tv Washington Journal CSPAN March 20, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
the supreme court on the nomination of federal judge garland. and later, tom hart ♪ host: good morning, the first family the white house this afternoon for a three-day trip to cuba. it will mark the first time a u.s. president has visited the island nation in 80 years. in fact, calvin coolidge was the last president to be in cuba. morning, march 20. the house is in session this week. the senate is in reset -- recess. top leaders nabbing a strategy to derail donald trump. in a new poll showing senator
ted cruz with a significant lead in two state caucuses. result in a this third-party candidacy? that is our focus on the sunday morning. we welcome your calls and e-mails and tweets whether or not there could be a viable third party candidacy. 202-748-8000 is a line for democrats. is a line from republicans 202-748-8002. independents.m nixonthe 1960's, richard -- ,his is from political magazine
sorry conservatives, it is likely to late for a viable third party candidate. donald trump is one step closer to clinton in public in and plenty of gop figures are horrified. on thursday, leaders meeting in washington to plot a third-party run against the front runner, says it will be a "true conservative in the race." night,n late wednesday talking about the possibility speculated if republicans kids stop party -- could stop donald trump by organizing a third party. unless there's a's financial times, donald trump won republican elders. open.one lines are 202-748-8000 is our line for
democrats. 202-748-8001 is our line for republicans. gop leaders nothing he strategy to derail donald trump. about that is a photograph from old havana as the folks in cuba get ready for president and mrs. obama and the first family. the first op will be in the evening hours in old havana. we will be covering the president's trip. after that, president obama will be traveling to argentina. let's get to your calls and comments. louis is up first. is a third-party candidate viable this year? caller: no. i would not vote for a becauserty candidate number one, one might favor the
democrats, or one might be with the republicans. think you would not have a clear winner because if you have a with then favored democrats, in the democrats would win. i would not vote for a third-party candidate. host: thank you for the call. there are primaries on tuesday. a lot of focus on arizona were democrats and republicans will go to the polls. idahocratic caucus is in and one in utah. in all of yesterday showing ted cruz -- a new poll yesterday showing how frustrated the states are frustrated with donald trump's candidacy. 53shows ted cruz with support among caucus -- 53% goers. among caucus
coming in second as john kasich with 29%. donald trump, a distant third at 11%. romney saidt mitt he was going to vote for ted cruz in the utah caucuses, an indication on how the establishment is trying to move away from donald trump. we will have the results tuesday evening and the speeches by the candidates on c-span. sharone is joining us. caller: i would not support a third-party candidate. i would not do that. this is what you get when you put a person like donald trump in office. he is completely out of control and it is basically what they get. that is all i really have to say about the situation. host: thank you for the call. huffington post is writing about third-party candidacy. this is the question -- how a third-party candidate because an
electoral crisis. imagine a scenario, hillary clinton winning the democratic nomination and down -- and winning the republican nomination. a third-party candidate would likely hurt trump more than clinton. according to the constitution, the house of representatives then select the president with each state delegation possessing one vote. in this scenario, the house of representatives is the same heavily republican body. christine is joining us from washington. good morning. up early. actually, we will go to david first from kentucky. caller: i possibly would support a third-party candidate, but i
want to tell people, how hard would it be to get on the ballot? host: it is also expensive because there are 50 state rules -- 50 state and april for each state. that was what ross perot found. i think we need more than two parties. i just think it is going to be impossible to do to get a viable candidate. host: and you know who writes the rules on who is on the ballot? the democrats and the republicans. caller: that is true. i like hillary and some of what trump says. but he scares me a little bit. host: david, thank you. now we will go to christine from bainbridge island, washington. republican line. caller: good morning. host: you are awfully early,
christine. yes i am. it is pumped sunday and i do not want to be late for mass. host: very good. before you go to church, you will talk politics, right? [laughter] caller: yes. i am grateful to say that the republican party has donald energy.rking a lot of win newnergy is you can hampshire with him out of money he spent, which was to man dollars. and there was jeb bush, who spent $36 billion and did not win, and that is what trump did, energy all over the united states with all age groups and men as well as women. host: christine, thank you very
much for the call. david has this tweet, why would anyone be surprised that the gop trumpdisenfranchise the supporters. they do that all the time to the democrats. next is don from houston, texas. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. last time i spoke with you i told you you would have been sitting on the edge of their chair. what about the will of the voters? host: and the will of the voters is what, don? caller: the will of the voters is donald trump. they are saying we don't respect the voters. we will give you what we want you to have. host: don from houston, texas. donald trump was in arizona yesterday. bill clinton is in tucson, arizona with gabby giffords. you can watch at 5:30 eastern time.
you can check out our schedule information on our website at www.c-span.org. a new ad on the air in utah taking aim at donald trump and ted cruz by the super pac supporting john kasich. [video clip] were presidents were honorable, trustworthy, what happened? we must stop hillary clinton. >> voters in ohio to the first step. every poll in the country showing john kasich can do what trump and cruz cannot -- beat hillary clinton. he could character still matters. john kasich is presidential. the supporting ohio governor john kasich running second in utah here it the next wave of primaries in april including wisconsin on april the fifth. a series of 16 primaries at the
end of april including connecticut and pennsylvania. post," wewashington will look at some of the campaign events with donald trump. he was in fountain hills, arizona. times reporting on the protesters. disrupting trump as he tried to rally. john mccain is on the ballot in what is a tough primary challenge. we will have the result in that race tuesday evening. john from rio rancho, new mexico . republican line. the idea of a third-party candidate, is it a viable? caller: yes, good morning. i really do feel like it would put hillary in office. saiduffington post piece
it would follow the house of representatives to replace a republican in office. i am against voting third-party, but ice of or donald trump -- but i support donald trump. i changed my registration to republican. i feel at the democratic left me. i will support donald trump on whatever ticket he goes on. there are no candidates that speak to my issues. donald is the only one. i think john kasich should drop out of the race. he has no chance of winning. he is not viable for any position in washington. rhino. trump is our guy. he is the peoples' guide. guy. is the people'
you will see why we need trump. and costede blocking woman with a magic marker. they were black. they were from the black lives matter. george soros spent millions. host: other viewers saying whether he or she would support a third-party candidate depends on who the third-party candidate is. from wj, a color making reference to the demonstrations in arizona and is more with donald trump. we won 21 i think
states. on in massive landslides. starting in new hampshire. ted cruz wasn't born in our country, folks. he was born in canada. he is weak on immigration. he is in favor of amnesty. he should not be in the same category with the people we are talking about. but ted cruz was supposed to win , but was definitely going to win in south carolina. i go to new hampshire. we win in a massive landslide. whereto south carolina, you have the. now, 60%, you know we call him is going, so lying ted with the bible and puts it down and start line. you know what? the evangelicals don't like liars. so, we going to south carolina -- that was going to be an easy
victory. and trump wind it in a landslide -- an trump wins it in a landslide. we did so great. then we had a great day on tuesday. the won five! then i hear cruz saying the other day, i am the only one who can stop trump. have you ever heard of this guy? i am the only one! ibm five times! well, wait a minute. ibm 20 times. lying ted. he is lying ted. but kasich is a nice guy, very weak on illegal immigration. that is the end of him, especially as far as phoenix is concerned. a scathing piece on donald
trump beled "will dumped?" from desert news would mark the first time in more than 50 years that utah would vote for a democrat, at least according to the survey. from her twitter page, many of you weighing in on a third-party candidate. in 2020, the gop will be the new third-party rights one of our viewers. said, a thirdonty hearty candidate is another gimmick to manipulate the not suspecting voters. let's go to patricia in bloomington, illinois. good morning. caller: thank you. for people thinking about voting for trump as a third-party candidate. think about this.
trump said he will put a 35% tax on any product made by a carrier. we only use air-conditioners six months a year in this country. he could sell -- a carrier could sell those products year-round in india, south america, africa. i don't think the man has a good business sense. host: ok. purchaser -- patricia from illinois. third-party candidate was progressive, then yes i would. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. those of you listening on serious radio, this program is 10:00 p.m. 7:00 to states like new york,
pennsylvania, ohio may decide the election. it says, a prospective general election between donald trump and hillary clinton could alter which states are in play this the racialre than issue.nd gender after successful campaigns where president obama expanded the , a 2016l map options race between clinton and trump could become a pitch battle. next is reba from oregon. republican line. good morning. caller: if i was ted cruz i would run because look at what they did to arco rubio. the minute mitt romney started backing him, he started losing all of these electoral votes. thank you. host: kathy is joining us from
florida. good morning. democrats line. caller: hi, this is kathy. host: go ahead. you are on the air. caller: i would not vote for a third-party because that is an automatic vote for the democrats. i am a democrat and i am voting republican for donald trump this year. democrats have done nothing to help the country. they put us in a lot of debt. the only reason hillary clinton is still in their and are not touching her for all of those indictments is because she is in the good old boy network. she stood by bill drove all the scandal and promised her this. the person who said we do not use air-conditioners year-round, i am in florida. if america's businesses aren't going to some of these companies, they need to think twice. host: getty, the focus is on bernie sanders and whether his
policies turn the u.s. into denmark? i am curious why donald trump and not bernie sanders is speaking is a democrat. caller: bernie sanders is already giving everything away. we need to run this country as a business end of get it back on its feet again and donald trump is not beholden to anybody and he can do the job. he did not get where he got today without come at you know, the smarts and as far as not being anybody who can be presidential, believe me, when he does -- when he sits down at the negotiating table, you have to have some couth about you. host: kathy, thank you for the call. bernie sanders yesterday in
phoenix, arizona and the full event will be airing later today as one of our coverage. it is also on our website at www.c-span.org. here is part of what he had to say to arizona voters. sen. sanders: it is not just a corrupt campaign finance system, which is undermining our democracy. what we are seeing now all over this country are cowardly republican governors trying to suppress the vote. [applause] as a nation, we have one of the lowest voter turnout rates of any major country on earth. our job is to increase voter turnout and make it easier for people. [applause]
yesterday, we have republican governors who are trying every way imaginable to make it harder for poor people, for people of color, for young people, for old people to participate. [applause] and i say to those cowardly governors, if you don't have the guts to participate in free and elections, get another job! [applause] bernie, bernie, bernie, bernie, bernie! sen. sanders: if elected president, you can bet your bottom dollar that we are going
to have a department of justice, which will vigorously take on everyone of these governors! [applause] what i want to see in this country is something simple and straightforward. that is, if you are 18 years of age or older, you are registered to vote. host: donald trump on the campaign trail in arizona. if you are interested in a long list of third-party candidates, you can go to this website. i will pull it up here. william hurt is the first 1832,ate back in
third-party candidacy. more recently, peter roosevelt running in 1912. virgil goode running as a constitutional candidate along with comedian roseanne barr. a long less from the third-party candidacy dating back to 1832. asking whether a third party candidacy is a viable option in this election year? a tweet from one person that says the republican party must be confident it could split the vote three ways. from fortoining us myers beach, florida. good morning. i was born a republican, but over the years, i go to the person, not the party. you heard of the know nothing party? while republicans are the do nothing party. the political party of fractions.
