Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal News Headlines and Viewer Calls  CSPAN  June 26, 2017 10:12am-11:15am EDT

10:12 am
cwa for fair play. cwa for fair play. cwa for fair play. [indiscernible] protesters out on the steps of the supreme court this morning. isse rcw a, concern -- these cwa, concerned women for america. reimbursing religious schools for surface materials for children's playgrounds. c-span will be outside the court today for announcements on this last day of the court's term. comments onstion whether supreme court terms
10:13 am
should be limited. >> a couple of op-ed's. . of these published earlier this year, saying that the case for term limits are stronger than ever. decrease thewould likelihood of a departure like antonin scalia is death. in these partisan times, justices are staying on the bench longer, not wanting to believe -- not wanting to leave unless they can ensure a itlacement on the same side. justices were staggered in their terms everyone in washington would know they have another opportunity to change the terms soon. play'. the norm of fair that is the website box -- vox.
10:14 am
a direct response to this article on the federalist website page. they argue it has never been weaker. " an organic reflection of the nation's ideological and cultural divide. -- democratic institutions one way the vote of -- avoids the mercurial whims is not by changing all the time." they argue that the nomination process of the supreme court is part of the checks and balances of the court but set dates for aminations would surely mean rise of political infrastructure built around those dates. towould be more induced favor the ruling party's viewpoint. that is the response from the
10:15 am
federalist website. term limitsom vox. for the supreme court. do you think that is a good idea or not? you can let us know. the court finishes business today. a potential announcement for the travel ban, like i said earlier could come down today. watching outside the supreme court as you saw on the opening of our show, an announcement about the travel ban but also a retirement announcement. with many watching to see if justice anthony kennedy, one of the older members of the court will announce his retirement soon. we will see pictures of the supreme court as we go along this morning. give us a call on the line to let us know of your thoughts. "ll king on twitter, saying term limits for scotus justices
10:16 am
is a bad idea. well."y wouldn't go over let's start with chris in roanoke, virginia. your first on the line. what do you think? caller: supreme court justices should have term limits and the court should be divided evenly on ideological lines to prevent conflicts of interests. host: if they are divided equally, there are nine. he is gone. let's go to arlene in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. host: i'm fine. how are you and what you think about this? caller: i thought this should have happened 30 years ago. everyone else has limits on how long they conserve. rut andthey get into a feel like they are entitled.
10:17 am
d.c., theyway and don't have a clue what is going on in this country. think of term limits were in place it would become political by the nature of knowing when a term is up and campaigning by outside groups and the like to get another person in that position. do think the process becomes more political? caller: i think it could. areink if there restrictions put on and guidelines put on them, i think that could be alleviated. i just don't think that there is pro-voting for justices to keep terms for life. that smacks of monarchy. host: when you say restrictions, do you have a sense of what restrictions or what could happen? caller: i do believe that the vice president should not have the deciding vote on anything with the supreme court.
10:18 am
i agree with the former colleague that said they should whichally divided leanings they do whether they are liberal or conservative. i agree it is not quite possible when you have nine but it can happen. carol off of twitter saying that term limits would only politicize the court more. that is not good. you can make your thoughts on twitter, you can put your thoughts on facebook, you can give us a call. we will hear next from chris, in st. paul, minnesota. democrats line. chris, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. host: go ahead. caller: term limits would do country good because if you do a good job you stay but if you
10:19 am
-- theo a good job supreme court justices are there for life. they don't care what they do. that -- ii suppose support term limits. host: when you say -- go little bit further on that. what is the problem with being there for life? caller: if i know i am there for i will still be there for life. as a senator, if you don't do a good job what happens? your constituents vote you out. if aupreme court justices, decision i've made on a case is no good, there is no recourse. i'm there for life. going --rson is not not doing a good job, let him or come out- they will
10:20 am
because they have not been doing a good job. host: let me ask you. if that is the case, let's say you put in place term limits or -- do you think the justices would be compelled to make decisions that would put them in favorably? a certaint lean political way knowing they have a limited time versus making decisions based on principle or the constitution? constitution -- there are instances where i see some of them are biased. they claim that they are talking about the constitution. when you go for confirmation lose? what do i have to
10:21 am
i will still be there for life. there is a need for considering term limits. chris mentions the constitution. article three, section one. this gives justices the power to get lifetime appointments. courts.inferior "they shall receive a compensation which shall not he diminished during their continuing in office." that is from the constitution. that is the basis for lifetime appointment. being -- will go to capitol hill right now, at the supreme court, there is a shot of the building itself. there is a line of people, and mix of media.
