Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  October 12, 2015 7:45am-8:31am EDT

7:45 am
committee. host: one more call on this topic and this will be from
7:46 am
milligan in the virgin islands. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. how are you? >> fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i was sent away to prison from the time i was -- from the 12th grade to high school. and i was sent away for 20 years. so i came home in 2008 and i've been -- it was for crack cocaine. but someone like me are stuck there for over 17 years doing what? nothing. i mean, it was just -- it's really a good idea that the president is doing because there are many of us who is exactly as you said. non-violent, non-violent. we're not violent. yes, i understood what i did. i sold some drugs. but the time given is the problem, given me 20 years, i mean, for what?
7:47 am
ok. you said sentence works. but there was no violent in it. so really, it done me a disservice to be back there doing anything. and one of the most important things maybe i would have came back into society and wanted to sell drugs again but time gone. i heard a man was able to touch my life while being back there. so now that i came out of prison, i'm a good citizen. now, i'm an embalmer in the u.s. virgin islands. most of the young kids that i see out here, i mentored them. i tell them a lot about what's going on and, you know, things of such so that people like me, non-violent, there are many in prison sitting back there that should be released. so it's a good thing. the public doesn't have to be afraid of non-violent. that's the key.
7:48 am
non-violent. yes, criminals, lock them up. host: that's milligan from the virgin islands. he'll be the last call on this topic. coming up next, we'll take a look at the supreme court, particularly as it becomes involved in the race to become the president of the united states. not only do current cases before the court might affect issues affect the campaign, but the next president could choose up to three or four new justices. kimberly atkins joins us next. and the obama administration plans to release 6,000 non-violent inmates out of prison at the end of this month. julie stewart will join us later to talk about that as "washington journal" continues on this columbus day. we'll be right back.
7:49 am
>> our road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continues from new hampshire. this morning at 10:00 eastern, live coverage from the no labels problem solver convention in manchester. speakers talking then issues of uniting the country, jobs creation, balancing the judge judy and making america energy secure. on tuesday afternoon at 12:30, we are live with ohio governor john kasich in new hampshire. and on wednesday, live at 7:00 p.m. eastern, former florida governor jeb bush will speak at a town hall meeting in concord. c-span's campaign 2016 taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio nd c-span.org. >> tonight on c-span's new series, "landmark cases," in
7:50 am
enslaved scott was o emerson. scott married robertson. when the doctor died, he tried to buy the family'sed from but she released and he sued. follow the case of scott vs. sanford in "landmark cases." historic supreme court decisions with our special guest law professor christopher bracey and martha jones. they will explore this historic supreme court ruling by revealing the life and times of the people who were the lawyers and plaintiffs in this case. be sure to join the conversation as we'll be taking your calls uring the program.
7:51 am
and for background while you watch, order your copy of "landmark cases" companion book at c-span.org/listened landmarkcases. "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest of the morning, kimberly atkins of "the boston herald." she is the chief washington correspondent and a columnist and also covers the supreme court on a regular basis. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: it's on that supreme court that we want to start with, particularly as to how it might influence the presidential campaign. what are your thoughts on how much a topic the court itself has become? guest: as we see the campaign go on, it will become an important topic. we've already seen the candidates talking a little bit more about it and it's starting to heat up because the next president has the potential as you noted, to appoint up to four justices on the court and that would dramatically shift the ideology of the court in one
7:52 am
direction or the other depending on who the next president is. host: part of that is people that might get chosen to the court from the next president. what the candidates specifically saying about the court? is it more about cases before the court or who they would like to appoint? guest: right now, they're focused on topics and issues. hillary clinton bringing up the issue of same-sex marriage. the landmark ruling legalized it across the country could somehow be in jeopardy if more conservatives are appointed to the court. many of the big blockbuster cases are decided 5-4. they're very close decisions system and she's brought up the issue of gun controls saying the court's rules were wrong in that they should allow for more gun control measures, especially in light of some of the repeat things that's happened. the recent mass shootings. so right now it's more topical and, you know, bernie sanders saying he would want somebody
7:53 am
