tv Washington Journal CSPAN March 17, 2016 7:00am-9:01am EDT
-- michigan governor rick snyder. we will be discussing judge merrick garland. we will talk to bloomberg news greg store. president obama: today i am nominating merrick brian garland to join the supreme court. ♪ >> president obama has made his pick for the vacancy on the supreme court to replace the late justice antonin scalia a. grad,garland is a college chief judge for the district of columbia, but republicans failed to budge saying he will not get a hearing and will not get a vote. we want to get your thoughts on merrick garland as the supreme court nominee.
.emocrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will get to your calls in just a minute, but let's begin with president obama in the rose garden yesterday talking about why he has chosen judge garland as his pick for the supreme court. : i have sought the advice of republican and democratic members of congress, reached out to every member of the judiciary committee, the bar associations, representing an array of interests and opinions from all across the spectrum. today, after completing this exhaustive process, i have made my decision. i have selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of america's sharpest legal minds but someone who brings to
his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, evenhandedness, and excellence. these qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle. ultimately bring that same character to bear on the supreme court, an institution in which he is uniquely prepared to serve immediately. host: a little bit more about chief judge merrick garland, u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit he was appointed by president clinton, nominated in 1995, confirmed by the senate in 1997. old, harvard law in 1977, and he clerked for william brennan. this is what gregory court he -- tipping a
delicate balance on the court that could impact decisions on abortion, the death penalty, and voting rights. at 63, he would be the oldest nominee for associate justice since president nexen nominated lewis powell in 1971. fred, you are up first in jessup, maryland, a republican. caller: i just wanted to comment pick. -- on obama's he is no more moderate than ginsburg in my opinion. and one oft courts, his roles was to deprive city residents of their basic rights of self-defense. he would not let you have a gun in your home.
yet he is standing next to a president who has been the most unlawful president. obama, he king chooses what laws he wants to follow and what rights he wants to make up as he goes. acting like he was crying about the constitution, but that man failed to reject the conversation -- constitution. in the last eight years, have we done better under liberal policies? host: a little more on what fred was talking about, conservative groups who said judge garland would move the court sharply to its left, although they base their decision on fairly light evidence. he struck down washington's strict gun control law and voted to have the full court rehear the case, but he was in the minority. he gave no reasons for his vote
which may have been motivated by discomfort with the panel's -- in the end, the supreme court rejected the gun law. dan in georgetown, massachusetts, independent. caller: good morning. host: good morning. what do you think about the president's decision and this whole debate over whether he should get a hearing and a vote? i am embarrassed, quite frankly, i am embarrassed by our government lately. is, i am sorryan to say, it is tops down embarrassing. host: what is embarrassing? caller: as far as the nomination
goes, i do not understand why obama has been operating on executive orders. the constitution says that he should get the advice and consent of the senate. when i read it, it does not look like a real requirement to me. he should probably just go ahead and say, you are not going to give me advice and consent and i have no choice but to fill out a new piece of paper and sign it executive order. generally speaking, i think we have entered an area of lawlessness. it is top-down lawlessness. it is lawlessness from the top up, weut from the bottom get the full weight of the law down at the bottom. host: larry in mississippi, a democrat. caller: this is larry. good morning.
, whomever he is for, it is against their own idea. he could have put up jesus christ himself and the republicans would not agree. destroyed thes economy with their policies and war. it is amazing to me how they make up their own fax and their andtruth deck fact -- facts their own truth. host: the new york times says this about the whole debate on capitol hill, president obama choosing judge garland and the republicans quickly rejecting his challenge for them to visit with him, to meet with him, and to give him a hearing and a vote. on majority leader appeared the senate floor shortly after the president's remarks to declare an end to judge garland
cost nomination, no matter his qualifications. in case there was any doubt, mr. mcconnell later called judge garland personally to say he would not be receiving him in his capitol office, nor taking any of his. it could fundamentally alter the direction of supreme court and have a profound impact on our country. so of course, of course the american people should have a say in the court's direction. it is a president's constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice and it is the senate's right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent. as chairman grassley and i declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama, the senate will
continue to observe the biden role so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different . either way, our view is this -- give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. majorityt was the leader outlining the argument for why republicans say they will not be giving judge garland a hearing or a vote, because yearfeel in an election the american people should have a voice in this. there are a few republicans who have said they will meet with merrick garland. times, from the new york if you senate republicans have suggested that if mrs. clinton is elected they might be more
open to considering judge garland as an alternative to a more liberal nominee. and as judge garland prepared to meet -- begin meeting with senators on thursday there was early evidence that at least some of the republican senators were softening on their stances. -- a was early evidence white house statement said that senator grassley, republican of iowa, chairman of the judiciary committee had agreed to meet with judge garland but that meeting would be scheduled after the two week congressional recess ended. senator kirk of illinois and i ought of new hampshire, both facing steep reelection challenges in democratic leaning states, said they would meet with judge garland. susan collins of maine and jeff flake of arizona have also said they would sit down with mr. obama's nominee.
said he would be open to holding hearings on judge garland during a lame took congressional hearing after the decision. he also had this to say -- no question in my mind that senator mcconnell will cave and president obama will fill this vacancy this year. what do you all think? jerry in lagrange, georgia, an independent. what do you think? caller: i think mitch o'connell should step down. he has been in the job for too long. he has been saying no for too long. deemed to be as good judge, it is not what your political party thinks. just saying no, they have not been able to agree on a thing and it will continue.
it is getting sickening. to have limitations again, they just do not know what to say or what to do. it is supposed to be for the people but it has not been. senatorsen current gop -- this is from jamie dupree, a longtime washington reporter -- seven current gop senators voted to put merrick garland in d.c. circuit court back in 1997. those senators currently in the senate voted yes on him to serve in the circuit court. in 1997 was 76-23, and he became the chief judge three years ago. in levittown, new york, a republican, hello, philip. agenda president obama's is to nominate judge garland.