10:22 am
people watching the court today on the last day of its term. wondering what the finishing it up of cases -- including the travel ban by the administration. they brought their case to the court and that will come down today. we mentioned earlier about potential retirement -- usually a discussion at this time of year, justice anthony kennedy, he may be one of those. that may decide to announce his retirement. who knows? there they are watching and waiting as we watch them. getting your thoughts on term limits. paul in dallas, texas. independent line. caller: i love c-span. i think there should be term limits, not only for the justices but for every member of congress. host: hold on, let's stick to the justices. why do you think the justices particularly? caller: if you have term limits
10:23 am
-- no matter what you do your there for life. you are entrenched. then you start thinking about what is best for me -- there are no constituents. so what is best -- they have their own agendas. they stop thinking about the country and start thinking about what they think is best for the country. instead of what is good for the country. getink term limits would fresh blood every once in a while. fresh eyes. fresh way of looking at things. you have justices like kennedy who is 80 years old. the other justices are older. -- some justices are older. is in hishief justice 50's or 60's. you're looking at older people. they've a different way of looking at things. younger people look at things different. more modern. that is probably what we need.
10:24 am
but in it not only their all phases of government. we need term limits. host: that is paul in texas making his argument. this was online off of twitter, extending the argument, "the case for extending the number of seats on the bench, currently nine, is greater." on twitter you can make your thoughts known, on facebook and on the phone line. tribune, here is a piece by lori, talking about term limits. they come up with a number. 18 years. this is what they argue, saying what would be good about it. it could be less politically fraught. it has always been political, that is not a bad thing, having elected officials, it ensures over time that the justices don't get too far out of step with the public opinion.
10:25 am
accountability, where our justices decide how words written hundreds of years ago applied to contemporary situations -- partisanship can shut down the system. staggered 18 year terms could help prevent that, lowering the stakes for each nomination and retaining in real level of democratic accountability. there is more there and if you go to the website, the piece is called "could 18 years be the limit?' we will hear from rodney and falls church, virginia. rodney go ahead. caller: my comment is that term limits for the supreme court are effective. inside they are not effective. supreme court members should have the ability to stay on the court for life. number one, their decisions are not supposed to have to do anything with the public opinion.
10:26 am
that is what congress is poor. -- that is what congress is for. the supreme court posture job is to look at that law that compare creates and that law to the constitution. whether those two things relate together. abouton't need to worry what the public thinks or you or i think. the next thing about term limits is that when you have a term limit, they will be more likely to decide cases based upon what they may want to do after they leave the supreme court. or other influences they have that would be available to them after they leave the supreme court. i believe term limits are definitely something that should not happen for the supreme court. host: that is rodney and falls church. we will hear from another rodney in california, democrats line. caller: good morning. i'd like -- i like c-span a lot.