who would overturn the citizens united ruling which would allow for unlimited corporate funding and presidential campaigns. it's starting to heat up but it will be a major issue for the next president. host: how much of the topic will include same-sex marriage and on the president's health care law? guest: a lot, especially as we see this term. there's yet another challenge to the health care law that's making its way to the court. the court's likely to take up about religious nonprofits. as much that is in the news, that will be in an issue that the candidates will take on. host: the topic of the choice of justices. if you go back in history from the various presidents at best, maybe chosen one or two justice during the time. in this case, when the next president comes into power, you're going to have several in the upper 70's and early 80's. talk about that and what choices
7:54 am
they have to make. guest: there are four justices that could be likely to retire or leave the court in the next administration. and two are appointed by democrats and two are appointed by republicans and one is the -- what we call the swing voter, anthony kennedy who is usually the decide for the many of these really close 5-4 decisions. so if a republican, for example, sofa republican president replaces the two democratically appointed justices, that would create a dramatic shift. it will no longer be this 5-4 teetering balance. it would be a solidly conservative court. and if a democrat apoints replaces two of the more conservative leaning justices. so that could really change the way a decision is handed down if you've looked at this 5-4 you know, split we've had for most
7:55 am
of the last decade. host: again, our topic, turning to the idea that the supreme court and its role in the presidential campaign of 2016. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-2002 for democrats. if you want to post on twitter, you can do that and on our facebook page as well at facebook.com. our guest is kimberly atkins of "the boston herald." she covers washington as well at the supreme court. john roberts. especially amongst republicans after the decision on same-sex marriage and the affordable health care act. talk a little bit about how people are responding -- the candidates are responding to him. do you think he backs specific topic of discussion? guest: i think he does and he already has. we saw at the republican debates that john roberts became a subject of -- and often a
7:56 am
subject of derision among some of the candy who is don't think he's conservative enough. his multiple rulings is the decider in the affordable care act challenges, upholding the law. we're very .ing to a lot of republicans who are hoping he would help cult that law down. and he was appointed by george w. bush. so it puts jeb bush in a particularly delicate decision to criticize his brother which he has. he stated that the chief justice doesn't have a long enough record of conservative rulings, which is debatable. but that he would try to find someone with a longer record to try to appoint. it's so interesting that this republican appointed chief justice, someone who seems at the time with harold is one of the greatest achievements for george w. bush during his term is now the subject of criticism from republicans. and we'll see that escalate, if
7:57 am
anything,. host: one of the sharpest critics was senator ted cruz ask about john roberts specifically. we'll get your response to it. >> well, i've known john roberts for 20 years. he's an amazingly talented lawyer but yes, it was a mistake when he was appointed to the supreme court. he's a good enough lawyer when he knows these obama care cases he changed the law for political outcome. and, you know, we're frustrated as conservatives. we keep winning elections and then we don't get the outcome we wanted. let me focus on two moments in time. number one in 1990 and in one room was david suiter and another room was zit jones. and e bush apoint suitor john roberts in one room and my former boss on the fourth circuit court of appeal dshes >> thank you.
7:58 am
>> let me give you the consequences of that. if instead the president bush has apoint edith jones and mike lewdic, obama care would have been struck down three years ago and the marriage laws of all 50 states would be on the books. these matter and i fought to defend the constitution my whole life. host: do you have anything to add to that? guest: it's really interesting. not always when a president apoints a supreme court justice, they're surprised at some of the rulings they've made. you can't say that the chief justice has been a liberal leaning justice in any way but sometimes there have been justices that have come out in a way that's different than anticipated, for example, retired justice suitor, the republican appointee. he aligned so close is with the liberal block of the court that he waited until after president obama was elected to retire to
7:59 am
ensure that a democrat would replace him. so sometimes supreme court justices are surprises with the exception of the affordable care act rulings, chief justice roberts has been a pretty reliably conservative voice. maybe not conservative enough for ted cruz. host: first call for you comes from john from glen view, illinois. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: i have a comment and a question. the comment is that something that you spoke about moments ago about gun control. first of all, i am very worried about in the presidential election as it relates to supreme court nominations and that's one of the reason that it's critical that the democrats hold the presidency. however, you mentioned how in light of recent events, the various decisions should have gone a different way or should go a different way. that's one of the things that scares me the most.