what is his agenda on replacing him in the appeals court? is his agenda to put in there a liberal judge to fulfill his agenda? host: so you are worried about who would replace then judge garland? caller: correct. it has got to be something about this that obama wants to do this, knowing that they do not want to even speak to judge garland. host: do you know that the president has considered judge garland before for the last few vacancies? he was a finalist for those spots, those openings, and the president as you know went with justice kagan and justice sotomayor or. caller: correct, i know that. host: mary in omaha, nebraska,
democrat. .aller: good morning of course i support merrick garland's nomination. yesterday on television i saw standing on the senate floor talking about principle. no republican has principle as far as i'm concerned. they need to read the constitution. there is no biden role. thank you. host: if the senate declines to take up garland's nomination, this is from the washington post, before president obama leaves office, the next president will have the option of resurrecting the nomination or choosing someone else to fill the vacancy on the supreme court . either way, the process would begin a new with the next congress. this process is only good until the end of this congress. said the senate should hold hearings on obama's
nominee to replace the late justice antonio scalia while 32% said it should not hold hearings and leave it to the next president according to the washington post-abc news poll released last week. administration officials are hopeful that the gop senators who are most vulnerable this november they lobby their leaders for a vote. if these gop senators up for reelection want to be more conciliatory they could say they regard judge garland as a suitable choice for a democratic president, and would be happy to vote for him in a lame-duck session if mrs. clinton wins the election. that would be standing on principle and calling president obama's bluff. cecilia, good morning. caller: good morning, greta. you look lovely as always. host: thank you. caller: i just do not understand this.
mcconnell said he wanted the voters to have a say in who becomes the next supreme court nominee. then i am flipping through channels and i saw some guy named curly hennigan on cnbc, and rnc member, saying the voters do not choose for the supreme court justices should be , it is the party members who choose. since the republicans are in the majority, they get to pick who the next justice is going to be. everything they are doing is a breach of their oath of office, the oath of office that they verbally took, signed the affidavit for, and i suggest all of you listeners go to this website, jim
o9freeservers.com\breach.htm. it already has a petition made out for you. you just fill in your name and address. we have to do mitch mcconnell of course, and we have to do chuck grassley because he is a judiciary chairman. if you have a republican senator who does not want to do a vote, i have mark kirk, luckily, who is a fairly independent voice. he agreed to at least meet with judge garland. but if you have a republican senator, especially in the judiciary committee that does not want to meet with this great best to get your them in peach out of office or go to jail. host: cecilia from the washington post, after the announcement was made that president obama wants merrick garland to serve on the supreme court, the washington post says
that the chairman of the judiciary committee, chuck grassley had a phone call with judge garland and said if a meeting more schedule he would only reiterate his determination to save the nomination for the next president. they also say, after making his formal announcement, president obama met with leaders of 23 progressive advocacy groups in the roosevelt room. participants in the meeting spoke on the condition of anonymity, that obama emphasized he did not have a nominee with -- with ansing a -- eye pleasing a certain clinical party. chuck grassley had this to say -- wish pubs had been invited to
dems secret closed-door scotus meeting at w h this p.m. we heard from them about rep secret made in com m this morning. caller before mentioned what republicans are saying is now in biden role, referring to a senate floor speech in 1992 when then senator joe biden said president bush should not name a nominee until after the november election. take a listen. >> it is my view that if a supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, president bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and afterme a nominee until the november election is complete.
the senate, too, must consider how it would respond to a supreme court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. it is my view that if the president goes the way a johnson, fillmore and and presses a nomination, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. and i sadly predict, mr. president, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times. mr. president, after having uttered these words, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more
than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a democrat will be permitted to fill it. but that would not be our intention, mr. president. if that were the course we were to choose for the senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election, instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominees and essential to the process. host: that was then senator joe biden in 1992. vivian in collierville, tennessee, a democrat. what do you think about this debate? caller: good morning. i am a democrat. i really do think they should
wait until the next president gets in. from what i thought of the speech, i really do. anyway, going to set up the matter what president obama does, they will say no. they has said no to everything and they are the ones who brought this government down, and blame it on the democrats. the democrats need to get out there and speak up. i am saying this for republicans, democrats, and independence, these policies have hurt all of us. host: no -- laura in illinois, a republican. caller: i am a little concerned about this on several things. first of all, the democrats before had said with wine and also with obama, -- said with biden and also with obama, said they are fine with an election
year. far is going against the establishment, they are going against the gop. if the gop would put somebody in, it is going to be against the people's choice so they definitely need to wait and see how this election year goes. host: what if donald trump is the president? caller: let him decide. debate, he mentioned three people, outstanding conservatives, and i do not believe that they have to worry that it is going to be either to democrat or two conservative -- too democrat or too conservative. the way trump has been making his decisions is the way people
have been saying. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i am concerned and it is my isnion that judge garland equivalent to karl marx. i think he is a socialist and i think harry s chairman and john f. kennedy are both flipping in their grave now. host: why do you think he is a socialist? caller: if you follow his trajectory, he does not hold the roots of his religious belief. if you follow his track record and pattern, i think he is a pupil of karl marx. so we will have a karl marx sitting in the u.s. supreme court. host: we are going to find out a
little more about judge garland coming up. we will be talking about greg door who has been covering it with bloomberg. we will take your phone calls on this debate as well. happening in washington today on capitol hill, there is going to be a hearing about the flint water contamination. the governor is going to be testifying, governor rick snyder, republican will be testifying as well as gina mccarthy. we will have live coverage of that on c-span3's morning at 9:00 a.m. that is when the house is gaveling in today so we will go to the house floor at 9:00 a.m., and this program a little bit early. on c-span3 you can tune into this hearing that will be happening on the flint water contamination. there is this front page story this morning on flint and the
water contamination across the country. it is beyond the michigan city. high lead levels have been found in 2000 water systems across the united states. the governortoday, is expected to blame the state environmental agencies for what happened in front, that is the headline in the washington post. also, this is from the washington times, the epa chief was warned about the flint crisis -- she warned this could get very big. this is a quote -- "it seems like the flint lead issue is really getting concerning," she wrote in a message to other epa officials. among 1200 pages of e-mails the association -- the associated press obtained wednesday under a freedom of information act. the federal reserve decided it