10:27 am
-- i know we are talking about term limits for the supreme court but i have been waiting to say that, c-span is not a liberal station. it does a good job. it is fair. i have been waiting a long time to say that. getting to the term limits of supreme court. supreme court should have about nine years i think it. they get to partisan or lean too i think they lean too far to the republican side as well as the democrats sometime. still there should be a limit. they get in there and seem to forget about the american public. to me, that is my opinion. they stayed there too long. . they get persuaded. host: when you say they forget
10:28 am
about the american public, what do you mean by that? is there a certain case or decision you look to that makes you decide that in your words, that they forgot about the public at large? yes, like justice scalia. i thought that he did a horrible job of leaning toward -- i don't i thinkarticular case, maybe i ought to listen more before i call again. thank you very much. host: we appreciate you watching and listening. "havingwitter, saying uncertainty in the term, let the justices collectively decide their fate." stella saying, "our founders thought this through. just because the world changes it doesn't mean we should rebuild our foundation is a country." referring to the
10:29 am
constitution which gave the basis of lifetime appointments to the supreme court. and the justices who serve there. norman in massachusetts, independent line. hello. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is an important question. the constitution, which anyone can look up, it is available online -- in article three, it sets up a term for the supreme court. it doesn't say it all that the justices are in for life, it's as the op said. they are in for -- it is the opposite. they are in for good behavior. it is a lower standard for the conviction of a crime, for its. they are only and is long is there is no appearance of impropriety. justice scalia visited personally with dick cheney even though he was a -- even though he was judging cases that involved dick cheney. that was impropriety. we should have been removed. the same thing with clarence
10:30 am
thomas when he ruled on the citizens united about what kind of groups can buy elections. later on that day his wife went out and started such a group. that is not a crime someone can be convicted of but it is an appearance of impropriety. any other judge in the united dates would have been removed for what i just described of scalia and thomas. supreme court justices should also be removed but the senate would have to impeach them. i don't know why it hasn't happened. it should happen every time there is such an appearance of impropriety. norman, thank you. one of the decisions or at least the court watchers are looking for today is what decision will be made about the travel ban. that was desired by the trump administration, stopped in the lower court, asked for review by the supreme court. the possible options the court could apply to this request, saying that with the votes of
10:31 am
five justices the court could agree to the administration's request to immediately reinstate the travel ban which would go into effect 72 hours after a favorable court ruling. the revised travel ban mr. trump issued in march would avoid the chaos and confusion in airports that followed the initial rollout. the administration could still conduct a 90 day review that trump trot -- that trump tied to the travel ban. tother option when it comes arguments in front of the court, whether the court allows it to take effect, the justices might schedule argument on it in the fall. there is a fair prospect that the argument even if it takes place would be a sideshow. this week's court action would be the main event. if the band remains on hold, a new travel policy might be in place. there are other arguments there as well.
10:32 am
on this last day of the court's term. that is some of what you're seeing in front of the court. a lot of watchers early this morning. taking a look at the action there. some media there as well. all people watching for a lot of things that could happen. travel ban, the announcement, they are going into the core right now and we will keep watching them as we hear from you concerning your thoughts on term limits for the supreme court. new york, republican line. caller: morning. interesting question. it will have to go to the supreme court if it becomes an argument. they will have to decide. startd say, a place to would be to make it a 30 year years old,or 80 whichever occurs first. -- it is an
10:33 am
interesting question. host: you would say a term or in age limit. when you think about this idea for an age limit -- why would that be a good way to go? caller: if the justices were still lucid, let them step aside , they can still clerk if they were so inclined. they would still be in the mix. -- the tree of liberty needs to be renewed every so often. people are living a lot longer now than when they design the supreme court. i don't know if they had that in mind or not. this question is -- it has a lot of facets. it is interesting. in the end the supreme court itself will have to decide that. will it be perfect? probably not. 80 -- might be a
10:34 am
place to start the argument. that would be my comment on that. david, you are in auburn, you should know the buffalo news last friday had an op-ed published in its paper, making the argument for an age limit. justices who have served at least 20 years, three of them are 60 years older. while almost no one believes that any of the nine u.s. justices had lost faculties, the high court is only inviting doubt regarding its legitimacy by allowing its most senior members to hold on into their sunset years." you can read more online at the buffalo news website. that is the idea of an age limit. as our previous caller brought up there are other aspects there. josh in california, independent line. caller: hello.
10:35 am
host: you're on. caller: excellent. i was just saying or going to say, term limits in general are a bad idea. tore are better ways ameliorate the partisanship that seems to be developing. host: how so? example, we could require senate confirmation of new justices to meet a two , that wouldhold help mitigate hyper partisan nominees from getting through. allow the minority party a bit more power. and say in terms of who gets in. that would moderate justices. if we do have to go the term limit route, it should definitely not be less than 20 years.