8:00 am
when they do when they come up with their decisions, current event and politics are not supposed to -- are not supposed to be a factor. let me explain quickly what i mean by that. it's true that when things get up to the supreme court, they can be -- they're so complex because there's competing constitutional rights involved and other things involved in president and other cases. and technology changes or when they wrote the constitution or various amendments, certain things have not what you cannot do and what they sometimes do do and it's very dangerous is to take a look at things currently going on and instead of trying to tense the constitution are come up with the constitutional amendment to base your decision, not unconstitutional arguments, but on things happening right now, it should be decided differently now than 50 years ago -- that is extremely dangerous and frankly
8:01 am
and could bepriate considered and a legal way of doing business. host: i will let our guest step in on the comments you brought to the table. guest: i think you're right in terms of what the justices should consider when making a ruling on constitutional issues or any issues. it should not be based on the news headlines. the point i was making is that in light of recent events the presidential candidates are likely going to be discussing gun control and gun rights more. we have already seen former secretary of state clinton bring that up specifically in talking to the supreme court, saying that making appointments to the court and the decisions of the court will make involving the second amendment will be crucial in terms of that. the justices themselves, of course, they look at the constitution. they interpret the constitution very differently.
8:02 am
some justices would disagree , andyou that things change with the changing technology and evolution of society, that constitutional consideration should change. some believe that is not the case. more conservative justices don't. other more liberal justices do believe in the so-called living constitution that does change with the times. you are absolutely right in the way that the court should consider issues and that presidential candidates are not limited to those parameters. host: judy from idaho, good morning. caller: i would like to comment that the flood of money in this current election in the last couple of elections with citizens united may have caused justice kennedy to change his mind. in his concurring opinion, he said he did not believe it would create the appearance of corruption. from the rule, it has
8:03 am
created the general belief that money is corrupting the electoral system. that is all i have to say. guest: we will have to see on that. there will definitely be more challenges in the area of campaign-finance reform. i do not know what justice kennedy's thinking, but we have seen justices in other cases and other issues change their mind overtime on issues. justiceook at retired john paul stevens, he made a dramatic change in his views on the death penalty, for example, where he voted to uphold the constitutionality toward the end of his term. after he retired, he has been one of the most vocal opponents of this, believing it's unconstitutional. justices can change their mind overtime, especially seeing the impacts of their rulings. we will have to see on that. (202) 748-8001 four republicans and (202) 748-8000
8:04 am
four democrats. there was a gallup poll on whether the court was too conservative or liberal -- that 40% saidhing could it's about right 37% said to liberal. 20 percent set too conservative and 3% said no opinion. you that seem like what believe makes up the ideological opinion of the court? guest: a lot of people view the ideology of the court for throug through their own personal lens. you get this situation where it is almost a certain percentage of people who are really tuned in to what the supreme court does and others pay more attention when these big cases and big decisions come down. it depends on when you catch people in these polls and it depends on their general feelings about government in general. i think you're going to have different opinions on the court no matter who is appointed.
8:05 am
especially right now with such an even split, when you think about who they were appointed by, republicans or democrats, it evenly split right now that you're going to get widely differing opinions. expressedhe justices themselves as to whether they look too conservative for to liberal or whatever? guest: the court is supposed to be in a political body. that is why they justices are appointed for life and independent and not the holdings -- beholden to anyone when they make these rulings. what you see sometimes is the court recognizing changes in society when they consider certain issues, for example be same-sex ruling could one of the factors was the changing societal view on same-sex marriage and they haven't d to take that into consideration when making the ruling. they are not impervious to the world around them, but they try to stay as apolitical as possible. host: from new york, this is rob. caller: thank you for c-span,
8:06 am
good morning. i wak look at the citizens united decision as one of the greatest blunders in the history of the supreme court. to put it in another way, too smart, they are not. such geniuses that we put on the highest court in the land and this is what they come up with. was -- doled to ask you believe that we will see anyone resign within the balance of the term of president obama? and do you believe that if ruth , is itg does resign going to be seen as this politically charged decision on her part? i guess that is my question. thank you for c-span.
8:07 am
guest: yeah, sure. a lot of people, a lot of liberal activists, and even several newspaper editorial boards have actually called on justice ruth bader ginsburg to step down during president obama's administration to allow him the chance to at least replace a democrat on the court in the event that a republican wins in the next term and could get the chance to make that replacement. she has been very adamant that she has no plans to retire. justice john paul stevens, who was on the court until his 90's. after he did retire, he expressed a little to of regret, maybe saying he did it to seem and that he missed the job. she did not want to be in that position. i think that the likelihood of a voluntary resignation in the final year of president obama's term is small.
8:08 am
it could happen. sometimes justices have retired for unforeseen health reasons or unforeseen health reasons of a family member, like in the case of retired justice sandra day o'connor. i thinkto see, but unless there is some other circumstance, i really highly doubt that anyone will step down. host: bonnie in michigan, hide. . bonnie in lansing, michigan? caller: oh, yes. i was on hold. sorry. host: go ahead. about: i have a comment letting mentally ill out. --1991, governor engler sorry, bonnie. i think you're calling about our last segment. we are sticking with the topic of the supreme court. barbara from new york, hi there coul.