will dial back on the pace of rate hikes this year. they had thought they would do for in 2016 and it looks like they are dialing back to just two, and the first one could come in june. steven in south jordan, utah, an independent. caller: good morning. the death of the supreme court justice and nomination of a liberal president is all for one so that a president can only run for two terms, and obama could run for a third term with hillary as his vice president. host: that is stephen's thoughts. we will go on to debra in new mexico. what is the name of your town? caller: alamogordo. host: go ahead with your thoughts. caller: i have been listening to the other people in regards to the nomination, and the comments
made such as matt -- that there is no biden's law. and iaround in 1992 watched the same thing play out back then. the republicans are just doing the same thing the democrats did back in 1992. i do believe it is the right of the people to make the choice and it paul's me that all these appalls me that the democrats and liberals are so critical on how the republicans are taking a stance on this position. i think it is the right thing to do to wait until after the election, and then put up another nominee. whether it is the same one or not, let it play out after the election. it is more important for us to be able to make a vote for hill we want for president of the united states. tom in clinton, maryland,
a democrat. caller: i am wondering why people think that joe biden's word is like a bible. these senators say different things and if you want to go back in the record, you will find they make statements that contradict today. why are we taking joe biden's word is a prerequisite for the democrats? host: i just want to point out that think progress has put out from the other side of lunch of quotes they say make it awkward for republicans to now oppose merrick garland. ,hey have senator orrin hatch senator chuck grassley from 1997 during the debate over whether or not he should be on the circuit court in d.c. here is one from chuck grassley,
he seems to be well-qualified and probably will make a good judge in some other court. that was chuck grassley back then. we are going to get in a couple more phone calls if we can, but i need to squeeze in some campaign 2016 news. the front page of the washington times, the rnc moves to scrap the convention rulebook. try to forceill more transparency at the convention in july, aiming to scrap their rulebook in favor of .impler procedures the changes would not guarantee mr. trump the nod but would make it easier for all sides to see what sorts of changes anti-trump factions are attempting. some members of the rnc want to ditch that massive roll book which is based on the
parliamentary handbook of the u.s. house, and instead use robert's rules of order to govern for action at the convention. call for these to presidential primaries in missouri. you can see there that hillary andton has 310,602 votes bernie sanders has 300-9000 and 71 votes. votes, about three percentage points apart. says thengton post race is in limbo pending a recount decision by bernie sanders. the paper saying that democratic front runner hillary clinton appeared to have won the missouri primary by a slim , and whether bernie sanders would seek a recount. he has the right to request a
recount four weeks from now once butresults are certified, that probably would mean a winner would not be declared until may. that decision up there for bernie sanders to make as the county is still -- the counting still continues in missouri. let's get brian in massachusetts, an independent. caller: i believe whoever -- i am an independent -- but i believe whoever has the majority should make up the rules. if they do not want to have a but my court this time, biggest concern is, you have all the christian people calling in and voting and everything, and the bible says anyone proud of the world is an enemy of god. in the new commandment jesus
made, love your neighbor. why are they even voting? host: we are going to take a quick break. when we come back, we will talk with greg door about merrick garland, who he is, and his background, and how he may vote if you were to get the slot on the supreme court. president obama made this decision late at night after returning from texas. his wife and about a dozen other top aides knew about the decision. on tuesday night, the white house put this video together with judge garland. , theam merrick garland chief justice of the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit and i have had it for 18 years. i am married to lynn rosenman
garland. met sitting next to each other. she is the most honest, straightforward person i can imagine. we have two spectacular daughters who are both -- both very much like her, very athletic. when i am standing with the president and he announces my nomination, i will feel a little bit like it is an out of body experience. it is not anything i could've imagined. my mother will watch on tv and cry. my father would be very proud. position thatest somebody who is dealing with law and making sure the laws are applied fairly can be in.
civil laws are what differentiate us from most other countries. is -- fairlyork and impartially. if people trust that in society. >> people also want to be sure this investigation goes forward. >> merrick garland has been talking about what has been going on for a hearing after a bombing in oklahoma city. a truck in front of them are of federal building in oklahoma one evening toen pack and say goodbye to my family, and we began from their. i try to find out who had blown up the building. that may be a core reason that i
have this deep feeling about the rule of law. i want to make sure the people settle their differences and that it is a justice system that works according to the and issues an appropriate verdict. to make sure the faith of the constitution favors the law and have people's trust that if they come before a judge they will get an honest hearing. >> washington journal continues. host: we are continuing our discussion about merrick garland, the supreme court nominee. we have greg stohr, the supreme court reporter from bloomberg here to break it down a little bit more.
tell us a little bit more about judge merrick garland. tell us about his background and personal story. guest: he is originally from chicago. president bonded over that yesterday in the nomination. he has been on the federal euros court in washington for 19 years and prior to that he was a prosecutor and left a job in private law practice to become a prosecutor. the most notable part of his career, he oversaw the investigation and prosecution of the oklahoma city bombing as well as the unabomber trial. he talked a little bit about how his experience has shaped him yesterday. talk a little bit about that experience, being a prosecutor and dealing with victims of crimes. guest: he talked about a number of things, talking to witnesses.
i think he described them as mothers and grandmothers and try to convince them to come forward to cooperate and testify against people. the veryalked about moving experience of being responsible for making sure that prosecution of the oklahoma city and thatent properly justice was done there. those clearly were very formative experiences in his professional career. host: talk a little bit about his time on the d.c. circuit. it is called the second most important court in the united states. what kind of reputation did he develop on the bench? terms, an general moderate, a consensus builder, not someone who wrote sweeping opinions but is generally devoted to craftsmanship. when most people think about the
courts they think about hot button social issues like gay rights and gun control. because of the unique docket of the d.c. circuit, the have a number of regulatory topics. they do not have the kinds of cases that other judges around the country have, so we do not know a whole lot on how he would rule on abortion or class action lawsuits, or any number of issues. we have a volume of stuff on how he views administrative agent. host: we want to bring our callers into this conversation as we continue to talk about merrickcourt nominee garland. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. independents can call in at (202) 748-8002.