10:36 am
keeping in mind of course, as a previous caller mentioned, theachment is an option in threshold for that is rather ambiguously defined. host: what you think about this idea that there was an op-ed -- about an age limit? caller: i think as people live ander people are healthier intellectually mature and capable for longer. is -- it isk that not something to put a hard limit on. twitter, "by saying someone is too old to be a member of the supreme court, that is ages and." -- that is ageism. you can post on our facebook page. or you can call in on the phone
10:37 am
lines. several years ago back in 2009, c-span produced a documentary taking a look at the supreme court. as part of that they had a chance to talk to several justices who were serving at the time. one of the discussion points of that documentary which you can still find online at c-span.org, is the idea of opinion writing. when the court comes out they have an opinion and a dissent. theirstices raster give comments on writing opinions and dissents. -- the justices were asked to give their comments. here's a little of that documentary. >> the point of writing an opinion is to commend some allegiance to the result. we have no army. we have no budget. press conferences
10:38 am
and we don't give speeches saying how wonderful my dissent was or how bad the majority was, we don't do that. we are judged by what we write. >> i would like my opinions to be as clear as possible. i would like people to pick them up and understand them. i would like them to be as awful as possible. i would like to write the kind of opinions which really do a dress competing arguments, don't try to sweep competing arguments under the rug >. >> if i were writing a concurrence or dissent on my own i would write -- i could not write an opinion that went in a direction that was different than what i actually thought we should go. >> the dissents here are rigorous. they don't pull punches. i think it ultimately improves the quality of the majority opinion but it is something you have to anticipate.
10:39 am
that documentary if you go to our website at c-span.org, there is a lot of content there when it comes to the workings of the court. itt was produced -- when comes to opinions, 64 cases heard this term. roberts offered six opinions, justice kennedy six, and justice thomas, ginsburg and soto meyer was seven apiece, gorsuch has already written one. some of those have already been out. some of those other opinions yet to be released. if you go to the supreme court's website, a lot of information there too. as far as the workings of the court, the opinion -- that is our website for the supreme court. everything we've done on this network concerning this topic, not only term limits, cameras in the courtroom, other things related to the court.
10:40 am
all that available at c-span.org. philadelphia, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. , thenk the supreme court way it is set up, i think it should continue in its tradition. i don't think we should have term limits. i think the justices do a very good job with their opinions and decisions. i in the confirmation we may need to try harder to do selection there. all in all, i think the supreme court should stay the way it is. it is diverse and five, it speaks to america as america speaks to it. thank you. douglas in west virginia. hello. caller: hello. host: you're on. go ahead. the term limits on the term -- it would be more
10:41 am
majority --nate and on our house. host: stick to the court. what do you think about this idea first and foremost? for the court itself? caller: it's a good idea and a bad idea. you have to weigh out both options. the longer you are in the supreme court the more knowledge you gain. i believe the term limits should maybe 40 years or 50 years, but not 10 years or something like that. host: give them enough time to court,p some time on the write a lot of opinions, not a shorter-term like 10 years or so? caller: exactly. host: what you think is the
10:42 am
benefit of a certain amount of time? a longer amount of time would give them longer to get accustomed to how the system works. they should know how the system works. , in this day and time, the conforming too be what people want. not what the actual law is. that is just my opinion. here is angel in marysville, washington. republican line. caller: hello. host: hello, how are you? caller: angel here. i'm doing good honey. caller had me cracking up so much. i believe term limits for the supreme court justices -- be the
10:43 am
same as for the presidency. eight years maximum. fresh blood. once supreme court justices are baked in they are too partisan. clearlyisans way is given too much power. i truly believe -- i think it would be good to make it the same as the presidency. not giving these people so much power over us. i don't believe in that. host: do you think eight years, that would be a lot of turnover to the highest court in the land. caller: it would be a lot of fresh blood, right? new people coming in and coming out. peoplecannot abide by being a supreme court justice until they died. that is weird to me. that is too much power. that is too much power. host: ok. that is angel in washington. tom is in maryland -- tom is in
10:44 am
delaware. democrats line. hi there. caller: good morning. i'm just calling to say that i don't think the supreme court should be changed as far as their time. , think that the supreme court when they voted to allow unlimited amounts of money to come into electing politicians took the importance away from the american citizen. ,t is now a corporate decision who becomes president, not so much the people, it is not just american money is global money. it is unlimited amounts. we have no idea. i think the supreme court is fine. 200 years of what we have been doing is fine. not fromoo many people
10:45 am
around his country living in this country, tearing us apart. this is one thing here. trying to put a term limit on limits on therm senate andand on the so forth and so on, and force them. waiverst them get towards the end. the gentleman in new york might've done that. are pictures and video of your seeing people entering the court. they waited in line. they were there even before the show went to air at 7 a.m. this morning. they get a pass to go in and off they go. into the court on its last day of the term. a mix of media, outside, as he saw before, these are court watchers, in past experiences and talking to them, law students, lawyers in town. all looking at that building