and they, not trump, going to do -- are going to destroy the republican party. they have stonewalled every action in the senate for the last four years. rubio and cruz have been absent a number of times when it should in washington. i deny rubio paycheck be denied for the next six months. do we really want an absent a senator whose private expenses were paid for by government credit cards? cruz lied to the voters regarding the status of carson and rubio stating he dropped out of the race. do we want a boldfaced liar as president? the republicans just don't get it. voters are angry. all talk and not awarding the candidates with the most electoral votes and holding an open convention and holding secret meetings.
this is going to make voter support trump. the last got to break the elephant's back with the supreme court nomination. restrictedcans adherence to the constitution, making their own rules for their own candidates end of the republicans are going to be toast. sit on the nominations and sit on your thumbs. whenever a republican is out of work in november, they did it to themselves. focus on the supreme court later in the program. steve, no wayd, were they in support of the democrats? in case you miss some of the events, you can go to our facebook page. we have pulled together some of the it again even on our website. us here inurning
washington d.c.. good morning. i am from washington, north carolina. host: i am sorry, you are right. on the republican line. caller: i would not support a third-party candidate. i imagine in ted cruz supporter and i would vote for donald trump if he was given the nomination over cruz. i don't want any establishment candidate. i think the good old boys network in d.c. between democrats end republicans need to be broken up. all aboutey are themselves and they do not care about the american people. i think that republicans and thanrats are more embedded what we know about. the proof is it is normal for democrats to pull the race card and label trump a racist even though we know about revenue al calling people crackers.
even obama saying we are no longer a christian nation. that should start riots. no one gave him the right to say that. we are 100% a christian nation. we welcome all religions, but we are a christian nation. that starts riots. trump does not start riots. yet the republicans jumping on, therefore, that shows the good old boys network spreads beyond parties. onant to clean up washington both parties and get this right for the american people. host: robert, thank you very much for the call. this editorial from the near daily news, stan and fight trump, in message to the gop. they are giving up and it is not even the third quarter.
there watching donald trump climb and surrendering. political reports said there is a growing worry in those of the forefront gop "stop trump effort" to deprive him of the delicate needed and force a convention, could be "traumatic for the party." let's go to julius from greensboro, north carolina, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would not vote for a third party candidate. kathy and the guy from north carolina, there really delusional. when donald trump's mouth gets jong-un is going to ship missiles over here like the fourth of july. his mouth is really despicable. kathy and guy from north
carolina, wake up! have a good day. host: ok, we will go to kelly from minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. 150% a trumply, supporter. presidentbe our next of the united states. he's for america. one nation under god. and this third-party candidacy thing, i mean, it is just a joke. believe this. america has got to stand up. number one, hillary should not even be going for a presidency. she should be in prison for what she did with her e-mail system and her text messages. we can have somebody like that in office. trump, he's a businessman, he is not a politician. we need to get the politicians out and get america back on its has saidyes, trump
things he should not say. he gets a little excited up there, but it is all for the good. he is an honest, great person and that is what everybody has need forok at, what we america. we need companies that in the united states. we need to get on the ball and get our country strong again. so, i am completely behind trump 100%. your partyu think will unite around donald trump? caller: i sure hope they do because this political correctness end of the -- the political correctness and the politicians -- people need to stand up and say what the political people are doing in washington are doing him wrong. believe that if american standup against the politicians, they will crash and burn. host: kelly, thank you for the
call. front page of the new york times odds,headline facing long gop leaders mapping the strategy to derail trump. publican leaders adamantly oppose trump has campaigned preparing a 100 a campaign to deny him the nomination starting with an aggressive battle in wisconsin city into the summer with a delicate by delicate lobbying effort that would cast mr. trump he as as a calamitous choice. they say in an effort to block him would rely on an array of desperation measures, the political equivalent of guerrilla fighting. let's go to anthony who was been waiting patiently from orlando, florida. a lot of florida colors this morning. go ahead, please. caller: i am in favor of a third-party candidate. i am in favor of whoever can
stop the fascist, racist trump into given -- into getting into office. when they say political correct, all they say is they don't mind calling a black person a nigger. there are not enough races left in this country to elect that idiot as president of united states. he rants and raise calling bernie sanders a communist. i am a communist. bernie is not a communist, he is a socialist. he needs to stop with all of these dog whistles for these white races who support him. host: this is a headline, republican side for utah. john kasich and donald trump on the campaign trail in utah over the weekend. unless something say tribune, both for trump.
trump? for demonstrations, we were in fountain hills, arizona for the campaign event, and demonstrators locking traffic for those trying to attend the event. arizona one of the make or break state for democrats and republicans. steve, republican line. caller: good morning. host: how are you? caller: fine, how are you? host: good. trump run and lose. that will vote for him. i think the country is smarter than that. they know when they are being lied to. that guy from florida.
he took all the words out of my mouth. he is completely right. stoppedblicans have everything the president wanted to do with rebuilding the nation , roads, bridges, creating jobs, in every facet of the country. people got to remember that this president took us out of one of the worst recessions, or depressions since the 1930's. now, got to give this man some credit. i give him a lot of credit for doing what he did and as for fighting terrorism, he did it well. he killed osama bin laden. dozens of alnd qaeda and taliban leaders. ands a very smart man people are going to miss this man, our president.
host: steve, from philadelphia. another steve with this tweet cruz are trump and part of the establishment. first more with the candidates, hillary clinton speaking and tomorrow back in arizona as she declared adrienne a number of key states outlining her road ahead. ms. clinton: families deserve a president who will fight for the things that are priorities at home, but not affordable -- but not by reason washington. paid family leave. and something we have waited long enough -- equal pay for equal work! [applause]
and above all, above all, hard-working americans across our country deserve a president with both the ideas and the know-how to create good jobs with rising incomes right here in our country. and i am absolutely convinced that we have the tools to do that. that is why i laid out a program to do what can be done, more good jobs in infrastructure. more good jobs in manufacturing. [applause] jobs in small businesses! [applause] that cleanobs renewable energy! [applause] ticketying jobs are the
for the middle class and we are going to stand up for the american middle class again here at we are going to stand up for american workers and make sure no one takes advantage of us. not china. not wall street. and not overpaid corporate executives! [applause] look, of course, every candidate him every candidate makes promises like this. but every candidate owes it to you to be clear and direct about what our plans will cost and how we are going to make them work. that is the difference between running for president and being president! [applause] host: hillary clinton was a top miami last tuesday end of that on the campaign trail. we will be covering her tomorrow and former president bill clinton at 5:30 this afternoon in tucson, arizona with kathy gifford -- gabby giffords.
a couple of pretty want to share from you -- mark young saying where is the attraction for hillary clinton and donald trump come from? from david saying, give me a based, not faith, based party. laura calling. good morning. caller: i am a donald trump supporter. i am a rhetorical massachusetts. i have been a registered democrat all of my live. i changed parties to republican to vote for donald trump. host: why? caller: we have a real problem in this country with all of these politicians that are trying to take money, promote dishonesty, and keep their jobs.
we had this evangelical nonsense here this country should be a separation of church and state. it is in the constitution. we need to have a strong country. we need to have a president that can do things for us. donald trump can do it. i have never been so passionate about anyone running for president as i have for donald trump. host: laura, thank you for the call. republicans will gather in cleveland for the republican convention. there are ready earmarking $50 million for security. the full story available online at bloombergpolitics.com. surely on the republican line -- rley on the republican line.
caller: i have not called you in a wild. there are too many fingers pointing. you lose your voice with the democrats because they have superdelegates. i am not pleased with most of the republicans either. that is why i voted the kenneth lay. voteat is why i independently. host: who are you going for, shirley? caller: ted cruz. donald trump keeps saying he lied, he lied, he lied. a woman that says religion is supposed to be severed from politics, well you got to have love in your heart for people and he says he does. but he has never committed anything that he says he needs to ask for forgiveness for sin.
