to vote for those positions. they should run for those positions and maybe be in their
for a total of nine years and you are out. but you haveback to set out for a term -- sit out for a term at least. .ost: we are talking to viewers has the supreme court become too political? it is opening day of the new term of the supreme court. we will be talking about some of the key cases and some of the key political battles that have wrapped up in the supreme court throughout today's show. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 --er today we will breathe we will be premiering our landmark cases series that asked doors -- that explores some of the drum is frequently cited decisions in the supreme court's
history. it is a 12 part series that delton to cases that represent some of the tipping point in our nation's story and involve our understanding of rights in america. it begins tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern. the first case is marbury versus madison and we will be doing it each week through december 21. tune in tonight on c-span and c-span 3. rich from marion, ohio. line for republicans. has the supreme court become too political? caller: it definitely has. words get hard to read. .onfused by simple words the problem with that is, what about all the other words that are not as clear?
if we can reread everything a different way. you can have gigantic amount of immigrants come in by which way they connected on the men and women. if they do that there will be a lot of immigration problems. there is also cost. when they can strike a line and it could have a trillion dollar implication. host: we are getting your opinions in this first 45 minutes this morning. one of the headlines we showed you, political eyes on roberts as the high court begins its term. the story noting that john roberts entered his second decade at the helm of the supreme court with his legacy in debate as conservatives who have championed him now question whether their trust was misplaced. the story noting that contenders in the republican primary are making the chief justice
punching bag saying he has been a disappointment. he upheld the constitutionality of obamacare and rejected a challenge that argued the white house was raking the terms of the republicanon primary debate, john roberts has become a question that has been asked a republican contenders of whether he is doing a good enough job at the helm of the supreme court. here is a bit from that debate last month in which jeb bush and ted cruz were asked about john roberts. [video clip] >> john roberts has made some good decisions but he did not have an extensive record that would have made the clarity the important thing and that's what we need to do. i'm willing to fight for those nominees to make sure they get past. you can't do it the politically expedient way anymore. you have to fight hard for these appointments.
this is perhaps the most important thing the next president will do. >> i have no john roberts for 20 years. it was a mistake when he was appointed to the supreme court. he knows in these obamacare cases he changed the law in order to force that failed law on millions of americans for a political outcome. we are frustrated as conservatives. we keep winning elections and that we do not get the outcome we want. 1990, in one room was david souter, in another was even if jones.- was edith in 2005, in one room was john roberts in another room mike looted the conservative on the fourth circuit court of appeals. george w. bush appointed john roberts. if instead president bush had appointed edith jones and mike
udig, the marriage laws would be on the books. the republican presidential debate -- repugnant presidential primary debate. we want to hear -- the republican presidential primary debate. we want to hear your thoughts. jim calling in from california. thanks for getting up with us this morning. caller: thank you. i appreciate c-span for this forum. i wanted to say, i have given up on the supreme court when they came out with citizens divided -- citizens united. the original writers of the constitution meant to include everyone, not just the wealthy. i think they did irreparable harm when they passed that
decision. that is really all i have to say. i think the democrats and bernie sanders it hillary clinton have the right idea and president obama has done a great job getting us out of wars that have done nothing but make people from abroad hate us and that does not do us much good. the decision by the supreme united to buyzens a vote is not what i think the original founders of the constitution meant. host: we showed a poll from gallup earlier on the approval ratings of the supreme court. 50% saying they disapprove of the supreme court. 45% saying they approve of the job the supreme court is doing. are you surprised by that 45%? think the united states is divided fairly evenly
into two sections, one being democrat and another being republican. i think the polls show the people in the united states are 50-50. two parties is the way to go. more parties might be a better idea and give us a broader spectrum. i am a little bit surprised that half the people say the supreme court is doing a good job. i think they endeavor to be fair but i have no idea why they came up with the idea that you can buy a vote in that is ok. that is beyond me and i have given up on the supreme court after that. host: we are showing our viewers live pictures this morning of the supreme court where people are lining up, waiting to go inside the court on its opening day of the new term. sandy is up next, line for independence.