he has been called moderate and we do not have a broad body of decisions to take that from. what do you think burned him that reputation? guest: part of it is my mentioned before, not writing big, sweeping opinions. he is not someone who goes out of his way to say, i see a constitutional right that has not been previously recognized by the supreme court. some people would even call him conservative on criminal law. perhaps, this comes from his career as a prosecutor, perhaps for other reasons. to the right of antonin scalia comes to criminal law issues. we will have to see it if he gets onto the court, but that is an area that if people are juxtaposing how he might roll on other areas, he may be relatively moderate or conservative on some criminal
questions. host: let's take a call, a democrat, we have eric from glen bernie, maryland. you are on with greg stohr. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just wanted to reiterate that the biden role, which everybody is talking about 's speech or thoughts on the floor was talking about decide tos would resign while the election , it hadwas going on nothing to do with extraordinary circumstances if a supreme court justice would die. that, ok,ar the fact you should not resign just to
put another member of what you think will be a right-leaning court or left-leaning court on the court for that purpose, which everybody knows, they could deal. -- they could do. no joe biden's whole speech was theicated on the fact that resignation of a supreme court justice, not the death of a supreme court justice. if you are going to use the biden rule, use it correctly. host: let's talk a little bit about the biden role. -- rule. joe biden speaking about waiting to make a supreme court nomination. guest: that was, as the caller said, that was the summer before -- it was in an election year but after the supreme court term ended, and it was anticipating that somebody might retire after
the term ended in late june. that did not happen, so the caller is right that the circumstances were little bit different. that is sort of in this whole debate over whether the senate should consider the nominee. that is kind of what you find throughout history, is that there is no situation that is really exactly the same. there are some where people have been talking on the other side of the issue, but there is no perfect precedent for what we are having now. host: our next call is from mike , calling from richmond, virginia on our republican mind. -- line. caller: good morning. republican, iam a would prefer if they would just go ahead and give him a hearing and vote him down. if the idea is that we cannot trust the president to make a
that willjustice actually look at the constitution and say, you know the constitution says what it says and we cannot keep turning it on its ear. to say it says what it does not say just because people want certain social changes to take place, they should just get up and explain, this is the reason we are voting him down. we look at the president's past picks and see the way they look at the constitution. why should we think there would be something different going on here? i do not said that, think the constitution actually requires congress to give them a hearing because. simple, there is no time limit -- because pure and simple, there is no time limit placed upon which they must do that.
there is no reason for the this --- how can i put there is nothing in the constitution that says advice and consent cannot take the form of refusing to consider. the device -- advice to the president is do not bother. host: let's let greg stohr respond to that. guest: certainly people would agree with the caller that it might be wiser to go ahead and have a hearing. the question is a political judgment the republicans are making, whether or not it will be harder for them to oppose merrick garland or any other nominee after the public gets to know that person and hears from that person. thehe second point, constitution certainly does not explicitly say the senate has to do anything. the president is supposed to nominate somebody, and it is really a question of which model
you believe the constitution embraces. is it that no nomination get onto the court without both the senate and the president a green? -- i agreeing? thes this some more president is entitled to his or her amount of difference -- is going to beit a great debate over the next couple of months. host: let's talk for a minute about the impact that merrick garland, if he does get a hearing and somehow makes on the court, how he may impact the court right now. split, you a 4-4 write that he could help the court regain its ideological center. you say that he will potentially be a pivotal vote and some of the country's most divisive
issues including campaign finance, gun control, abortion, and class-action lawsuits. he would replace the late justice antonin scalia a, an anchor of the court's conservative wing and probably supplant justice anthony kennedy at the court's center. tell us more. guest: i am sure you have written a thousand times, anthony kennedy is the justice on this case. again, we do not know everything about merrick garland, but based on his general philosophy, it is presumed -- pretty reasonable to suggest on those issues and a whole lot of other ones, he may be the justice in the middle and kennedy becomes one of the more reliable conservative votes. , butremains to be seen that would be a huge shift for the court. if president obama or a future
democratic president can fill this vacancy, it will be a significant shift for the court. fast,ains to be seen how if you have five democratic appointees, let's say they all think citizens united was a bad decision, that is a reasonable supposition. will they moved to overturn that decision right away? merrick garland may not be that quick to just overturn something. this could be a volatile time. we have three other justices who are going to be over the age of 78. depending who gets elected, we could easily see the court shifting significantly to one direction or shifting back-and-forth. it is a volatile time for the court and may also be a reason why whatever happens with the garland nomination, the justices may be sort of conservative in how quickly they move because
they recognize they are in a volatile time and do not want the law shifting back and forth depending on who has the majority. host: currently we have eight justices on the court. of garlandnation does stall, how will that affect the court? guest: we have a number of cases where those of us who cover the case think it could be a 4-4 split. involvingase could be mandatory union fees. we all thought it would be 5-4 with public-sector employees having a right to say no, i do not want to support the union. it seems like the court is divided 4-4. what happened is the court will issue a decision saying, we are evenly divided, we will leave intact the lower court decision
that says states can force those workers to pay union fees. but it does not set a nationwide precedent. becausecomplicated different cases have different situations. we can talk about immigration, and the court always has the option of saying we are going to hold over the case until next have a nicee justice, and we argue it. callers, weo our are talking with greg stohr from bloomberg. jim on our independent line is calling for michigan. caller: the point i want to make is that the framers of the constitution wanted a government that work. -- that worked. in designating the responsibilities of the congress and the president, they used the word "shall." and shall he and mandatory, they must.
it does not give them discretion. i have to disagree with your the framers would impose upon the president the point -- point -- a timent at the same congress has a constitutional duty to give advice and consent. if people would just read the constitution and also read the federalist papers, there's at least nine or 10 federalist thers discussing on how articles of confederation did not work. host: let's give greg stohr a chance to respond. guest: that is certainly the argument that democrats and liberal scholars are making, that the framers intended a
government that works. in terms of the word "shall," it says the president shall nominate and with the advice of appoint. point -- it does not explicitly require the senate to do something. it is certainly an argument that people are making, and their arguments on both sides. debate note this is a that was going to have to happen in the political sphere, this sort of discussion among politicians and others. it is not something that will be able to go to court to challenge. say,folks on the left there is no way to go into court and say the senate has to act. host: our next call is from the democratic line, we have frank from spanish fork, utah. caller: the last caller made me
think of a second comment, i will say it real quick. even though it says that congress, it does not say they shall do something, i think we should keep it in mind that they were elected to serve. i would take that to mean they were supposed to cause the government to function correctly , not stall for political reasons. the reason i called in the first place, if we are going to use the argument or the debate of the biden discussion about , isibly retiring justices what the republicans are doing don't we have to take into consideration the fact that republicans have been struck -- have been such obstructionists for the past eight years? they have made their own bed and i think that is their own fault. guest: one argument that i heard
is the voters should success is decide. -- decide. this is interesting and along the lines of what the caller was saying. thatthe argument is elected representatives do have a responsibility to act and in terms of democracy, maybe what be ableis for voters to to make a judgment on senators as to whether they voted for or against merrick garland, and that would be the best way to have this be a democratic moment. that may be an argument that democratic's use going forward. debateit is a great about how they should be handled. host: the republican leaders in the senate have said that the decision not to consider this nominee does not have to do with the nominee's credentials, it
has to do with the fact that it is an election year. there are some groups that did take a look at his record and are opposing some aspects of it. times, it washington says that people tried to tap a moderate to fill the seat of justice scalia but ended up picking a fight with powerful second amendment groups that say judge merrick garland has shown .ntipathy toward gun rights ,n one 2000 case, judge garland who sits on the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the district of columbia, upheld a clinton administrative effort to store gun buyers records. do consider the landmark case that would later establish the second amendment's protection of a personal right to bear arms. this is probably the most
anti-gun supreme court nomination in decades, said brian rogers. case atenced the heller the supreme court. does his record on the court really tell you about what his stance on second amendment is? guest: i am not sure it does. two interesting cases, two pieces of information absolutely . the first one was not a second amendment case, it is a case of agency deference he. in favor of the ability of the clinton administration to hang on to records of people who underwent background checks to purchase guns. instance, case was an this is the case that ended up being the heller decision, a landmark decision, but all we have from judge garland is a vote to consider the case. we do not have an explanation.