about the supreme court for my children, my grandchildren, end of my great-grandchildren. i will tell you, ted cruz has not lied about anything that i know of and i have followed everybody's life. when i vote, i study everybody real good. host: enqueue for the call. we will talk about merrick garland in a couple of minutes. what to expect in the months ahead. this is a tweet from windy that says the only way i would vote for a third party is if it would enable the democrats to win. charles from tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. show.looking at yalls
i hear this about middle-class people, working people. they fail to mention the people who don't work, the veterans, the disabled. we have not had a raise in over two years, going on three years, what about the underclass? the ones under the middle class? i would vote for any candidate the, i call them, the poor and forgotten. host: thank you. -- if polls were
conducted on callers, you would think 100% of the country was voting for trump. are seeing republicans coming together antirepublican tonight all across this country. this campaign, this primary started with 17 candidates with a fantastic diverse, young, talented group. -- talented field. the field is now gone down dramatically. there are only two flu candidates -- there are only two candidates that have a plausible path, donald trump and me. most people would recognize that donald trump would be a disaster. if we nominate donald trump, hillary clinton wins. if hillary clinton becomes president, this border does not get secured. we lose the bill of rights, second amendment.
if hillary clinton becomes president, our kids are buried in a mountain of debt. their futures are put into jeopardy. and what we are seeing, we are seeing across the spectrum republicans uniting behind our campaign as mitt romney observed today. if you want to beat donald trump , cruz is the only campaign that can do it, that is why he is voting for me in utah. mitt romney observed that a vote for john kasich only helps donald trump. on the campaign chill in arizona. bill king says if trump gifted publican nomination in cleveland, it will make a 1968 chicago riots like a garden party. florida,ndo, republican line. your thoughts? caller: yes, good morning. saying the republicans establishment is trying to stop
trump. i would say that the republican establishment is aipac. how can you have a meaningful discussion, if you can't say the word jew on tv? i think the republican establishment is aipac and israel. we need to stop putting israel end of them from killing people in gaza. and stop them from killing people in gaza. as an independent, would you support a third party? you get the last word. i think the two-party system in america is completely absurd. -- with then't seem caucuses and super pac, it seems ridiculous and it seems like people should vote for who they need to vote for. it just doesn't make sense.
but that is just how i feel. i think it is ridiculous. host: tony. thank you. a lot of comment on her twitter page. this is one more from michael who says, i would vote for obama if he was running for a third party. and that's it. constitutionally, the president's term limited. coming up in the next few minutes, neil luzinski will be joining us. he said earlier the house is in session. senate is in recess for the easter holiday. what we can expect from capitol hill and those who support or oppose his nomination. there is a portion of newsmakers that follows washington journal on 10:00 eastern. >> bernie sanders said that he
is a litmus test for nominees that have to be willing to overrule citizens united. hillary clinton has said the same thing. i don't know if she used the word "litmus test." discouraged byll presidential candidate laying out rules expected candidates to make? >> we have taken issue with the use of litmus tests going back to the early 1980's when president reagan articulated in his reelection run that he was going to look for judges who met antiabortion, -- anti-from an action and civil rights, and in favor of prayer in school. involveds we have been in toiling in the fields of
judicial selection, it's 70 been my position that litmus test have no place in the national conversation here it having said that, i think it is important to talk aboutent the court and talk about the kinds of justices would like to see on the court. but, i have never supported litmus tests from democratic or republican candidates. basically, when each of us enters a courtroom as a party, we want to make sure that the judge before we are appearing as someone who is fair-minded and rendereded and has not an opinion on any particular issue. i think that is what we all hope for when we walk into a
courtroom. and i think that is what we deserve to expect from our judges. therefore, pledges of one or another, are very hurtful to the national discourse. >> we hope you tune into newsmakers program. it this week our guess is man aaron -- nan aron. you can stream it or listen to it on c-span radio. host: we want to welcome back niels lesniewski on "roll call.: " a lot to talk about. colleaguego to your --id hawking's who writes everyone seems to be going to the c-span archives to read what senators have said. what did he say in 1987 and how is it relevant in 2016. guest: the relevance we were in
1987 to this cycle is that this was the last go around. we had a republican president, democratic senate and one of the things were looking at back then was the fact that we ultimately got to a point of confirmation in the election year, 1988, but you have this story up in front of you -- host: the quote was, the dangers of politicizing the nomination process are needed by shortsightedness. presidential elections end supreme court nominations, and go. resist.y colleagues to guest: what was happening was we went from the defeated nomination to the anthony kennedy nomination, which was
confirmed in 1988 in the after theear nomination was defeated. grassley was in play then. he was already in the senate, of course. every time we turn around, there is some new clip being pulled up out of the c-span archives. merrick garland was on capitol hill and had a couple of meetings. "roll call" reporting that he will meet with others. there are 10 or 11 that we know of at this point that would say they are ok having a meeting with chief judge garland. there was a report the other day
from a chicago radio station that are publican from illinois, as of right now, is the only senator who is saying that we should go forward with a vote on the garland nomination. there is former unity among senate republicans on not having hearings. it is somewhat unanimous, but the same cannot be said for having meetings. there are at least some senators who are offering them that -- offering him that courtesy. amongare there cracks senate leadership? guest: the real crack is not the leadership, but some in the rankings that are talking fairly openly. --f blake is the most notice is the more notable one of the group. in the event the election does not go the way the republican would want, which is to say, that someone, hillary clinton perhaps, is elected president, -- and wasate control of the senate, in that
case, maybe we should confirm merrick garland. orlary clinton endotoxin will be more liberal -- hillary chuck schumer will be more liberal than garland will be. itselfs within present of the longest period of time in the nomination and if there is a confirmation hearing and a synod vote. guest: it has normally taken a matter of weeks, more traditionally. there is a question that i will throw in briefly, this is kind of an unusual situation that might be really, really a remote possibility, but there is a window of 17 days between the new congress starting generally third and the new president taking office on gary 20th where
they would theoretically -- january 20 where they would be a window to confirm obama's nominee early next year. host: all of the scenarios -- our guest is niels lesniewski. our phone lines are open. i want to share with you what senator kerry beat said this past week -- he spoke at american congress, a think tank taking a man donald trump and the republicans. [video clip] many americans are scratching their heads on donald trump. i know i have on more than one occasion. how he movedfathom so fast. his violent rhetoric is embarrassing. his proposals are dangerous. establishment acts be bolded, but they should not be bewildered. leaders are
responsible for his rise. -- eight years, they drained they replace thoughtful engagement with hatred. withe seeing it right now president obama's nomination of merrick garland. four months before they knew the nominee would be, they are he pledged to block him or her and treat him or her like a piñata. that is a minor misbehavior hollowing out of the political debate and crating conditions for trump to rise. republican leaders created the drought conditions. donald trump has struck the match. lesniewski, the sentiment from harry reid, saint republicans, you should've seen this coming. guest: that is exactly right. it was interesting and unusual
for senator reid. he was using a teleprompter. it has been a long time since i saw harry reid using teleprompter. was, you should've seen this coming, republican party. also, what is becoming a drumbeat that the republican party is the party of trump. they are using this in campaign as already. the argument being, the really want donald trump to be the one picking the next spring court justice? the other thing that senator reid is talking about in that clip and else were in that as ah, was interestingly contradiction, he did say, if the democrats need to be concerned about how much additional turnout there has been as a result of mr. trump, his candidacy for the republican field, the other side of that same coin is that he is trying
to drive up democratic turnout to counter whomever these new trump voters are. in all thislitics piece is how democrats are trying to tie in donald trump endocytic republican candidates. ohio, an open seat in florida that could determine who controls the senate next year. guest: we are seeing in places like new hampshire, looks like there is an outside senate majority group that is heavily involved in the -- excuse me, on behalf of the democrats in new hampshire. we are going to see more and more of that. they launched the party of trump
website, but on the other side, there is a lot of money being spent defending republican incumbents in favor of this idea of letting the voters decide about the supreme court. we are seeing millions already starting to pour in, or being committed at least, in favor of a publican's. -- of republicans. weekouse has a very short and one of the things that will be important for them to do is that the appropriations process. it is not significant this week because they will be leaving early for easter. but the military construction and ba appropriations bill is supposed to get started so that when everyone gets back after the easter recess, we can see the appropriations process -- start the appropriations process. is joining us from alabama.
caller: good morning. i just wanted to say, romney, singer,connell, paul trying to play the establishment game with american voters. we voted for donald trump. millions of people voted for donald trump and a handful of politicians are trying to twist our votes around into their pocket. people when a handful of are that dead set against the person that people want, there is money involved. host: thanks for the call. guest: there is absolutely a lot of money involved on all sides. the caller did mention there was a lot of outside money pouring in as part of this effort to stop trump on the republican side.
a lot of that seems to be driven by this theory at least that seems to be the conventional wisdom that trump on the top of the republican ticket will cause all sorts of problems. you can see the senate wiped out and you could even -- there are some talk that you could see the house of representatives come into play as a possible democratic pickup opportunity which i don't think anybody would have foresaw before mr. trump's candidacy became a real thing. host: which is what marie is saying on our twitter page. let republicans obstruct merrick garland. they prove they cannot govern. it does fit into one narrative. the other is that republicans have not held firm to principles which is why they do not want to move ahead with the obama nomination. guest: this -- one of the things we have seen, there is a group in the house of representatives called the house freedom caucus.
this conservative group of lawmakers who have been frequently against leadership. the group that sort of pushed speaker boehner out the door. they have officially endorsed mitch mcconnell's actions. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell's actions with respect to the supreme court nomination. this is one case where the conservative base is actually happy with the senate republican leadership. that is not universally true. but on the other side, when it , the riskhe democrats potentially for democrats, although it does not seem to be real just yet, is all of this outside research that is being done, digging into the background and record of chief judge garland. we saw just the other day the republican national committee
was circulating a report about garland's opposition to having the rotc program on campus at harvard in a 1970's. -- in the 1970's. they are digging deep to find anything they possibly can. should they find something that is completely untenable, all of a sudden they may have the upper hand here but there have been no signs of anything in garland's record to suggest it rises to that level. host: another viewer saying merrick garland seems like reasonable nominee for supreme court of the united states. open-minded, some hard edge gop is making a mistake. our conversation is with niels lesniewski, writing for roll call. frequently on this network and we call him him for c-span radio as well. he is a graduate of hamilton college. have you seen the broadway show? guest: i have not yet.