8:09 am
caller: good morning, pedro and miss atkins. if a supreme court justice became mentally impaired, but ,efused to a knowledge that when chief justice roberts be able to voice that person off the court? do you know how they would go about doing that? , think thank you so much. guest: that's a good question. because justices are appointed for life, the only way they can be removed from the court is the impeachment process so no, the chief justice could not force someone off the bench. over the course of history, there have been justices who have stayed on the bench for a of time and there was an open question as to whether they were at their full mental capacity. that is something to consider. i can say for the current goinges on the court, into arguments and seeing them, they all seem extremely sharp.
8:10 am
i do not think that mental ability would be a factor in any of the current justices' decisions to step down. it was not the case with john paul stevens, who was quite sharp on the court well into his 90's. into the future, that is one thing you get with lifetime appointments. it is not always easy to remove someone from the court. host: the numbers are on the screen if you want to call and ask our guest questions about the supreme court and campaign 2016. in alabama, this is tim. go ahead. caller: i would like to ask ms. atkins -- what is her opinion about judge clarence thomas? i'm a black person and he has made some of the worst decisions i have ever seen. he is the most conservative of all the judges. could you give me your opinion of him? host: as far as worst decisions, what stands out in your mind?
8:11 am
go ahead and answer the question. i think a lot of people will agree with you that justice thomas is probably the most conservative member of the court. conservative, i think, in some ways than justice who is scalia, seen as the conservative stalwart on the bench. he is one of the justices whose began with a court controversial confirmation process. if you remember in 1991, you want to talk about court diversity. you brought up that he as a black justice who replaced thurgood marshall and probably could not be more different ideologically than the justice he replaced. he can be very divisive in terms of that, but yeah, he is a very conservative justice. he has his own style as well. i know a lot of people are critical of the fact that he
8:12 am
does not, for example, as questions during oral arguments on the bench. people see that as disrespectful. -- you see theks lobbying going on amongst the justices trying to get people on the side instead of delving into the issues of the day. but yeah, he is one of the more divisive justices because of his confirmation hearing. host: has he ever asked a question? guest: he has. it has been on rare occasions. he used to do it somewhat rare regularly if not trickling. years ago, someone made a comment that he went to yell. in his memoir, he has been very honest about his opinion of his decision. he said he put his diploma with sticker on it, saying that's what it was worth. he made an offhand quip. he made a lot of headlines and i was not even sure he said something that happened. host: (202) 748-8001 four
8:13 am
republicans. for (202) 748-8000 democrats. kimberly atkins is from "the and she isld" talking about the cases of the supreme court. one of the cases in this term is the topic of affirmative action. can you talk about not only the case, but the issues involved? aest: the case is involving affirmative action admissions program at the university of texas. it has gone to the supreme court once by the claim of a white student that she was denied based on the fact that the college considered, among other factors, race in admissions decisions. instead of issuing a firm decision in the case about whether or not that was permissible, the court punted a few times back and said, well, we did not have a trial. we do not have a fully developed how much know just
8:14 am
they consider race. but we are going to one you, if it looks like a quota, if it looks like it is not narrowly tailored to the interest of adversity, we will strike it down. they would give it another shot in the lower court approved it and now it's back at the court with a full or record and the court has a chance to rule just how much grace can be considered. host: the university of michigan had a similar case before the court. is there any indication as to how the justices might decide based on what happened in the university of michigan case? guest: in that case, the decision about the michigan public universities, the court ruled against it. it ruled that it was not narrowly tailored enough to make this ruling. sotomayor in sonia that case issue her first dissent from the bench. she was very much opposed to that in giving a very emotional anceent about the import of diversity, calling from her
8:15 am
own experience. we know that there is a divide their and we know that there are some justices in the lower cou rt that in the first time the case went up that the court was an agreement seven-wanted justice kagan would sit out because she was a general at the first time the case was brought. and now it will be a justices, bring up the possibility of an even split. will, this like many cases rest with how justice kennedy and whether iton is narrowly tailored in his view. host: if it's an even split, does it go to the lower court again? guest: the lower court automatically a friend. the policy would be upheld. host: in michigan, it's gregory for our guest. caller: i was wondering why hisd a person do all