there was a panel of three judges that ruled in favor of gun rights in what at that moment at least was a big ruling, as the supreme court had not yet said there was an individual right under the constitution to bear arms. judge garland, along with a total of four judges, including one republican appointee said we want the full d.c. circuit to consider this case. ,e do not know whether he said thought that ruling was wrong. we do not know whether he thought it was just such an important issue that the whole d.c. circuit should handle it rather than a three-judge panel. we will see think more questions looking into his judicial rulings even though the republican leadership in the senate says it is really not about his qualifications? guest: i think we will have some. i was really struck yesterday by
how little there was. there was this, and that is certainly something worth discussion. in part perhaps because all of the people president obama considered, he can make the coast that judge garland is the most conservative/moderate, and there is not a whole lot of material. if you talked to people on that side of the issue before hand, many of them were saying, we do not want this to be about the person, we want this to be about the process. host: we are talking to greg stohr of bloomberg. he covers the supreme court, and we will go to our next caller on the republican line, james from chattanooga, tennessee. caller: i just wanted to say that mr. mcconnell was given a really good job and nobody stood in his way. and i think that even though i am republican, i feel like this
other guy, he was there for us with the oklahoma bombing. -- i do not know if anyone has ever been to that museum over there -- but they have this mock explosion. they put you in a little room and you are like, what happened? you see all the destruction that happened afterwards, and he had to lead the case to make sure that mr. mcveigh was put to death. it is a wonderful thing that he did and there is no more conservative person in my heart. if you have ever been to that museum, go to the oklahoma bombing museum and see what this great man has done. i am republican, i can tell you that if hillary takes office, she is not going to do something really nice for us, for a conservative guy like this on the bench.
guest: i have not been to the remember, i certainly i remember where i was when i saw the news about the oklahoma city bombing. the caller is right. was a very moving experience for everyone to learn about that bombing. in garland'smoment lyft. host: that plays a role in the discussion among republicans in the senate. most of them have indicated that perhaps if hillary clinton is elected, they may change their minds. guest: there is fear among republicans that since obama has that isd somebody conservative, if hillary clinton
can choose whatever she wants, she which is someone more liberal. inshe wins the election november, republicans better confirm garland before she gets a chance to nominate someone worse from our standpoint. host: ok. we have a tweet from matt that says, they will move on garland after hillary is elected in november. block her from making her own pick. seeing this discussion being steeped in discussion. our next caller is dorothy of the democratic line. caller: good morning. is first thing i want to say that what these republicans must understand, this is a 50/50 country.
there was nothing voted on to make it a biden rule. me isr thing that gets that, ok, they said that president obama do not follow the constitution. what the senate is not following the constitution either. ist i would like to know that it is been a 5-4 court for a long time. most of the time it favors republicans. they act like the court have to be all conservative. why can't it be a moderate court? making -- i don't see why everyone is making a big case that he's not conservative, this, and that.
it should not matter to the country. dorothy, let's get greg a chance to respond. earlier, you mentioned we have not had a supreme court with a majority of democratic appointed justice since his 1969. 1969.ce it stands for the notion that it has been a conservative court. a lot of the republican appointed justices have turned out to be more liberal than what folks thought. times mentioned that garland being on the court will give us the most liberal court in 40 years. both sides have gotten used to the notion that it is a quarter dominated by republican appointees. the saint be a moment we see something different. host: we are talking to greg who formally cover the
justice department and/or the federal trade commission in bloomberg. you formally clerked for judge frank kaufman in baltimore. wase merrick garland considered by president obama with the first two vacancies that came up during the president's tenure. why do you think he'd wasn't chosen then? guest: the president selected two women. appearances, he is very proud of those appointments. womenversity of those two was important to him then. i think also, those were nominations that replaced relatively liberal justices. , butrepublican appointees you are replacing a liberal with
a liberal. it is certainly possible that the president has perceived in license to ae head someone with that philosophy. host: yesterday, judge garland talked about his own judicial philosophy at the white house. let's take a look at that. [video clip] justice will be done in our courts without prejudice or partisanship is what distinguishes us from others. that amust be confident judge's decisions are determined by the law and only the law. for a judge to be worthy of such he or shet or she --
must be faithful to the constitution. he or she must put aside personal views or preferences and follow the law, not make it. fidelity to the constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life. it is the hallmark of the kind of judge i have tried to be for the past 18 years. if the senate sees fit to confirm it for the position of which i have been nominated today, i promise to continue on that course. and this report showed a little light on the president's making progress -- process. the president emphasized that although he might have disappointed some supporters for lobbying for a woman or a person of color, he picked someone for which he has a personal
affinity. said thatrrett president obama was looking for .omeone who's a value he shares she said, there is a humanity to his character that such the president as well. she added, the president has talked about into the with past nominees. can you talk more about the president's approach to looking at the person? guest: he has said that what judge garland said, that is when a judge does, he or she, follows the law. there is a small category of there is not a right
or wrong answer, that you have to use judgment and you're like experiences plays a role and having an ability to empathize with the people involved in the case. it is trying to understand both sides of an argument. that is an important quality. on one small note, he did interview mayor garland previously. merrick garland made a good first impression in the first few vacancies and the president just went in another direction. ,ne factor that played a role that gave judge garland a head start in the process. host: what will be next? i know judge garland will be going to capitol hill today to
meet with some lawmakers. what are the next steps in the process? guest: a few republican lawmakers said they will agree to meet with judge garland. to democrats need decide -- they want to present him as a nominee worthy of being considered just like any other nominee. yes, the republicans do not want to hold a hearing. democratsalk that the will their own hearing. it will be different. but, we are in uncharted territory here. i am not sure i can tell you how this is going to play out. whether we are going to have a fierce debate over the next several months, or whether we are going to be talking about it for several days and it will die down. it will be really, really interesting to see. host: on the republican line, we have jeff from nebraska. you are on with great store.