ts. caller: good morning. i love your programming. i agree with the man earlier from california. the supreme court did a bad in justice when they put our government up for sale. i think every american should be highly upset over this. the only ones to change it are the ones reaping the benefits, congress. host: that is sandy in granite city, illinois. yolanda is next. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the previous callers that our supreme court, they are way too political. i go back to this marriage thing. how many states when they took a vote, the people voted against it. yet we did not have a say anymore. we leave it up to those judges
who had a lifetime appointment. sometimes i wonder. ginsburg, when she looks like she's asleep or something, i just wonder. carol on twitter says the reason the justices are appointed for life is supposedly to free them from political pressure. no human can be totally objective. usa today in their preview of the new supreme court term, the headlight -- the headline, to do list chock-full of repeats. at the justices will rule on affirmative action for the third time in four years. the rule on public employee unions for the third time in five years. class action lawsuits and death penalty appeals as they do nearly every year before the term is our next june they will likely consider the affordable care act's contraceptive mandate for the second time in three years and up eight what they meant a generation ago in a ruling that states could not lays an undue burden on women
seeking abortions. the supreme court's to do list chock-full of repeats, the headline. gordon is up next. caller: good morning. -- myan interesting great-grandfather was a charter member of columbia law school and practiced before the supreme court for 35 years. they went from 1927 enrolled they could no longer handle down to 3000 cases -- they are down to about 70 cases, these nine judges. four of them are a product of the new york city court system which is in shambles. that is scalia from a queens -- from a corrupt queens courthouse. ginsburg from a brooklyn corrupted democratic machine. the district leader was convicted of selling judgeships.
the bronx machine is a total sewer. and kagan comes from manhattan and the american people have to yorkers all these new being on the supreme court of the united states. the new york state legislature is ranked 50th as the most dysfunctional legislative body in america. host: you mention one of your relatives was a charter member at columbia. are you talking -- you are talking about the backgrounds of some of the justices. do you think the justices need to come from more diverse educational institutions than just harvard, yale, and columbia? caller: absolutely. -- the cityhings university of new york, it free institution produced more phd's than any other university in the world and that is new longer free -- that is no longer free
and that is part of the socioeconomics of screwing the working class. you can look at the backgrounds of many of our presidents. not all of them were the harvard yellow leads. yale elites. caller: good morning. the supreme court, sometimes you wonder what country they are in. i think i read several times that it took the supreme court -- that the people versus , it took themment 1990 to rule in favor of the people. every case they had they ruled in favor of the government. it tells you where they are coming from.
this thing about obamacare, when that case with roberts, supreme court justice, he turned it over to his he turned it over to his lawyers to reconstruct the law. obamacare was actually rewritten by the supreme court, which is totally illegal and should have been written by congress and the people. i would like to see if congress would do their job and start impeaching people like they are supposed to the should not be up there or have been up there too long and have gone nuts while up there, we need people represented. more impeachment. host: we will be taking your calls on the supreme court throughout today's show. we will show you like pictures as well today i was opening day of the new term of the supreme court. also some other news around the country and here in washington, d.c., specifically in the race
for the next speaker of the house. an announcement yesterday from a congressman from you toppling his hat in the ring the ring for the- speakership. daniel webster of florida. here is jason on fox news sunday announcing his bid. >> today here, i am announcing my intention to run for the speaker of the house of representatives. we were interested by the american people with the largest majority you republicans have its babe ruthlessly swinging a baseball bats, but they did not send us your to perpetuate the status quo. they want us to tackle the tough issues. they do not want us to fight. they want us to take the fight to the senate and the president and the american people. host: he is the chairman of the house oversight and government reform committee.
that speakership election expected to happen next week. kevin mccarthy one of the two other candidates in that race tweeting out yesterday that he is proud to have the support of ryan, linking to his column on townhall.com. we will closely monitor that race as it happens this week. it will happen on the house floor on the speakers race, and we will be covering that on c-span as well. shane is waiting to talk about the supreme court on its opening day in order florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was telling a young lady that supreme court has become too political. the reason i say that is they should be more moral than
anything else. when the supreme court does when what ishem in there, right and what the constitution says with the people, not what is right for the party. a lot of the republicans are godd about obamacare but was in his heart. god does run this country also. he will not let us do anything immoral. host: what is the people's business? we will get into this in our next segment when we talk about the cases the supreme court will be taking up. the preview of the editorial board of the "new york times," they know the cases involving
crime and punishment and the death penalty. perhaps a case on abortion and reproductive freedom. what do you think is the people's business? what do you want to see them take up? caller: what i am saying is that all the stuff that matters to the american people, that benefits all of us. not republicans and not democrats, but all of the people. somebody can interpret anything the wrong way if they want to, but they have to have morals inside of them for all of the people because they are not bound to any one of us. they should do our business. host: we are showing you like pictures this morning of the supreme court.
if we can go back to that life picture for a second, you can eat the flags outside the supreme court at half mast. flags around washington still at half mast in the wake of the shooting last week, the mass shooting in oregon. some stories about that shooting in today's papers including this one from the "new york times" noting that hillary rodham clinton will issue proposals on monday to curb gun violence. democrat will announce several different proposals. if you want to read more on that, that is in the "new york times" this morning. also want to note one story from the financial times. mass shootings prompt gun sales surge. the story quoting larry hyatt in north carolina.