10:46 am
right there. especially on this last day. with decisions yet to come down. term limits, the topic of our conversation with you. again if you want to see term limits for the court or not, 202748 8004 republicans. activity on twitter a lot this morning. age ofrican says " retirement according to social security." a texan saying, "a six justice a six justice court with 12 your terms would work perfectly." the airlines have pilot age 80-year-olds let pilot this country. you can let us know your thoughts on twitter, facebook, and the phone lines. don from oklahoma, democrats line. caller: there is not a man or
10:47 am
woman alive today or that will be alive in the future that -- that shouldt be able to sit in judgment over human beings forever. term limit here and get them out of there. --t: jp in hollywood florida hollywood, florida. independent line. your next up. caller: are we go? host: you're on. caller: my first comment would , do we really every 12 or 15 or 20 years go through what we just went through after scalia was gone? trying to get someone confirmed? it is a dirty, dirty process. going through confirmations. how many people out there do we have, judges comment attorneys -- judges, attorneys, have to
10:48 am
open up their entire life for this job? i don't think we will have enough people preset terms. number two, i agree with the , about an 85lier year cut off. to,ink that should be put here before, if it is 80, 70 year, the one 79 that is may have to leave, the other age should be able to vote whether or not they think this person is could keep going for another two years or whatever or keep voting. with the deciding vote being the president. an equal vote. did, if someone does insist on terms, as far as
10:49 am
money that you have spent, time, that is a whole dirty process. it is not a good process. i think maybe putting the age limit thing, it gets to a certain point, people, a couple ,, the justices, like ginsburg, what's her name? host: ruth bader ginsburg. caller: every time i have seen her gone to events, she is on the money. she must have kids and grandkids and stuff. that keep her up to speed and keep her going. her energy -- he has more than i do. that is my thoughts. we have toe and say do this every 16 years, going to have to vote, by the way, what happens if that 16 year term
10:50 am
person dies or gets this often leaves? it's too much. host: gotcha. making her thoughts known in hollywood, florida on term limits. we continue to show you scenes around the building. you saw the capital building across the street. there are people waiting to go in. several canada -- several cameras and media waiting to go in. and look attension this last day of the court. even as this goes on, several events around washington. he saw a shot of the capital earlier. scene of a lote of activity on the senate when it comes to health care. particularly language. for the senate health care bill released last week. mitch mcconnell desiring a vote on that bill this week. several senators, republican senators, saying they may not be able to some or that -- at least
10:51 am
five. the wall street journal says the congressional budget office is to affected -- suspected produce a formal report today. then they could hold a vote tuesday or wednesday. the final vote later in the week. the process requires new complex changes and the timetables would likely shift. medicaid in particular is tricky. gop is split down the middle on whether to expand eligibility for the program. with millions of low income, childless adults, -- there are cut -- there worries about cuts. one of those other legislators having issues with the current text, is ron johnson, the republican senator wrote in wisconsin. lays out his concerns.
10:52 am
he talks of unequal tax treatment, a simple solution he -- obamaould be to chose to artificially increase premiums. those individuals who no longer responsibly carry insurance and can no longer afford it have dropped coverage and are paying a penalty and taking a huge risk. like many other senators i hope there were several things were headed, during the last few weeks with the republican bill. say it will repeal obamacare's taxes and reduce medicaid spending. that is true. but it also boost spending on subsidies and leaves pre-existing condition rules in place that drive up the cost for everyone. you can read online at the new york times website. back to the supreme court and this idea of term limits.
10:53 am
kentucky, republican line. here is virgil. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. one of the biggest reasons why the supreme court justices does not have a term limit is two supposedly, ensure political neutrality. no loyalty to a specific president or to a specific political party. what we have seen over, years,lly the last 20 supreme court justices have started to break tradition and start making their political biases known. that is a very unhealthy thing. for a supreme court justice to do. that basically puts forth the opinions of a supreme court justice before cases even make it to the court. that doesn't make for a very fair opportunity for a case to and to allow a
10:54 am
justice to predetermine what is going to be ruled upon. proposing term limits would be a very bad idea because that furthers the ability of the supreme court justice of the nominee -- before the senate has to vote on them. that makes the process even more muddled than it is now thanks to the political parties deciding to use it as a political weapon --sus being able to use it the constitutional process to allow for a proper supreme court justice to be nominated to the supreme court. next andestine is up she is an oak hill west virginia. independent line. thank you for taking my call. i do not believe in term limits. the lawyers or attorneys who are appointed to
10:55 am
the associate justice and the chief justice learn as they are on the bench. they keep up with the current laws. they also consider international laws that could be applied to u.s. law. i will also add that i am in my 80's and i am working part-time and i learned, i keep up with my profession as i believe that the associate justices do. beyondone who is working the so-called retirement age. i believe you learn and they bring structure. to the supreme court. host: as you have been listening to some of our callers cutting off a certain age, what goes through your mind? i am in my 80's. i'm learning and i keep up and i am interested in my field.