store.are on with greg the hypocrisy of all these politicians. they are all just the same. your guest is the same way. saying thatdone you have to use life-long experiences and empathy. no you don't. you use the constitution. that is what you are supposed to do. they are not. that is the problem with supreme court justices. they have gotten away from that. and to listen to joe biden, and we know what the president did with his filibustering. changed toyear, they so he can fill the lower courts. there was not a day that went by that you did not see on c-span the lower courts being pumped in
justices andic nobody can forget that. so, the hypocrisy of all these -- and it is on both sides. they are destroying our country -- ouris just absolutely young kids today. my grandkids, i just absolutely feel so sorry for them because they are not going to see a free america. never. jeff, let's give great a chance to respond. is a pretty fundamental divide between the two parties handle -- and how they view the constitution. said you wanted to look at the words of the constitution.
more liberal justices and usingrs, they do not like the term living constitution, that thesee the idea constitution has concept -- abstract concepts. it does not tell us what equal protection under the law means. you have to use judgment to figure out how to apply it in a situation that is centuries were initiallyds adopted. host: ok. our next caller is richard from florida. richard, you are on with greg ohr. caller: where in the constitution does it say that there is supposed to be nine supreme court justices? where does it say they are supposed to be lawyers?
when did this change? i know our greatest supreme court justices were not lawyers. if you could answer that question, i would greatly appreciate it. is right that the supreme court does not have to supreme court justices. congress could change that. that is where we had been for some time. great supremewhat court justices who were not lawyers. i don't want to miss state things. of super courtty justices have had a law degree. the underlying thought is that we could benefit from more diversity on the supreme court. that is an argument that could be made and judge garland --isense is very similar judge garland in a sense is very similar.
he to harvard law school and as so many other justices did, one can make the argument that we need other types of life experiences. next on our democratic line is john from lincoln, nebraska. good morning, john. caller: hi. stohr, i just wanted to say that it is interesting that we anyway, i want to say garland is being proposed. if you remember back -- john roberts was a conservative.
a very thoughtful person. they get down to ted cruz and those who other people toget in there and decide get in their and overturn roe versus wade. well that some .eople would be a 3/5 vote what else? it is just ludicrous how this has evolved. amendment -- scalia, you can spin it any way you want it. the overturn florida state election a lot. garland.
you mr.tohr -- thank stohr. guest: what i think the caller is getting at is increasingly the court does seem political. while justice scalia would have ide the argument that look, have a principle. my principal is individualism. sometimes you cannot with results they did not like. increasingly with the world where we now have republican appointees are the more conservative appointees. all the democratic appointees of the liberal of these. of people it becomes harder and harder to distinguish them from other politicians who vote on party lines. the justices certainly don't think of themselves that way. on those big issues, there is a
pretty strong correlation between -- host: judge garland 53 years old. he's a little older than the last two supreme court -- the last four really. talk about that little bit and how that may impact the court. garland, innk judge addition to being the most moderate or conservative choice, he is the most least threatening one. he is the least likely to push the constitution in one direction. he is a person who is least likely to server three decades. sensethe oldest nominee 1971 when lewis palmer was 61 years old. if you ask people a year ago, they would say 63, forget it. if you look at the other two
finalists, they are in their late 40's. andage is very striking if it is possible to be conciliatory in this political environment, this was the most conciliatory nominee that the president could have made within the group of people you was fiercely considering. talking to greg store -- we are talking to greg stohr. charles on the republican line. caller: good morning. greg, , i liked the video that they did on the nominee. i think it softened his case. the oklahoma city bombing incident was a southern thing. i do believe the justices life experiences frame how they view the topics they have to adjudicate.
i am one for diversity. i am a lifelong southerner. i am a protestant. is jewish. most of them are catholic and want to harvard or yale. i would like to make the case for diversity. i don't see anybody who looks like to me, or maybe has my life experiences on the court and i would like your thoughts. guest: it is a valid point. there are so many aspects of diversity and you will never capture them all with my people. there is gender diversity, racial diversity, geographic and the law schools people went to. a case to beainly made that this does not add to the diversity of the court besides the fact it is a white man. jewishd be the fourth
justice. he does come from a washington/new york corridor in his professional life. it now dominates the supreme court. how much of a difference does that make on the court? that is a great debate. so, it is not an illegitimate point that the color is making. but again, you can't have every type of diversity. greg we are talking to stohr of bloomberg.
like judge mayer garland also want to harvard law school. we have ruth from sandy hook, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for this terrific discussion. it is so upsetting. i am 75 and years ago, i believe the supreme court ruled as best they could according to the constitution. my opinion has changed over these last years. i was just reading this morning a column with james madison was quoted -- key observed in the papers -- he observed in the papers if men were angels, they would require no government. he went on to say in this article that the gop
unfortunately, has violated the spirit if not the letter of the constitutional system. they have converted healthy, political competition, which is live --w most of my most my life. it's really, really sad. i think that the president was very thoughtful in this nomination and has been expressed this morning, he certainly could have appointed somebody with a very, very liberal point of view. he did not do that. he looked for someone that republicans respected and that has been very fair in his history. greg ok, ruth, let's give a chance to talk about that. talking about some
of the bigger political divides. it is hard to argue against her on that. reporter, political but watching the republican right now is fascinating and how all this shakes out, whether the m she talked about in the of hurting the candidates moment,lection, at the it is not clear what the republican party is going to stand for a year from now. or on on other issues, the court specifically. so, we may see some shifting in that dynamic. fascinatingit is that the idea that the republicans might approve an obama-nominee is fascinating. if hillary clinton is elected president, that a be a moment where mr. mcconnell says we are
now going to be the part of the government that is moving things along and working with the working withed -- the democrats. her independent line, we have hunter from whitewater, wisconsin. hi, great. as an independent, i find change of the utmost importance and i was curious as to what merrick garland's stance is on climate change? whether key agrees -- whether he agrees that it is man-made. he said don't know anything about the science of it. he has been involved in a lot of decisions involving the epa and other military agencies. that i haveretend
gone through them all. in general, he is judge -- a judge who refers to administrative agencies so his instinct tends to be, say the epa says we want to do this to regulate climate change, his instinct tends to be as long as you give him reasons, that is fine. might also defer to a different epa. to aneral, that speaks limited role. area where judge garland may be quicker.