frankly because the supreme court nomination was coming down the pipe i missed when they were all at the white house a week ago. host: it is online though at white house.gov. let's go to jesse in michigan. the morning. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] what i was saying is, president opportunity tod leave a great legacy behind. supported -- you have never had -- always opportunities we will never have. these brain-dead african-american people think this man is so great. [indiscernible]
caller: i voted for him the first time. i did not vote for him the second time. this might be -- i voted for the democratic already since i was old enough to vote. i think i will -- this might be the only time i will ever vote again. sorry to say that. thank you, steve for letting me express my opinion. thank you very much. host: thank you. happy birthday and good luck to you. 84 years old. guest: he does make a point. with has been some dismay president obama's collection from some african-american supporters particularly that he did not take the opportunity to point someone like an african-american
woman. loretta lynch, the attorney general, took herself out of contention for the supreme court appointment. there was at least one candidate on the list who our caller may have been more excited by. she actually withdrew her own name from consideration. host: another viewer saying if the power players of the gop go against trump they will lose the house and the senate. shooting themselves in the foot. but go to jason, tampa florida. caller: that was along the line what i was thinking. in the sense of the actual political system, do you think it is a fear of the unknown with trump? that they don't necessarily have a grasp on what he may or may not do, the fact that the congress will basically not get anything done. same way we saw this past year.
trump would get elected and his own party does not support him but you'll have a stalemate in congress. you are seeing somebody who has pop-culture appeal. politically, and education wise he is a businessman. what you think this has ramification wise for the future of our political system? republicans want to remove one of their own from the contest. it has created a conundrum for the current and future. host: jason, thank you. from florida. guest: there is real concern among some republican establishments -- some establishment republicans shall we say, we do not know what -- you do not know what donald trump will do given the fact that he has had different positions in the past. he has evolved on any number of issues one might say.
the other point is interesting. you do run into a situation where you don't know, given that trump bills himself as a deal maker, you do not know with whom he would be making deals or what kind of deals he would cut. when i ran into senator ted cruz on the presidential campaign trails, he was arguing that in fact trump would cut a deal with chuck schumer on the supreme court nominee and you might end up with someone who is a liberal. host: let's go to mike in wisconsin, hometown of paul ryan. caller: good morning. i know paul ryan. he is a great guy. we go to the same church. ls, i know it is asking for an opinion or look to -- future, do you think if
nominate justice garland. do you think he would be similar that even in the idea the kennedy is kind of looked at as middle-of-the-road he was a tiebreaker for all the 5-4 decisions except for the obamacare decision. he basically has been -- has made the conservative -- went on the conservative side just about all the times in most of the major decisions. don't you think merrick would be the same way if he got nominated? even though he is middle-of-the-road. he isn't a strong ideologue on the left. advantageould greatly the democratic side or liberal side. as kennedy does now for the conservative side.
and?eagan get kennedy i can't member who it was. i would love to hear your discussion along those lines. host: he was the compromise pick after the senate settled the nomination of robert fork. justice kennedy was the third choice because judge ginsburg was the second choice until he admitted he smoked marijuana and that scuttled his nomination. guest: i think there is a real -- there is no reason to think that mr. garland would swing to the right. based on what we have seen of his record, it does not seem like this is going to be -- that he would be where he could be someone h president obama would -- merrick garland does not look like someone who president obama would view in the same light president eisenhower came to view some of his supreme court nominations. which is to say it does not look
like he will go in the opposite end of the pendulum from where you think he's going to be. part of that is because he does have somewhat of a longer track record as a judge that a lot of the people we have had appointed to the supreme court lately. host: if you're listening on c-span radio, niels lesniewski of cq roll call. a tweet from jennifer. guest: if jane kelly have been nominated, the situation would have been a bit more precarious for senator grassley back home. saying there were going to be no hearings before there was a nominee announced. i could not see that playing out differently if jane kelly, who , would've been
nominated. a different political card to play against grassley by the democrats. host: joe, louisville, kentucky. caller: good morning. i am a u.s. army retired veteran. i want to talk about that southern border. to me, when you come across the border, if i'm not mistaken, illegally, you are a felon. the congress and the senate are as far as i'm concerned, harboring felons. they are not protecting the american people against the southern border or any of our borders. you have to put a lock down on the border and i don't understand why the american people can't see that on the democratic side. we can't sustain taking care of all of these people with the money we don't have. i am very concerned as to why
aren't we holding congress and the senate in contempt. they are in contempt by not protecting -- even from the president down. .t is mind-boggling to me for me to have served in the service as long as i did and for any veteran. they just want to give the country away. demographics are going away in this country, changing very fast. host: we will get a response. guest: we had a caller from janesville and a caller from louisville so that meets our senate republican -- a republican leadership hometown for the day. one of those questions the caller did not address but the democrats would counter would be what the you do with the 11 million people or so who are already here. the idea behind that gang of eight immigration bill that is so divided on the right and one
of the reasons why marco rubio's presidential candidacy probably did not go anywhere was to both secure the border and to figure out how to address all of the people undocumented already in the country. that is the question that would still need to be addressed even if you did border enforcement. host: next is a caller from san francisco in las vegas today. that would cover the democrats. levin in niagara falls on the democratic line. good morning. caller: ok. -- iare you going to do was concerned, not talking so issues.i have some --alled the supreme court
host: go ahead with your question. caller: are they going to get a bigger administration to help the supreme court? are there going to improve what to be filed in supreme court as far as a lawsuit? goes i was accused of losing out on $1 trillion and they told me i had to take it up with the city which i thought was illiterate to do. host: it sounds at the local issue that involves members of congress some of you should check with them. with gone to steve and bartow, florida. caller: this is steve. sorry i had it on speakerphone. host: good morning. caller: so much here. one of my special homes is san diego so i am aware of the border. here know thet common sense approach as far as the illegal problem is you cut off the employment. you start throwing people in jail or high fines for employing
someone who is not here legally. i lived in orlando and have seen what has happened with the a briefs -- with the abuse of visas. i worked at a big hotel corporation where they brought in -- this was before we went into the recession, brought in workers from other countries and reduced the full-time workers below 30 hours and we all know what happens with that. , i haves donald trump some very reliable republicans in my family, we eventually bantered back and forth. what i am actually seeing, the positive of donald trump, he is bringing people together against his brand of america. aboutdan balls writing the electric mac and -- the election map and how a race between hillary clinton and donald trump, states could be in place for the republicans.
ofst: there is this question an electorate we do not know. that we have the potential -- that we do not exactly know who the trump voters are. we also don't know if people who -- particularly concerned particularly conservative and of the base of the party, what they would do in the fall and if they would stay home. think if in the fact you end up with a two railways -- two-way race between hillary clinton and donald trump, this may be one of the situations where a lot of the polling turns out to not be reflective of who is actually voting. when we conduct a poll and we say we are looking at likely voters, we may not know what likely voters are if donald trump is the nominee. host: we have to get to the nomination. renewed speculation on whether or not paul ryan would open the
door to a candidacy. let's watch. [video clip] >> in the event that no person running for the republican nominee right now gets a enough on the first ballot -- >> it is not me. i did not think i made news. i thought i was clear. i saw boehner last night and i told him to knock it off. [laughter] >> i used slightly different words. i used his own words he used to use against us when he told us to not things off -- to knock things off. it should be summary running for president. i made a decision over a year ago not to run for president. i believe if you want to be president you should run for president. people are out there campaigning, caucuses and primaries. that is who we should select president.r next let's put this thing to rest and move on. host: niels lesniewski,
speculative the continues despite what he says and others about what may happen in cleveland. guest: i don't think speaker ryan ati take speaker his word that he will not be the one who is going to end up emerging from the convention as the nominee. one of the things he does have to do is brush up on the rulebook because one of the things the speaker of the house happens to do is to be the chairman of the convention. technically in charge of the convention and if it is contested who knows what his role might be? he said the nominee should be picked from among those who have been running for president. what i think people may not necessarily know, and i don't know whom the speaker would like to be the president, or the nominee, but one of the things to remember is there were 17 people running initially.
there may be choices among whom you could choose the nominee who are not people you would necessarily be thinking of. the one that comes to mind when it is speaker ryan making this calculation is -- once upon a time scott walker, his governor, was running for president the cycle. who knows what might happen? host: speaker ryan said he would not accept the speakership and now he is the speaker of the house. tomorrow we will sit down with ben ginsberg, former counsel and probably knows more about the republican party rules than anyone else. we will walk through exactly what happens to you we are taping that interview tomorrow afternoon. check it out on our c-span networks later in the day tomorrow on our website at c-span.org. jim from halifax, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning america. thank you, c-span for listening to my voice. commented to that
hillary clinton had a little bit ago. she confused me. i'm under the impression that people already do receive childcare credits on their income tax. and i know her husband, mr. clinton, voted for nafta, free trade agreement. contradictory, confusing. although, i did call on the republican line but i have to tell you, i would never vote for somebody let -- somebody that shut the government down. mr. cruz, he scares me. the republican party, the democratic party, first thing is there should be accountability. this is illegal immigrant thing, laws on the books since mr. reagan has been president. why aren't these laws enforced? host: we will get a response.
guest: i would point to something the caller said that we had not really discussed a lot this morning. the ted cruz candidacy for president. the caller said mr. cruz, senator cruz is someone he would not vote for because of his role in shutting down the government. there are some people who are arguing -- and i have read several places and certainly a reasonable thing to bring up, the possibility that senator cruz's electorate is smaller than donald trump's. we do not know that either but that is another thing that could come into play. as if there is a group of republicans that would not vote for ted cruz. that is something we might have to keep a watch of as we look toward the convention. host: kathleen on the democrats line. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. i know i have to talk quick.