8:16 am
requirements for being a well accountable citizen, why does the court system not give him justice and why is it that we backs have to get sent three times just to move half a foot ahead? host: color, i'm sorry about that. i think you are calling of our last segment. let us go to mike in pennsylvania. caller: i want to talk to miss watkins. i have two questions. i hope you can answer them. the senate puts the justices in? guest: the supreme court justices are nominated by the president and yes, they are confirmed by the full senate, yes. the house does not vote. caller: it's the senate who puts them in? guest: they confirm them. the president selects the nominee and the senate confirms them before they are put on the court, yes. caller: do you ever think that
8:17 am
the legislature should have something to say about this? the way that the constitution dictates this and it says by advice and consent of the senate. so that is the way that it is done. i think one interesting point about senate confirmation is that there was a time where the senate gave great deference to the president possible take and that is not the case anymore. if you look at even the most liberal justice, which may be is andably justice ginsburg, one of the more conservative justices, justice scalia, were unanimously confirmed to the court. i do not think you will ever see that again. it was a much more divided vote for justices sotomayor and kagan. those were obama's most recent picks. there is definitely politics at play, but i think that as long as the constitution is as it is, the senate votes. host: on the house side, louise
8:18 am
slaughter, a democrat from new york, put out an op-ed asking for a coat of content -- code of conduct from justice. she says, there are no rules requiring justices to accuse themselves because of a conflict of interests, despite the fact that they me be hearing important cases that have impact on the law far beyond their tenure on the court while we shouldn't presume the judges would be incapable of making the right call when it comes to complement of interest, we cannot be naive to the possibility. to you, what is their responsibility in this? guest: it's true that the justices do not have strict codes that the lower court justices do. we see justices recused themselves on occasion. it usually involves cases where one of the justices may have stock ownership in one of the financialvolved with ties they may seek to avoid.
8:19 am
see that they can't participate in it. like in the case of justice kagan, if there cases that she worked on while a solicitor general in the obama administration, she recuses herself. up to the it is justice to decide whether they will hear case. and sometimes that can be controversial, like in cases involving abortion and reproductive health. justice ruth bader very vocal about that and that is upsetting to people who thinks esrb made up her mind on this and should recuse yourself. we have heard about abortion related cases with hobby lobby. in this term, any sum what type of cases? they have not been put on the docket yet, but they likely will be involving some state law that have been placed on abortion providers. for example, some require anyone to haveg abortions
8:20 am
affiliation with a local hospital within 30 miles. or that their facility. be something i can to hospital facilities, whether gurneys can fit inside of these facilities, which would shut down a lot of abortion particularlyr in more rural and poorer areas. those are being challenged. at least one of them, my guess -- it's hard to guess what the court -- but i think we're likely to see one of them this term. host: bob is next in alabama. go ahead. to ask a question -- why should the supreme court ruled in favor of anyone as far as that goes when the majority of the people favor the law or whatever they are tried to pass, why don't they abolish the supreme court and eliminate that problem for the people and let the people rule? let them a vote on it and
8:21 am
carry it out like we were supposed to in the beginning in the constitution. that would seem to be right. i would agree to abolish the supreme court myself. thank you. the right ofsue of voters versus the constitutional interpretations made by the supreme court is an ongoing issue. we have seen for example in the presidential race, senator ted cruz bring that up a lot when talking about the same-sex marriage case and that it is up to the people to decide what the law should be on the state level as opposed to this unelected what or not the constitution says. currently, the court is made up -- our system of government is made up where the court is the final word in what constitutional law is. one of the great series of landmark cases that c-span is doing now. they took a look at the marbury versus madison case and saw exactly how that came to be. it is one of the most
8:22 am
substantial rulings that the supreme court made, establishing that law. that changes in that will be the final word in constitutional issues, even on issues where voters might be divided. ont: the series is 9:00 monday night. they're taking a look at dread scott. for more information, that is c-span.org. it is 9:00 tonight. for republicans for (202) 748-8000 democrats. joan in new jersey, thinks are holding on. go ahead. no suchfirst, there is thing as a living constitution. my question is -- being that we democracy, why don't the people have a choice on who sits on this up in court? a democracy.