10:56 am
i believe the justices are. that, some ofhink our callers saying that it may be too long for them to serve over that much time would affect ultimately the decisions they make? caller: no. i think they are smart enough to keep up with what is going on in the nation and as one previous caller said that, like, on justice ginsburg, she is a smart cookie. i have listened to her when she has been speaking and she knows her mind. i think she has a sharp mind. i believe all the other justices do. they keep up with things. they are not back in the dark ages. host: utah, this is clearfield, utah. republican line. gloria. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: fine thank you. caller: good.
10:57 am
i think the supreme court justices should have no term limits. i think they should stay as long as they are meant to be -- mentally cognitive. i think they need to remain politically neutral and all their decision should be based on the constitution and not public wins or political bias. host: you said mentally cognitive -- at the end of the day, the justices themselves would determine? caller: sometimes when you are mentally incompetent, you need someone to tell you that. but ultimately they make the decision as the when they decide to step down. caller: that shouldn't be the case if they are mentally incompetent. if they are not cognitive and aware of the things they are saying or doing. then thatould arise should be a disqualifier. you need to step down then. don't you think? we willoria in utah,
10:58 am
let others give thoughts to what you said. yesterday'sin washington post had this direct response to justice kennedy. lastal stories in the couple of days on whether he will announce retirement at the end of the term today. no indication that he has made that decision or that it has been made in that matter. terribles this, "the prospect of justice kennedy retiring, saying your career has been characterized on dignity and respect and the rule of law. --d mr. trump's treats and if you reallynk want your replacement to be replaced by this man." " consider the president's tweets --"
10:59 am
alarming, suggesting the blow would be in the judiciary's hands while the travel ban was being delayed. there is more there. also a decision that could come down today as well, we will hear more as the morning goes on. especially as people are gathered outside. also this potential idea of a retirement announcement. we have been showing you pictures all morning of the court and asking you about term limits for the justices. , good morning to you. new haven, connecticut, democrats line. caller: good morning. i believe the justices should have a life long term. there, thethey are wiser they will become. host: ok. i know both political
11:00 am
have a chance to put a supreme justice in office, that is fine too. have.t think like when we change the political voting, we could have andesident republican democrat vice president. we change that. do you think that putting term limits would politicize the process? no i don't think it would. right toces have a think. i am black and as far as i can -- am concerned do you think it would politicize the confirmation process? caller: i do not know much about
11:01 am
this. they will try to sway the court to put those views, but that might not take all the time. host: vicki in alabama, democrats line. your next. believe we should not have term limits on the justices. it is a check on predict that you cannot there will be a change over. plan specifically to influencegize it. this speculation about justice becoming incompetent is
11:02 am
an insult to humanity itself. it is something we need to guard against. for our own sake. those are my two main points. host: mark stone off of twitter answer this, i do want term limits but i do want a process of picking the best qualified judge to sit on the bench. this is from the "washington times," and the topic loretta lynch. the committee has opened a probe into ag lynch efforts to change the investigation into hillary clinton. letter to miss lynch the committee asked her to detail did she ever assure that
11:03 am
cop it out that they would not probe too deeply into the matter. he also handed that other behavior which he cannot talk about yet may be worried about ms. lynch's ability to make impartial decisions. mr. comey said that is one reason mr. commie said he decided to boxer tradition. oversightf the house report committee now under the chairmanship of trait gowdy saying that the former prosecutor believes that much of the russian investigation but once under the special counsel and he would prefer to have the oversight committee focus on the less headline grabbing issues, overseeing the fences and national archives. aces whenase-by-case
11:04 am
asked if he would continue from the outstanding inquiries, leaving behind a series of quests -- request to the white house, mr. gowdy said he would investigate things as they come up. chicago,to robert and democrats line. go ahead. we are talking about the idea of term limits for the supreme court caller:. caller:20 years should be it. host: why 20? because the congress voted that we had to retire at 66. washer they have a job for a lifetime?