there is no such thing as illegal immigrants. this is god world. he made this world big enough or anybody and everybody and if people want to come here and live, that is them. everybody here is an immigrant. you smart republicans, you get just what you deserve with donald trump. i hear people talk about cruz. cruz shut the government down because of the affordable care act, not obamacare. the day that he said he was going to run for president, he said he was going to stop obamacare. the next morning, his wife walked away from her job to help him in his election. he said, the good thing about obamacare, he is walking around with obamacare card in his pocket while you silly republicans don't have any insurance. you reap what you sow. i hope you do get trump. america is something else. you say you don't have money to do anything but you have money. $2 billion a week to go to
another person pass country and kill them but you do not have money to take care of the people in this country. this country does not belong to the white man. int black guy that called and said president obama could theyleft a legacy -- probably won't even put him in the history books. , the attorney general told him to take her name off the role. world can this black man talk about president obama? the president could not get jobs for white people. if you can't get a white man through, how will he get anyone else through? you need to think about the stuff you are saying. this man has been stopped simply because he's black. i'm sorry. host: kathleen from chicago. a lot on the table. guest: the thing that i would point to there is that extent to
which the caller was echoing harry reid. one of the things she brought up was hoping -- from her view hoping the republicans reap what they sow and get trump as the nominee. i think it will be a view a thatf -- trump's candidacy and potential nomination is subbing that could be deserted -- could be deserved. the reluctance of some leaders to not disavow the debate over obama passed birth certificate back a few years ago. host: a few more minutes with our guest talking with niels lesniewski of cq roll call. he covers capitol hill. george from cedar bluffs, virginia. where's that located? caller: the southwestern part of virginia. host: glad to hear from you. on the republican line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking the
call. it has been fun watching your show this morning. i would like to ask the gentleman from roll call if he could address the federalist papers 69 signed by -- alexander hamilton, recognized as the author. the role of the senate where in capital letters in the federalist papers it says the nominees from the president with the vice and consent of the senate. whenmakes it pretty clear you read 69 that compares and contrasts the british, if you will, method of appointment by the king versus the president's where the senate has to serve as a check against the president's nominees. there is a lot of emotion that has been expressed in this show.
it is evident that people do not understand the constitution. that's where we need to be. washington journal included. enlightening the people about the mechanics of the constitution and how that should be impacting the politics of our nation. if you would please comment, i would look forward to his opinion. host: thank you. federalist 69 which was signed on march 14 1788. thank you, google. guest: i would say that is -- if youre hear out there, someone doubting that the senate has the ability to do what it is doing -- there are some i have seen who are supportive of garland being confirmed claiming that it is the senate's job. some senators said it.
this sense that it is the senate's job to provide the advice and consent. that, as a political matter may be true. if the senate wants to not and its idea of not providing consent apparently in this case is to not really consider the nomination in hearings or for a vote, that is within the prerogative of the senate. if you look in the constitution the senate determines the rules of its own procedures. in this case, the procedure appears to be to do nothing. this is within the bounds of the 's ability. mrsenator mcconnell is not doing anything that he cannot do. whether it is politically tenable, not legally. that thet seems to me
advice and consent clause of the thatitution presumes before a nomination is made by the president to the supreme would sit he or she down with the individuals in the senate that have the ability to either push or retort a nominee, that they would advise the the possibility of getting an individual through. once that individual is confirmed by the senate, you don't know what they are going to do. i can recollect when eisenhower
was asked what was his biggest mistake and he said appointing earl warren to the court. earl warren was vetted by the president. but once an individual, much like a jury, they rise above the political aspect and hopefully the members of the supreme court makefulfill their duty and decisions that are based on the is propounded by the legislative branch. host: appreciate you putting the issues on the table. we will get a response. guest: there is that question the caller raises as to what
happens with the nomination before it comes up. what happened in this case frankly was vice president biden was calling for, having been chairman of the judiciary himself, he was calling for there to be meetings with say chuck grassley and the president beforehand to find a consensus nomination. if you remember the timeline, it was just after associate justice mcconnelld that mitch was already saying they were not going to consider the nomination. there was no time to have that conversation. host: niels lesniewski who writes for cq roll call. his work is available online at roll call.com. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: so much attention on donald trump and are there historic parallels. coming up, we will turn our attention to merrick garland and
the supreme court nomination put forth by the president. wade henderson and curt levey will join us. tom hart on poverty in america and around the world. traveling to montgomery, alabama and looking at the life and career of george wallace. he ran for president back in 1968 and again in 1972, including a visit to the alabama department of archives and history to learn about the scope of george wallace's political career and influence on america. here is a preview. [video clip] >> what happened in the 1958 campaign, wallace really does try to reach this racial moderate and really tries to campaign for the poor and working-class alabamians. ins the support of the naacp the initial campaign. unfortunately, he loses by a significant margin to john patterson.
he is completely devastated by this loss. wallace and all he wants to be as governor and he is really upset by this loss. he considers it a failing. so when people ask him what the take away from the 1958 campaign is, he says, i tried to talk about progressive improvements, good roads and schools. no one would listen. when i started talking about segregation, everybody stopped and started listening to me. what you see, he decides he is going to become this hard-line segregationist. george wallace on c-span2 americand c-span3 history tv. you can check out all of our tours online at c-span.org /citiestour. >> monday night on the
communicators, a look at the fcc's lifeline subsidy program and the plan to include broadband internet access in order to bridge the digital to buy between higher and lower income americans. the fcc is expected to take up the proposal by the end of march. we will talk with policy director at the benton organization and a visiting scholar at aei's center for internet communications and technology. we are joined by brendan sasso. [video clip] >> low income consumers need access to broadband now. it is unclear to me that congress would be able to pass support that is directly aimed at low income users. this congress has not been particularly supportive of folks in poverty. the conversations that have been on the hill have been hard to
decipher. >> the fcc is putting the cart before the horse. have not done a real study to suggest these of the drivers that are keeping low income people from adopting broadband service and this is the amount we are going to need. we don't know if we need nine dollars a month for 10 million people or $45 a month for 2 million people. you want to make sure you're deploying the money intelligently and the fcc has not done that level of analysis. >> watch the communicators on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: on the u.s. supreme court and the nomination of merrick garland, we want to welcome wade henderson, president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights. that you for joining us. mr. henderson: thank you. host: curt levey, executive director of the freedomwords foundation. mr. levey: it is part of the larger freedom works organization. a libertarian organization
devoted to limited government, rule of law free market. host: a lot of names mentioned the president ultimately deciding on merrick garland. your assessment on the president's pick? mr. henderson: judge garland is one of the nation's distinguished jurists. he served on the court of appeals for 19 years. a graduate of harvard undergraduate school were he graduated with honors and law school with honors. he clerk initially for judge henry friendly on the second circuit. one of the most distinguished jurists of his age. he also was the judge who john roberts clerked for. clerked forand william brennan on the supreme court. he is known for his substance. in that regard, everyone, including orrin hatch, ken starr, the prosecutor who
brought charges against the clinton, all recognized his value. i think judge garland was an outstanding pick. regardless of who you may have preferred come he is the kind of jurist the left and the right find acceptable and we expect him to be confirmed. host: curt levey, i want to share with you what george will wrote in a syndicated column in support of merrick garland. he says, in his record of deference, garland resembles two justices nominated by president george w. bush and ronald reagan respectively. just as john g roberts and justice scalia who seems to be more revered then read by many conservatives. garland possible -- garland's reluctance to restrict the administrative state's discretion would represent continuity in the chair he would fill.
mr. levey: certainly if we are talking about heller, garland and scalia are on the opposite side. scalia wrote heller and harland voted the other way on that case when it was in the d.c. circuit. if you are talking about the regulatory state, there are few judges that have a worse record than judge garland. he has almost complete reference . i don't buy the comparison to scalia or roberts. we don't need a justice who will just confirm everything the regulatory state does even when it stops on the rights of individuals and small businesses. host: so based on that do you think senate republicans should hold a confirmation hearing for
judge garland and vote yes or no? mr. levey: i don't. it is not because of judge garland's stand on a particular issue including the regulatory state or second amendment. it's because i think everyone would agree he is to the left of center. any liberal judge on the court is going to mean sharp shift to the left on the court. on hot button issues of the day the liberals on the court vote the same. a good new york times article the other day, a study by some professors, that showed there is almost no difference on how the liberals on the court vote. -- fifth liberal will mean the growth of the regulatory state, the death of the second amendment and religious liberty, creation of all kinds of new rights not found in the constitution just found in the heads of those liberal justices. that is why we oppose them, not because of anything about him as an individual but just because he is a liberal and will vote
like obama's other liberal appointments. host: you are laughing? mr. henderson: i am laughing. i find that position hypocritical. individuals who have generally been constitutionalists, who have talked about the plain meaning of the constitution apply that principle selectively. i read a freedom works piece recently that quoted from article two section two of the constitution. the president's responsibility to appoint a supreme court justice. the senate's responsibility to offer advice and consent. advice and consent has been interpreted to mean hearings, discussion on the quality of the candidate and an up or down vote. to take the position that somehow we can avoid completely holding a hearing or any discussion of the candidate is the kind of reverse logic that makes no sense.