there is evidence on both sides. i don't think judge garland is going to come out and make bold pronouncements that climate change is ruining the planet and we need to act. he will give some differences to the agencies. keith onnext, we have a republican line. caller: how are you doing today? host: i am good. how are you? caller: i am good. i have been watching the c-span channel for a couple of days. i really don't understand that they brought up the point of joe biden in the early 1990's, i believe 1992. it was another date that he'd aought the point home that supreme court justice should not be appointed. i don't understand it.
i am really having a hard time understanding how the democrats don't get this. this was initiated by their side back in the 1990's. my other point would be as far as a supreme court justice goes, i am aother point that republican. i have never voted in my life. i registered this year to vote because i think it is necessary. herve a problem with missed -- i have a problem with mr. kasich. to force a brokered convention is anti-american. behind the republicans appointment of a supreme court justice by joe biden's words. with johndisagree
kasich. host: let's take a quick look at what joe biden said in 1992 on this issue. [video clip] >> it is my view that if a supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, president bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed. must consider how it would respond to a supreme court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. it is my view that if the president goes the way of president fillmore and johnson and impresses an election year nomination, the senate judiciary committee should seriously
consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. willly predict that this be one of the dirtiest presidential campaigns we would have seen in modern times. i am sure missed her president words, someng these will criticize such a decision and say, there was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a democrat would be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention. if that were the course you were to choose to not consider holding hearings until after the election, instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that
once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a supreme court nomination should be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is central to the process. talk about how that is impacting the discussion? guest: democrats have their own talking points, too. you can do a long list of people people say that are contrary to the condition. were potentially some differences from that situation. he was talking in june, not in march. go was talking about a hypothetical -- he was talking about a hypothetical vacancy. that is up to the people.
we just have not had a situation quite like this. there is no modern president for in february of an election year and opening a vacancy that could swing the court so much. i felt like i had to go back down to the john tyler presidency to find a time that was comparable that he'd nominated five people to the whenme court and took over william henry harrison died end not have a and did lot of support. in a minute five people. only two to vote and only one of them was confirmed. we are going back to a very different time when we are talking about john tyler. there are plenty of talking points between them and now. host: ok. on our independent line, we have mickey from new jersey.
like to bring up a point. peoplee a remark about protection under the law is not defined in the constitution. you iswould like to tell equal protection under the law means that congress and the president cannot pass laws and exempt themselves from them as they did with obamacare. needs to be under the same laws, right? they have violated the constitution by passing a law and existing themselves from it. have aickey, do you question about the supreme court nomination? i would like to say the supreme court nomination is a
very big issue, as everyone knows. this guy is working for bloomberg and bloomberg was like to see the second amendment away with. a lot of liberals the same way. it is a very big issue on who gets into the supreme court, as you know. host: i want to get greg a chance to respond to you. guest: the protection argument i argumentd, the obama on different issues and what the law means, i think i will pass on the issue of the second amendment and the owner of my company. we talked about the second amendment a little bit. people haveestions raised about judge garland's record.
it is certainly legitimate to talk about. host: greg stormer, thank you so much for being here today. coming up, we will be taking more of your calls about judge merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court. call in and we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv has 48 hours up nonfiction book and authors every weekend. here are some programs to watch for. a total of 15, at eastern company book discussion with city university of new york professor douglas rushkoff, author of "throwing rocks at the google buzz." canalks about how americans benefit from the digital economy. p.m., a coeditor of liberties nemesis, examines the
power of presidential during the obama administration. he is interviewed by former deputy attorney general. >> it seems obvious that the government cannot regulate the money used to participate in the constitutional right. did you have a right to free speech, particularly as you how can theitics, government say, you cannot spend money using your constitutional right? >> former first lady laura bush chronicles the lives of afghan women since the u.s. invasion in the book "we are afghan women." mrs. bush with the introduction to the book, that was put out by the w bush institute. go to book tv.org for the complete we can schedule. join c-span for a abraham
lincoln symposium. featured speakers include sidney .lumenthal mcdermottr, stacy pat , thomas l carson and terry coffered. the abraham lincoln symposium on american history tv on c-span3. but coverage saturday from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. eastern. >> washington journal continues. continuing our conversation about the
nomination of judge merrick garland to the supreme court. let's take a look at president obama making the announcement yesterday. >> i sought the advice of democratic and republican members of congress. out to average qc groups, scholars -- we reached andto advocacy scholars after completing this exhaustive process, i have made my decision. who isselected a nominee widely recognized, not only as one of america's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even handedness and excellence. these qualities and is our commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle.
he will ultimately bring that same character to beer on the supreme court. an institution of which he he's prepared to serve immediately. host: judge garland sits on the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. he is a 63-year-old appointee by president bill clinton. he's attended -- he attended harvard law school graduating from 1977. we are talking about is nomination and we are going back to the colors. on the republican line, we have jane. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i am really fed up with my republican party here. senator mcconnell says she wants the people to decide. congress represents the people. the last time i looked.