11:05 am
-- why should they have a job for a lifetime? how do justices think? seeing a you prefer a length of time limit or mandatory retirement age for justice? caller: 20 years is it. if you are over 70, you should be out of there. host: because why? caller: i'm 69 and i forget things. when you get older you start to forget. you can say that you are on top of stuff, but time waits for no man. that's the bottom line. host: robert in chicago sharing thoughts on the matter of term limits for the supreme court.
11:06 am
we will continue on with this 202-78 three, 8004 democrats, and for independence 2-748-2002. our facebook page is available to you as well. line here is matt from virginia. comment on whether or not the supreme court just the -- the would it was huge, it drove a lot of politics.
11:07 am
itthere was strategic voting would of been this one. from where it can be used as a political tool as much as possible. host: so you're saying a term limits would make it more political. caller: no question in my mind if you knew that justice was coming up on retirement, that everyone on a partisan basis for strategic voting like this year, it would be a huge thing up there. victor in texas, independent line. caller: good morning. what do you think? old sayingre's an that power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. ,nybody with any kind of power
11:08 am
especially judicial should have . limit what year? i don't know how many years, that could be debated. host: you are saying if the lifetime appointment would ultimately corrupt a person sitting in the chair? yes, to a certain degree, it depends on the person, but yes, it corrupts. the old saying is true. it's there. if someone has power, and they have absolute power, then it absolutely corrupts. host: do you think that kind of thing would happen even if a person knew they had a limited amount of time to serve on the court? caller: at least minimizes it. it would make it more difficult to be corrupt, i believe. host: ok.
11:09 am
victor sharing his thoughts this morning from texas. twitter, when off it comes to justice kennedy he says, that justice kennedy is a going anywhere, adding that he is a patriot first and he can see what we see especially when he sees what's going on in the white house. onin, giving his thoughts twitter this morning. a lot of people are wondering as we watch today about justice kennedy and whether he will stay on for another term or face retirement. one of the things that will come out of the court today. democrats line in alabama. go ahead. old of i think a lot of the viewers are confused the seasons of the court, dred scott, plessy versus ferguson,
11:10 am
that's the way presidents look to who they are going to appoint. president eisenhower was disappointed in the supreme court justice that he appoint -- that he appointed. sometimes presidents are surprised because they think they know the people they are appointing. i just don't think term limits would do anything, the attorney general with a 10 year term would become politicized. worklimits would not unless we could ensure that they would be able to decide at the whim of the president. host: she's talking about the fbi director, james comey. there were cases heard on
11:11 am
immigration, the right to law enforcement, issues of deportation, re-district thing. -- redistricting. you can hear some of those arguments of some of these cases before the supreme court. they don't allow cameras in the court. they do have audio. you can hear all of that when you go to our website at c-span.org. a nice archive of issues concerning the supreme court. peopleking a look at the gathered outside the supreme .ourt on this final term day it is possible we will hear decisions on six remaining cases. we usually hear about any retirement announcements by any justices. washington post is reporting on
11:12 am
term, president trump's revised travel policy. the court said it has sided with the government and is going to allow part of the bantu move forward but with a narrows go. assistance project versus trump will be consolidated for one oral argument. you can read more about that. we also have protesters outside the court, concerned women for america. in that case on state funding for religious institutions the court has sided with trinity lutheran school in missouri. in a court ruling that religious institutions may not be excluded from -- making playgrounds safer. in a court ruling on that 7-2, trinity lutheran versus poly.
11:13 am
look at the scene here outside the court on this final day. the camera is outside the supreme court across from the u.s. capitol building this morning. hearing twot be
11:14 am
cases on the second amendment, one dealing with california's concealed carry law and a second case in the federal law that bans felons from possessing guns. two cases the court will not be hearing and it's you term. you can read more about that at the hill.com. look ahead to the next supreme court term. we talk with a reporter about it , one that the supreme court has agreed to hear, a lower court real -- revealed that the electoral map drawn by republicans in wisconsin was unconstitutional. we will bring you back here to the steps of the supreme court live for any other information. desk a dayin our after this story, justices take up gerrymandering based on party.

11 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on