i agree often with freedom works as you know. i shared with you earlier today and op ed i had written with the president and ceo of freedom works. published last week in the las vegas review journal. the point i am it is we do not disagree on every issue but we certainly disagree on this issue. when you have people like ken starr, john roberts, orrin hatch, who sing the praises of judge garland, to somehow take the position that this is only about process is i think a distortion of what the constitution requires. host: we have been hearing a lot about the so-called biden role of the senate democrats say there is no such rule. you may remember the speech that has been getting a lot of attention is in our video library. check it out at c-span.org. the chair of the senate judiciary committee, senator joe biden. june 1992. another election-year. [video clip] >> it is my view that if a
supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or 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 in not, not naming a nominee until after the november election is completed. president,too, mr. 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 the way ofoes president fillmore and johnson, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is
over. i sadly predict, mr. president, that this is going to be one of the dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times. after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision. and say 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. if that were the course we were to choose in 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 nominee and essential to the process. host: senator joe biden, june 25, 1992. the full speeches on our website at c-span.org. i want to get your reaction in a moment but i want to follow-up with something that has not been getting a lot of attention. senator strom thurmond, the ranking republican on the judiciary committee at the time. here is what he had to say immediately following joe biden's remarks. [video clip] president.rs of the as head of the executive branch. section two of this article grants the president power to nominate persons to fill judicial vacancies and point them -- and appoint them following advice and sena -- advice of the senate. this is a two step process. the president nominates an individual to fill a vacancy and then the senate approves before
their official appointment. i am aware that they have been -- there have been administrations in the past that sought confirmation with members of congress and party leaders prior to the actual nomination. that is understandable but not mandated by article two section two of the constitution. it is my belief that the role of the senate in the confirmation process is to provide advice and consent following the president's nomination. this does not preclude a president who is so inclined from discussing a potential nominee with members of the senate. it is the president, not the majority leader, the minority leader, chairman or ranking member of the judiciary committee, who has a responsibility for putting both a supreme -- putting forth a supreme court nominee. following the nomination it is then the responsibility of the senate to ensure that the individual possesses the necessary qualifications to
serve on the highest court in the land. it is this process, a process which should not be changed for election-year expediency, which has signified the majority of our system of government and underscores the brilliance of our founding fathers. host: from the senate floor, june of 1992. curt levey, where do you stand is based on where you sit. mr. levey: for sure. the one thing you could tell from biden's speech is that it has not been a consistent practice. that advise and consent has to require hearings. when the democrats were of strapping the last president bush's nominees, you had leahy and reid on record saying no vote is required. if no vote is required no hearing is per required because it would be nothing but disingenuous if you had no intention of having a vote. there really is no requirement
and it does not make sense even constitutionally. if advise and consent is to include anything it has to include to withhold consent area the president can no more tell the senate the manner in which --should hold consent if the senate wants to withhold consent by not having hearings, that is its constitutional right. mr. henderson: i am also the joseph elwell junior -- i believe in the constitution. i carry a copy around with me. the truth is i found your film clip interesting. with joe biden, another example that heated rhetoric on either side of the aisle during election campaign is not necessarily helpful. having said that -- strom thurmond, taking up position in support of article two of the
constitution is something i align myself with. that is a rare occasion as well. having said that. , the truth is between the 1980's and the confirmation of a lena kagan, 10 justices were confirmed. justice rehnquist was elevated to chief justice. at no time was a nominee ever withheld from a hearing or subsequent vote. regardless of the procedures that are used in the senate to delay consideration, no nominee was ever denied a vote. biden's comments in this instance are empty rhetoric. to have strom thurmond coming behind him and making a powerful statement with which we agree. i find it interesting that this principle about advice and consent has been manipulated in a way that denies the plain meaning of the constitution in favor of an ideological outcome. you have the president responding to a challenge from
senator orrin hatch in which he suggested that he likes garland and at the president would never nominate someone like him. the president calls his bluff and he gets as much credit for nominating a moderate as my friend dana milbank said as if he had nominated michael moore. this is a guy who deserves the kind of up or down treatment that every nominee would get. i think substance and process are both required. host: but bring in our callers and listeners. milton joining us from philadelphia on the democratic line with curt levey and wade henderson. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i would take a couple of points. since this president came into office it has been this vitriol on the right against this president. day one mcconnell made the comment you will do everything
we can to make this president fail. president obama put up a consensus moderate democrat. the only real reason i think they are blocking him is because he's the first african american president. it is his right to name a nominee. he was elected and won the presidency twice. pat toomey from pennsylvania said, i will vote for while her. .- vote forwallard they start in the fall of the supreme court starting october 1. why not move on his nomination now? they are a bunch of people, racist people on the right. they will do everything to destroy this president. that's my comment. host: we will get a response. mr. levey: i think it is ridiculous to suggest this has anything to do with race. the nominee, garland, is a white male. if you think it is about race, do a thought experiment. what do you think would happen if obama nominated a black man
like clarence thomas or say a black woman like janice rogers brown on the d.c. circuit? conservatives would rush to confirm them. this is not about race. it is about ideology. on that, per stetzer henderson professor henderson and i would agree it is about ideology. the left wants obama to have a third appointment, not because of the color of his skin but because they want five liberals on the court. they want to shift the court dramatically to the left. conservatives and libertarians do not want the court shifted to the left. they want to protect the second amendment and religious liberty. they want to keep limits on the powers of government, keep regulatory agencies from stomping on the rights of individuals and small businesses . in that sense it is about ideology. all the liberals on the court vote the same.
new york times and liberal professors have found that. we are not making much of a distinction between michael moore and merrick garland even though garland is more moderate. it does not matter when it comes to how liberals vote on the court. mr. henderson: i would not be so quick to dismiss milton's point. i think it is quite valid. if you look back over seven years president obama has been in office you will see several things. from the outset he was targeted by senator mcconnell as milton noted to be a one term president. the way in which it was done was to demonize him and to deny cooperation of senate republicans on major issues. when congressman joe walsh yelled out you lie in a joint session of congress, disrespecting not only the president but the presidency, he was not only not rebuked by his party, he actually raised substantial money in his
campaign for reelection based on the antagonism that he showed toward the president. when jan brewer, governor of arizona, wet her finger in the gede of the president -- wag her finger in the face of the president, she was met with approval by the right. sometimes the republican party response to it taliban wing. i think in this instance what you are seeing is an extremism dictated not by substance, not by process, but by disrespect toward the president. he has over 300 days left in office. the average time for confirmation is less than 100 days. there is plenty of time to confirm a nominee if the senate is so committed. this is a president with the full powers of the presidency. the 44th president of the united states. he is not 3/5 of a president and
he deserves the respect his office requires. on c-span radio. wade henderson, president and ceo of the leadership conference. a graduate of howard university. also the former washington bureau director for the naacp. curt levey, executive director graduate oforks, brown university and harvard law school. a former clerk for the u.s. court of appeals and president for the committee for justice. mr. levey: i can tell from the passion that you honestly believe that. it is hard for me to believe that that is why conservatives don't like obama. i know that myself and so many of my friends, the one thing we thought was good about obama being elected -- we did not like his political ideology, but we thought it would be healthy for america to have a black president. that would heal a lot of wounds. i was the one positive i saw. unfortunately it has not healed
wounds and we don't need to debate why that is. i know among my friends and colleagues that our opposition to obama has nothing to do with him being black. fortunately we have seen going back to reagan and second president bush, a habit now that when half the country tends to disrespect, almost hate the president elected by the other half of the country, i agree that is unfortunate. i find it hard to believe it is due to race. host: and you serving -- a new survey from nbc news, margin of error 3.5%, six in 10 approval of the president's nomination. hold aapshot saying 56% favorable impression of the u.s. supreme court. 41% think the court has too much power. let's go to hell and, lake , -- what's go to hell caller: i'm still a
working-class american and i would like for people to consider working people's ideas. i know when someone leaves my job for whatever reason, retirement, another job, that if the position is not filled, that means it does not work as well as it did before. we cannot all make up for when people leave. host: so your point is? caller: my point is that the supreme court needs to be filled. that slot needs to be filled. please, go ahead, people and fill it. vote yes or no, whatever. let's go on with the process. i also want to say that i am so tired of the establishment politicians. i wish we had a two term limitation. a two-term limitation for the president, it ought to be for everybody. host: thanks for the call. let's have a vote is what she's saying. mr. levey: she is saying the court will not luncheon with a
justices. the constitution does not require -- will not function with eight justices. the court has sometimes had an even number of justices on it. even when the court had nine justices of until a month ago, most of the cases were not decided 5-4. one justice would not make a difference. the court will function fine with eight justices. the lower court decisions wind up standing which is what already happens in the 99% of cases that don't go to the supreme court. i don't really see a problem here. host: let me put on the table what could be one reality. if the senate does not confirm a nomination until the next president is in office on january 20 at next year. it is two to three months before the justice is on the court so it could be a full year and a half that we would have eight members on the court and decisions that would be upheld by the lower court and not by
the full complement of the u.s. supreme court. does that cause a problem? mr. levey: the supreme court already decides to many issues. one of the differences between people who believe in an activist court and those who believe in a more restrained court like myself. we think the supreme court decides to many issues so the fact that a few more will get decided by the lower courts, i don't see is a problem. there have been long vacancies. vacancies of over a year on the court, including when robert jackson went off to have the number of trials and was gone more than a year in the 1940's. the court has functioned fine with an even number of justices, long vacancies. if it is that important that the court have an odd number, and justice ginsburg could step down which she will probably do soon anyway due to age and give us an odd number of justices. mr. henderson: helen was saying i think, do your job.
she was saying to the senate, working people do their jobs every day and the president has done his job and now it is your turn to read your point is that if the next justice it will be to terms of the court that will not have the full complement that the court has had in the past. to assume that there are not important issues that come before the court where the full complement is necessary is simply wrong. the supreme court takes a very few select number of cases. next week for example the court .ill hear oral argument the question is whether the mandate required under the aca to provide insurance to cover a variety of women's health issues including contraceptives is consistent with the religious freedom restoration act.