the story noting that gun sales could surpass 2013 when sales surged after the sandy hook murders. checkslion background haven't been processed compared with 15.5 million applications in the same period in 2013. -- i amr front page sorry, one other editorial page about the shootings in this one in the "washington post." the headline simply the price we pay. the editorial board noting that as the community in oregon last week mourns the nine people that
were killed, we choose to remember them and some of the other lives cut short in mass shootings in the united states. the names and ages of those who died in those shootings including columbine high school and virginia tech and the aurora movie complex in colorado. . the names of those children who died and an arm service recruiting center in chattanooga tennessee is included on that list. phones.the jerry is waiting from tennessee on our line for independents. we are talking about the opening day for the new term for the supreme court. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. c-span is doing a marvelous service to the country. if you goreme court, back and look at sandy hook and columbine and blacksburg and
roseburg and all of that. none of these things happen until the supreme court changed the moral compass of the united states area they took prayer out of the schools and the 10 commandments off of the walls. our moral compass has now secular.own to we are supposed to be a secular nation. we are not a secular nation. we were not counted as a secular nation. we are a christian nation, like it or not. everybody on the news the muslims worship the same god that we do. getting back to the supreme guy saidt like the from ohio a minute ago, our moral compass has been in aented and tilted off
very dangerous direction by taking the 10 commandments off the walls and taking the prayer out of public schools and our people do not have any moral values anymore. host: let me point out this column from the "washington post." he says it has to be a cultural shift on guns and only then will the supreme court follow. talking about this issue of gun control going before the supreme court. what do you think? caller: this nation is a nation of people and for the people and by the people. what you read about people making a run on buying more guns, people want more guns. they want to be able to protect
ourselves. the scary part of this is the moral compass of these people -- look at these shooters. they are about the same age as the people they are shooting. they are all males strangely. i guess it is a testosterone thing. people are wanting more guns and to be able to protect themselves and everything that has ever been passed, gca 68, the gun control act of 1968 put a whole bunch of big restrictions on gun owners. the main thing is to get the toreme court changed around where the supreme court is reportable to the people, not a political party. make the run for election or whatever. make the supreme court -- the president is reporting to the people. congress reports to the people. the supreme court does not report to anybody.
they have completely destroyed the moral direction of what this country used to be. dorothy is up next from wilson, north carolina, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning and thank you for having me on c-span. thank you for c-span. my thing is that the supreme court has always been political. it was only inside at first, but now it is on the outside. before, they could do it behind closed doors. now the fact that it is open and out in public, people can see what is done and now they disagree with it. it is not what you know sometimes, but you know. it has always been that way because that is how it is. host: when did that change take place? when do you think it went from behind closed doors out in public? that took place
probably when they started having demonstrations and when people started getting into it. things were taking place that did not bother things other people cared about then it was th not a problem. when you have things taking place about what is being done to the poor or black or disabled or other people that other people don't care about, then it was not a problem. now that it is being done to those that have money or those that have the authority and power to say they dislike this and we can do something about it , then it became an outside problem. host: what is a case of an example that you are talking about this happened? caller: there is a case near where i live where a person was in school for four years and they don't have access to the supreme court or have anyone filing suits here so they abide by having to deal with their
child being 13 in the first grade. that is something other people don't to do care about because they are poor and black. the have the access or finance to be able to move forward and get wendy's to be done done tha --what needs to be done done. we still have the children in wilson that are immigrant children that have to be educated. but not this child. that is my thing. you can get a group of people together and i admire the immigrants in the people that stand up for them because they come together and unify and get what needs to be done done and they stand up for what they believe in. not saying that parents and their family doesn't, but they don't know who she needs to know what they need to know to get something done. it is all about who you know or how you can get done what you need to get done. host: frank is up next intel
because that's --next intel because, kansas. caller: i have no problem with the supreme court inc. political. certainly, i think they have stretched the constitution. i don't see where they get the permission to use the word marriage. i have nothing against orosexuals being united whatever it having the same heterosexuals regarding marriage. but i don't think they need to use the word marriage for equality. personally, i think they changed it but they also destroyed the literal meaning of the world. that caused a lot of people to get angry about it. if they respect to the word marriage and used in other word like civil union or whatever,
fine. you should have the same privileges or whatever under civil law. host: you're concerned about the supreme court overreaching? caller: correct. host: are there other cases where you think that happened? caller: yes. there are many cases. i have been reading a book about the supreme court and all the decisions they made and a lot of mistakes and overreaching and the way they get permission. the constitution is supposed to be the law of the land, but a lot of them -- they destroy the word marriage as far as i am concerned for equality. they can get the same as heterosexuals. same privileges and whatever. they don't need to destroy things like the word marriage. figurativelyit