and they should act on this nomination and if they cannot get their job done, i think they ought to be for load. furlthink they need to be oughed. host: jane, given the political atmosphere, do you feel it makes it the wrong time putting someone on the supreme court? caller: i have studied a lot of the different presidents. we have been to a lot of different presidential sites. this is the way politics is. either way, i don't think a politician is a dirty word. we need politicians to run this country. that is their job. mr. trump is totally outside of that realm. so, i am very disgusted with how this republican nomination has been going on. i think it is a joke. a tv personality
the defendant. some of his rulings were surprising. i was intrigued thank you she did not pursue someone a little more aggressive. ron, do you think that judge garland should get a hearing by the senate to vent some of the issues you are talking about? caller: sure. i think that is worthy of a hearing. person, thend as a issuer to qualify for the position. i was apprised that the president did not seek some of the other individuals that seem to be on the short list of potential nominees. why she chose -- why he chose judge garland is surprising for my viewpoint. host: ok. overing of the battle judge garland's nomination, yesterday, mitch mcconnell spoke on the senate floor about the possibility -- the president's pick after president obama made the nomination. [video clip]
the choice is fundamentally alter the supreme court and have a profound impact on our country. course, the american people should have a say in the court posturing. it is the president's constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice and it is the senate's to act as a the president and hold its consent. we declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama, the senate will continue to observe the biden rule so the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland percent consideration. the next president may also nominate someone very different. --her way, our view is this
-- athe people a voice and voice in filling the vacancy. host: we are talking about a supreme court nomination of merrick garland by president obama yesterday. we are taking your calls. up next on our independent line is different think paul, minnesota. good morning, jeff. caller: good morning. host: good morning. would you think about the supreme court pick? caller: i am really surprised that all of the political maneuvers that are going on about the pick. an undergraduate in college, i had the good fortune to work at a law firm. that was the firm that produced what most people would know as
the minnesota twins. i was there when the people came through doing the background investigations for both the justices that were, in fact, affirmed and appointed to the supreme court. my gracious duties was digging through the archives of the law firm and bringing out the various files that people wanted to see regarding their , sol work on various cases they had could see how and in ar legal work variety of cases, so they could get an idea of how they had
-- not that the decisions they had made, but how they represented their clients and so on. host: jeff, given your experience in that setting process, would you think about judge garland's notifications? caller: he has gone through the same type a process. it has not changed. pursue a career in law. instead, i have not -- i have had an opportunity to go to builder built -- to go to vanderbilt university is a law student, or to choose between being a lieutenant in the infantry. i chose being a lieutenant in the infantry. which i would not
redo.-- i would not i would not take my decision in the lead. much, jeff.you so of next, james calling in on our --ublican line from a hobby from arizona. caller: i am a black conservative and i am very conservative and it goes like this -- one of the duties of the senate is not to confirm. he should nott, -- my views, speaking of my senator jeff flake, i call him john flake, i called his office yesterday about his comments about merrick garland and i got a press release saying it should not happen, but now that i am listening to more, it looks like
my senator may fold like he has done before with the border issue and all that. , iever the president puts up would not want the senate to do anything. i would not want congress to do much of anything because it and every time they do something, it is taking away from my freedoms and liberties. i am totally against losing my freedoms and liberties because, as we see, what is it? obamacare has taken away my freedoms. host: james, let me ask you this. what about the argument being made that the president has a constitutional duty to appoint and key is still president until vb's office in january? he can appoint as many people as he once. congress does not have to do anything.
host: ok. thanks so much for that call. news, the associated press is reporting that john islamics determined the state group committing genocide of christians in others in iraq and syria. you can go to www.c-span.org for more information and updates on that. returning to our conversation about the supreme court appointment of merrick garland by president obama -- on our democratic line, we have isaac from singer island, florida. would you think about the president's pick? , hasr: my question is anyone given consideration to what if something
happened to one of the other justices? is the senate thinking that there should never be -- that president obama should not begin in an opportunity to replace justices? change, how were to would we address the fact that the court needs to be in a position to move forward? that we as a country need to be in a position to move forward? host: are you concerned that since it is of the election year that this will have an effect on the decision-making process in appointing a supreme court justice? caller: no. i think the presidency is a four-year term. it does not change the fact that he is the president regardless when he- to
needs to do his job. if it is the last year of their term, why should they be in a position to hold back a hearing? host: all right. up next on our independent line is alexis calling in from wilmington, north carolina. alexis, what you think about the supreme court nomination? caller: good morning. first i would like to say the last time i called it which was well past 30 days, i think justice scalia was having his feeling and i was most disrespectful to his family and people who loved him. i want to apologize first off. i think i was cut off actually after that as i should have been. aside from that, i saw the guy obamawhen president
nominated -- after the nominated him. i like him. she was very personable talking mother was watching and crying her eyes out. he respected that the position. you could see he had self-respect for the positions that it has held -- that he has held. i don't know how he has voted. that i heard that he with liberal on gun rights. it is thetalk about people who get to decide. president obama's nominee being
put on the back burner -- that is his job and his responsibility. the job of the house and senate, i suppose both, have the job of deciding on whether this guy is or nayand giving a yay vote. host: are you concerned there are eight justices on the court? caller: the last guy that spoke, if someone were to drop dead out of the blue, or got her bid, have some kind of ailments that would preclude them from showing followy day, you need to the rule. that is what i did not understand. politics is akin to strategy. how are we going to make this
work for us? it has nothing to do with the law. host: ok. of next on our line -- on the republican line is morris from alexander, minnesota. lauren, good morning. caller: i know a simple way to fix it is not have any federal judges at all. it should be left up to each state. there are a couple of states that voted to ban gay marriage. these federal judges can overturn that. hell are our right. we need donald trump to straighten things out. next on have up democratic line is rick. caller: good morning. host: what you think about the supreme court pick? caller: i think our country does
not have enough time to work to injustices in crisis. crisis that ise compared to economical crisis. require 30 days to recover from communist or fascism. ,ight now, the justice system which is not really working very well in this country, and this -- we don't have more for more crisis and injustices, especially during election time. thereyou are saying should be hearings will be ford
with this nomination? is that what you are saying? caller: we do not have enough time. time is running out. more injustice is created in this country. president obama should act immediately, especially congress. they are the ones who created economical crisis and they created justice crisis. host: sorry about that. a little technical difficulty we had. next, we have james from south carolina. james, good morning. caller: thank you. that was kind of strange. host: yeah. what you think about the supreme court pick, james? caller: the timing for me, right after an election you are going to pull out a nomination and the the attention off
entire sweep of the election by donald trump. i am not a real trump fan. but he's speak to the heart of the nation and administration. seen one candidate get attacked so highly in the gop comethe sand, the on both sides. host: do you agree with mr. trump that the senate should hold off on this nomination? caller: well, i mean, if you go to -- if you go back to bite biden's speech. she gave that speech -- he gave that speech during bush's tenure. you have to adhere to what you say. word, are true to your
you should stick to your word and wait for the next president the nominee. during the bush one era. jill biden got up there and gave a long speech about how it would be nothing but fear for the next president to pick the nominee. i just think that would be hypocritical for them to pull out this nominee at this time -- considering this administration has created so much division in this country is nobody'ske it business. host: thank you for the call. our net call on the independent line is michael from stratford, connecticut. caller: hi.
first, i am very pro-to the system working. i am listed as an independent on this call, but i am unaffiliated. that means i can change as a them are cracked or republican -- that means i can change is a democrat or republican. when somebody nominate somebody, the other party gets to choose if they want to accept the nomination. why can't the president pick thinks -- heshe thinks would get accepted? he is basically wasting our time an go it is an example of how the system does not work. host: michael, you are going to be the last word today.
the house is about to gavel in session. we will take you live. the speaker: us house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. merciful god, thank you for giving us another day. your care and wisdom are shown to us by the way you extend your kingdom into our world down to the present day. your word reveals every aspect of your saving plan. you accomplish your design purpose in and through the hearts of the faithful who respond to you. today convert our minds and hearts that we may become the great nation you hope us to be.