you want a full complement of justices wrestling with these issues. one of the things about merrick garland is that he has been identified on both sides of the someone who will come to the court with an eye toward working .ith all sides an answer that will help unify the country and move us forward. that is a great skill and one i would hope others would embrace as we tried to do that. i think it is simply wrong to assume that the court has nothing of value that is under .onsideration quite the opposite. the court has many responsibilities that can only serve this issue of judicial activism. was merrick garland confirmed in 1995, he was asked about the issue of judicial activism and he answered, by the way, this comes from a background briefing provided by
tom goldstein, who does blogs, so he is someone reliable. judge garland's answer -- "federal judges do not have commissioning to solve societal problems. the role of the court is to apply lot to the fact of the case before him, not to arrogate to itself the executive power, not to hand down advisory opinions on the issues of the day." he is anything but a judicial activist. he would bring to the court is recognized as a valuable addition to his lawyer knowledge and background. with thee henderson leadership conference on civil and human rights and curt levey with the freedomwords foundation . scott's, good morning. caller: thank you. i wanted to say that no one is above the law. i don't care if you are in congress, the president or anyone.
to me, why is it not obstruction of justice when the congress will not fulfill their obligation to bring a person into or at least to have a session which they can discuss if a person is eligible for the job? guest: there is no question that merrick garland is eligible for the job. i don't think anyone says he is unqualified or unethical or anything like that. if you want to know why obstruction is unfortunately part of the powder and ever since robert boric and clarence thomas were savaged by the democrats when they were appointed to the supreme court, speech earlier, where he said there probably should not be hearings if there was a nomination in the election year. look at reeves, currently, the ranking memory -- number of the judiciary committee said in the
early part of the last decade, when they were blocking bush's judges, they said there is no right to a vote. if there is no right to a vote, there cannot be a right to a hearing because the hearing would be a charade if they would not be a vote. to 1997 witho back senator edward kennedy, democrat, member of the two sherry committee and former chair of the committee on robert's nomination. man who fired archibald cox does not deserve to sit on the supreme court of the united states. rejected byould be the senate because he stands for an extremist view of the constitution and the role of the supreme court that would have placed him outside the mainstream of american constitutional jurisprudence in alone, the let 1980's. he opposed the public accommodation civil rights act of 1964. he opposed the one man, one vote
decision of the supreme court the same year. he has said that the first amendment applies only to literaturepeech, not are works of art or scientific expression. under the twin pressures of academic rejection and the prosper of the senate rejection, mr. boric subsequently retracted the most neanderthal of these views on civil rights and the first amendment. his mind set is no less ominous today. that seat up when they went to one of the current justices. guest: it did. first of all, it is always powerful to see senator kennedy on the floor engaging in his speeches. the truth is, the senate of the united states is the world's greatest [indiscernible] i think senator kennedy was making the case for the american people of why he would ultimately vote against robert boric, which was the case. he was given the votes, he was
allowed to have a hearing, he to allowed to make his case the american people. what is interesting is that the idea of preventing merrick garland from having a hearing has an ontario motive behind it. garland is expected to perform senatently at any judiciary committee. whence he is allowed to testify, the case for his confirmation would become entirely self-evident, and the truth is, it would be virtually impossible for republicans or democrats to vote against him. his last question was about obstruction and i want to respond to your point about lower court appointments because the truth is, this president has been stymied with appointments to the court to appoint where it has created judicial emergencies around the country. when federal district court judge, who was in arizona and shot at the same time outside to
gifford and killed, he had come to see her to complain about his docket being overflowed with immigration cases. truth is, this senate has blocked qualified nominees that has put forward in a way that cannot possibly be justified if you are interested in equal justice. host: i will come back, i promise. good morning, democrat line with our two guests, wade henderson and curt levey. good morning, beth. caller: good morning. i am calling to express disappointment with c-span. i listen every day and heard that video clip playing over and over of joe biden so-called rules. i wish c-span would play another part of that where joe biden says the president consults and cooperates with the senate and consultations than his nominee
may enjoy my support as the justice kennedy. host: keep in mind, we also played strom thurmond's immediate response to senator biden, so we wanted to put it in perspective. the full speeches on the website at www.c-span.org. i appreciate the comments. caller: but you have been playing that one part over and over again. is it to support the republicans? did this two minutes of a rather lengthy speech. we are going to air the entire speech as well if you have a chance to see it on the network. i understand your point. go ahead. caller: thanks. host: ok. you wanted to respond? guest: first of all, i want to complement your callers. they are very well-informed. i think the key there is not biden's speech but what happened earlier with kennedy's speech. he did not wait for the bork
consideration. that took about one hour after bork was named. he savaged the man. really engaged in the politics of personal distraction without ever hearing him testify, without ever meeting with him, and that really began the terror in which supreme court appointments, judicial appointments in general have been highly politicized. the other thing that makes them politicized, and i think we agree they are politicized, is how activist the court has become. the fact that it decides so many of the issues of the day, abortions, gay marriage. we don't take a position in those issues, but most people in the country have strong feelings about them one way or the other, and they should be determined by the democratic process because they are not answered by the constitution. the fact that the court has taken these issues upon it makes it basically super legislature and makes people fight over the court the way they fight over
others. guest: here is the problem, curt. those who argue that they are strict constructionists and criticized the so-called left-wing of the court for being judicial activists, but in truth, it is the right that has been incredibly activist with respect to .rinciples of law and precedent here is an example. er, thecounty vs hold ods act decision that was decided 5-4. that decision struck down a vital element of the voting rights act. the formula used to determine which jurisdictions would have to have their election changes pre-cleared by the department of justice before implementing it. ae court grabbed onto itself review of this case, albeit that the congress had given them over 10,000 pages of hearings and
documents and did everything required under section five of the 15th amendment. they documented what needed to be done. grabbed outctively of that decision and lived against the voting rights act. the very day that case came down, texas adopted the voter id law that would have been rejected by the department of justice under preclearance allows a standard to be imposed that says that people who carried student ids issued by the state of texas could not use those for voting purposes, but people who concealed concealed weapon permits issued by the state could use those to vote. that kind of provision disenfranchised over 800,000 residents in texas. do not tell me about an activist court on the left. i have seen what the court has done. i do not like it.
i do think that someone like merrick garland, it was a consensus builder, is likely to some of the decisions of the court. he is recognized as bringing that essential skill to this perspective. guest: but he is a liberal and he very well could be a judicial activist. i know people debate the meaning of judicial activism, but in my opinion, it is not what you are talking about which is lack of deference to congress. it is the court's job to tell are fighting they the constitution. we could debate the enforcement laws of the 15th amendment, which is what it comes down to, and one could argue either way. when i say judicial activism, i am talking about convincing things out of thin air, such as abortion and gay marriage rights. i do not complain about that because i don't necessarily disagree with some policies. it is just because they are usurping the role of congress and state legislatures. there is political bias
among all justices and judges, but one side, the liberal side, believes in a living constitution. that is the constitution that means whatever judges say it means. the other side believes the constitution means what the text says. are they always faithful to that? no, but at least they don't believe in a living constitution that means nothing. is hardlyrick garland a liberal. in 2003, he considered the national security case, a case to determine whether guantanamo detainees could have access to habeas corpus for purposes of challenging their detention and federal courts. he rolled against guantanamo detainees having that. i completely disagree. some would argue in this case that he was faithful to the precedent that he was operating on, and because he was a judge and not a supreme court justice, he was not able to offer his own
interpretation of that precedent. sense, he was faithful to his responsibility as a judge. the outcome,ith and in fact, the supreme court ultimately review the matter and disagreed as well. host: let me step in with a hypothetical. in the george w. bush administration, republicans at the white house and democrats have the senate and president bush nominates john g roberts to fill a vacancy in february or march of an election year. with democrats be doing the same thing this year? guest: i don't believe so. i believe that roberts was giving a hearing. host: i'm just giving an example. guest: i understand. president reagan nominated anthony kennedy at the end of his term in 1997 -- 1987. let me just say he was carried over into 1988, which was an election year, and the democrats approved it. why point is that there has not been a justice in the 10
approved justices since the 1980's who has ever been denied the right to a hearing and the opportunity for an up and down vote and i think that is the lead should be. host: let's go to iran in new hampshire, independent line. good morning. caller: -- in newet's go to ron hampshire, independent line. good morning. caller: the problem with this nominee is he is a political insider and the country needs more representation for the people like a civil rights attorney or something like that. the larger issue is that the supreme court has too much power. they are an unelected body. it is approaching an oligarchy. the specific question i have for the panelists -- what to think about the proposal that is part of the uniting amendment that would put a jury, a large cherry, on the supreme court that could -- with super majority and a rich and what the
justices do? host: curt levey? guest: i do think the supreme court has too much power and it would be good to find a constitutional way to restrain that. there have been a number of proposals. one is that perhaps the super majority of congress or super majority of the states could override supreme court decisions. it has come to this. the founding fathers meant for the supreme court to a trophy the law, not be the super legislature, but if the supreme court refuses to comply with the constitutional limits, then there has to be some way to fight back. we cannot just -- suppose the supreme court issued a decision that the last thought was absurd. i don't think the left would say, [indiscernible] how conservatives feel. we have to find a constitutional way to restrain the courts. guest: i hear you.