8:23 am
we should be able to vote on it and not leave it to lifetime appointment. guest: there are two responses i have to that. one, indirectly, the people do have a say. the people elect the president and the president is the person who select supreme court justices. the people also like members of the senate who vote on supreme court justices. it is not as if there are no in the aspect to it at all. the reason for lifetime saidntments is that, as i a little bit before, the idea people on thesupr spring court beholden to no one. looking at the law and not looking at elections, fundraising, who they have to appeal to when making the release. you want nine people, even if they have personally nine different ideologies, they are making rulings based on how they viewed the constitution, how they read the statutes, and really what the legal conclusion
8:24 am
should be in a particular case as opposed to a political standpoint. from kimberly atkins "boston herald." boston herald.com is where you will find her writing. she is the chief washington correspondent. a viewer asks, should the court be interpreting the constitution or enforcing it? that is a philosophical decision with how the justices see it themselves. scalia says you interpret it as it is written and asked the framers considered it at the time. it does not involve and does not change and it says what it says and that is how we roll. if it does not say, we do not do it and it's up to the people. others rule it very differently as protecting a series of rights that may be the framers could not have contemplated at the time. but it does not mean that it is not the fundamental legal document of the country.
8:25 am
i think even within that, different justices have different approaches. i think that is one reason that we have nine justices instead of one or two. it allows for those differences and some consensus can be formed when determining each decision. host: san bernardino, california, dean is up next. court -- i supreme will start with saying that all men are created equal. should not court make rulings that intrude into people's lives unduly. they are making it so that people can live their lives, like with the gay marriage thing, the obamacare, making people's lives better without intruding on their opinions and without intruding on their styles. as long as it does not affect that godn such a way is the supreme rule. that is just my comment and that
8:26 am
is what i think about the supreme court. i am glad they make the decisions that they make. conservatives seem to rely on religion too much. this is a secular society and the rules need to be made for everybody. thank you very much, miss atkins. a lot of the rulings -- and you brought up religion, or example. some of the challenges to the affordable care act have been made based on religion. itself, thee law amount of intrusion into one's necessarily a factor, like in those cases that involve religious freedom. one of the factors is how much of an intrusion on one's religious freedom might something make. for example, in the upcoming obamacare challenge, likely to be on the court, it is by religious nonprofits that claim that although they are exempted from providing contraception coverage under the affordable
8:27 am
care act, the fact that they have to sign a form in order to authorize a third party to provide the coverage to their isloyees if they so seek it too much of an intrusion. so far, we have lopsided decisions in the lower courts and they are saying no, it's not too much of an intrusion. one court said that it is, creating a split and making it likely that the court will pick it up. we have seen the court in the small private employers who are required to provide this coverage in claim religious objection, and they said it was too much of an intrusion. that's built in part of the case, but it is based on the statute of the constitutional challenge and what the standards are in those cases that the courts look to. host: let us hear from travis and virginia. ?aller: how's it going, guys
8:28 am
i want to reaffirm what the just insane. the supreme court is insulation from the mall. we are not under the module of the public. the supreme court is to insulate the mob of the majority suppressing the minority. the primary example is gay marriage where people say states should have the right to be discriminatory no, they don't. the spring court says it's unconstitutional to deny gay people the same rights and responsibilities that all of us earned with and are it. i kind of cringe every time says they should vote for the supreme court. no, the supreme court is an insulation and protection of the mob from the victims. that is all at the sacred gues . guest: i think that's an important point. the judiciary is very different from the executive and legislative branches of government. the judiciary being impartial as a fundamental part of what
8:29 am
justices and other federal judges are supposed to be. yes, they are nominated in a way battles partisan involved, but at the end of the day, they are meant to be answerable just to the constitution and their interpretation of the law and not any other interest. host: on the issue of transparency, why are supreme court cases not televised? guest: it's an interesting question and a lot of the justices who are opposed to it. i think will remain on televised till you get nine justices who are ok with cameras in the courtroom. i think we are far from that now. the justices say, look, if you take a little bit of oral arguments and turn them into soundbites, it's really going to distort the idea of what happens in the supreme court. and that they are not a political body and not about making soundbites. it may encourage the justices to say or not say things during the argument when they really should be asking questions to get to the core of what these cases are. it is tough because it is also
8:30 am
an institution where if you are one of the folks in the 300 or so seeds inside of that court, you do not see what is happening. all you see is what we as journalists who do get to be in there right about. i think it is a tough case to make. increasingly more people are seeking to have the court open. congress does the same thing. congress has been televised for years. the loss come crumbling down and court,uld not with the too. you may see a bigger push with more justices named to the court. more justices will warm to the idea of doing that. host: any current justices one to the idea of the ninth? not really. even justices sotomayor and kagan said that hearings in the courtroom would be ok, but you opinion. back on that they are largely unanimously against and as long as that is the case, we will not see any change in that policy. host: our guest covers the supreme court for the "boston herald."

57 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on