after the brown vs board of education decision was issued in the 1950's, they were a group of numbers of congress that wanted to adopt the resistance. they issued something called the southern manifesto and argued that they would never pervade the supreme court. andrtunately, that delayed effective implementation of the supreme court's's decision to dismantle segregation. it was an awful outcome. we just last year had the marriage equality ruling. i recognize that numbers of individuals somehow are troubled by that, even though i believe the principle of the quality. it's to be measured by a single yardstick. if we have a circumstance with individuals who are not the fundamental right like the court has held, i would expect responsible leaders to encourage that. instead, we are seeing so-called
religious freedom amendments in places like georgia and other parts of the country that are seeking to undo the supreme court's's decision. there is an appropriate way of exercising jurisdiction. to change constitutional problems if one believes that. the caller had a couple of points about merrick garland being an insider. merrick garland devoted himself to public service in important ways. he was the assistant attorney general for the criminal division that prosecuted the oklahoma bombing. he also prosecuted the unabomber. this is a guy who is deeply committed to the enforcement of criminal law. we have a disagreement, judge garland and i, he has never seen a criminal decision where a defendant has presented the case that he could support for reversing his decision of events in a very cement number of cases. i disagree with that. having said that, the president has chosen a nominee who is
eminently qualified, respected on all sides of the law. to me, that is an important statement of principle. i am committed to judge garland's confirmation, not because i like him personally, although i do, but i am committed to his confirmation because the constitution has established a process by which we feel supreme court vacancies and to do otherwise is my view of extortion in the constitution. host: the new york times pointing out that some senate republicans, including new hampshire and maine, will in fact meet with merrick garland. the confirmation hearing at the moment is off the table. let's go to donna in georgia on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i find this so disgusting. i am so angry. -- inow, and i do believe am a white woman, 63 years old, and i do believe that race is a very big part of this.
you know, they keep ringing up the biden rule. politicians say lots of things. it is what they do that makes a difference. when he was in there, there were hearings and there were about. -- and they were votes. soy promised, they all did, why not somebody that this president nominates? host: curt levey? guest: i was part of the democratic part in the senate that blocked many of the second nominees, soh's the idea that his hands are clean. in 1992, andacancy we will never know what biden would have done. it is very hard to rely on this year because this has not happened since 1988, the last time you had a supreme court where somebody was
confirmed even though it was an election year and the party opposite the president controlled the senate. we have to go back well over 100 years to find any precedent -- any president or what the democrats are urging. even 140 years ago or 130 years ago, excuse me, it was very different because the idealized goal in ballot of the court was not hanging on this appointed straight that is really the key. to court will shift magically to the left if obama gets to replace scalia and we think the american people should have the say on whether the -- whether the courtships to the left. maybe they think it will and it will vote the other way, but it should be up to the american people. host: as mr. henderson pointed out, judge garland is so qualified, burst and the law, even chief justice john roberts has praised his work. if the confirmation hearing took
place, it would be hard to deny him a spot on the supreme court. is that not the reason why the republicans do not want the hearing? guest: he is very respected, extremely intelligent. hee i said, qualified, but is a liberal. to hold a hearing when you know you will not hold a vote would really just be a charade. host: why not hearing and vote? guest: we are being honest, we don't want the liberal majority that will ship the court dramatically to the left. host: here is mitch mcconnell. [video clip] mitch mcconnell: the next justice could alter the direction of the supreme court and have a profound impact on , ofcountry, so of course course, the american people should have a say in the court's direction. president's constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice and it is the senate's constitutional
right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent. the chairman grassley and i 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 for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. --her way, our view is this give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. the senatergument by republican leader mitch mcconnell and the senate democratic leader harry reid. [video clip] reid: nowhere in that document did it say that the senate has a duty to give
presidential nominees of votes it says appointment shall be made with the advice and consent of the senate. that is different than saying every nominee receives a vote. host: two very different perspectives based on where we are in the calendar. guest: betas, but let me say first of all, the people have already spoken. this argument that they had is the last twonore presidential elections pick when this president received a majority vote far beyond anything that previous presidents had received, so they have spoken. he does have a birthday hundred days remaining on his term. the average length of time for the confirmation of the justice is under 100 days, so there is plenty of time. i go back to the argument that to deny merrick garland a hearing is to prevent him from making his case to the american people on why the place of his caliber should not be placed on the court. calling him a liberal does not make a show.
he not a- where liberal, he would not have had the support. not have been embraced by john roberts and other jurors on the right. i should also say there are letters from political observers who have argued that to deny the president of hearing is simply a misinterpretation, a radical rewrite of the constitution. in my judgment, it is beneath the right to take that. guest: he will be meeting with all the democratic senators and some of the republican ones. each of those will be on camera and he will make his case. i will refer you to the new york times article a little bit ago and the new york times is generally not on our side which elected, if garland is
it will be the most liberal court in overpaid years. host: -- in the last 50 years. host: ok so again, who is the nominee? guest: there is no question. it is political and has been political sense bork. i would love for there to be a way where we could return the supreme court to the law and not political body, but the left wanted to be super legislature that many of the socialists, who is especially that the elites can override the popular will. as long as that is the case, people will treat it politically. host: if hillary clinton is elected, would you support merrick garland? guest: i think merrick garland in most situations of the excitable because if you have to have a liberal, he is not one of the worst liberals. we don't have to have a liberal.
we can let the american people make the decision in november. host: our last call from new york city, anne. democrat line. caller: the american people have voted. we voted for obama. we want him to pick the next nominee. the conservatives have had their way for years on the supreme court, and now that they lost and it is a chance to get a more liberal courts, they want to cheat and changed the rules the way they usually do. it is repulsive to me. host: we will get a response. wade henderson? has made annk anne important point. i think the rules are well-established. i also think the american people are fair-minded. they are having a difficult time understanding why the senate is unwilling to allow a hearing and to take a vote. if you find him unacceptable,
vote him down, that is the process we have. i think we expect the senate to do its job and we are going to continue to press their case with senator mcconnell to senator grassley who change the judiciary committee and every senate democrat and republican, and we know that they will eventually do their job. a superbarland is jurist. highly recognized on both sides of the aisle. to deny him the participation and the process to select the next justice in my view is outrageous. host: curt levey? guest: nobody is cheating here. the senate's role must include the option of not consenting if it will have any meaning. just like the president gets to decide how we appoint, the -- getsets to do side to decide whether or not to hold the hearing. very centric.y is if you look at the new york
times article, the liberals are bunched up the same place on the ideological spectrum. and now theyscalia are spread out on half of the spectrum. they are not ideologically the a verynd this has been centric point. another study shows that it is quite to the left of the american people, so i want to keep it that way, a moderate court and not a sharp shift to the left. host: our conversation with curt levey, the executive director of the freedomwords foundation, and wade henderson, the president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights. thank you for being with us. come back again. guest: thank you. guest: thank you. host: poverty in america and extreme poverty around the world. tom hart will join us. he is with the one campaign. comingst day of spring up in just a couple of hours,
just in time for snow in the northeast. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> monday night on "the look at thes," can fcc's lifeline subsidy program and the plan to include broadband internet access in order to bridge the digital divide between higher and lower income americans. the fcc is expected to take up the proposal at the end of march. we will talk with the policy director at the benton foundation and the visiting ei for technology. we are joined by the national journal technology reporter. >> low income consumers need access to broadband now. it is unclear to me that congress would be able to pass
support that is directly aimed at low income users. this congress has not been particularly supportive of folks who are in poverty. the conversations that have been on the hill have been hard to decipher. the cartc is putting before the horn because they have not been a real study to suggest these are the drivers keeping low-income people from adopting broadband service and this is the amount we will need. we don't need if we need nine dollars a month for 10 million people are $45 a month. you want to make sure to deploy the money intelligently and the fcc has not done that level analysis. >> watch "the communicators" monday night on c-span2. booktv is in prime time on c-span 2 starting monday night at 8:30 eastern.
each night, a series of programs on topics ranging from politics and education to medical care and national security. plus, encore presentations from recent book festivals. tune in for booktv in prime time next week on c-span2. tv.org forv. the complete schedule. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are with tom hart and let's talk about poverty around the world and here are startling statistics. the number of people in poverty around the world, 700 million. explain what that means. that means people who are experiencing sort of the most extreme forms of poverty, living day, and that limits the ability for education, health, nutrition and
adequate food supply, so it is particularly concentrated in sub-saharan africa. of mentioned the difficulty the numbers. that number has been cut in half in the last 20 years, so there is good news even though there is a tremendous way to go. host: 1.2 billion people living $1.25 athan on day. sub-saharan africa and salvation accounting for 80% of the poor. children and newborns until the age of 12. guest: children and women are hit hardest by extreme poverty. it is a one-two punch to be born a woman in the poorest parts of the world. hit by theof this is most formidable, so our policies that we advocate are concentrated on those groups. itt: how can the policy turn to practicality of helping the poor?
guest: the united states is one of the biggest donors on the planet along with france, u.k. and germany. when those countries work together to design policies and provide funding for programs we know tackle poverty, whether to combat hiv-aids or incredible progress or provision of clean water, getting kids in school, or providing training for farmers so they can grow their own crops and help build sustainability over time, that is what we want. host: why has bono taken this up as a leading cause for him? guest: dealing with these issues has been part of his own personal commitment as well as is part of.he they started many years ago raising money for charity. it was one of the biggest charity rock concerts in history and they raised a tremendous amount of money the first time that it had been done at the scale.
what they raised at that concert was the same amount of money that poor countries are paying back to rich countries and debt payment. a policy response and began to deal with some of the challenges, whether it is debts that cannot be paid, health crises that need to be tackled were more food to help people get what they need. host: how significant was the program by the george w. bush administration with the efforts? guest: tremendously important. thehiv aids program helped emergency plan for aids relief. it sort of broke the mold in a number of ways. the u.s. strategy to combating hiv aids globally, which was killing 6000 people a day at the time, 6000 people a day, our strategy was prevention. there was very little to be done to help people who are the contracted the disease, but the bush administration working with activists and signed his, decided they would provide
large-scale treatment of people with the disease. that was unconventional in the approach to the disease and incredibly important in terms of politics. partybefore has the two together to work on a difficult global problem and in a bipartisan way past legislation which still is bipartisan today. host: president obama urging congress to pass the electorate by africa act, a basic fundamental need of having electricity. what has been the problem and what is the significance of this in what happened? guest: the problem, seven out of 10 people in africa have no access to electricity, nine out of 10 in remote areas. we would not be on this said, your viewers would not be able to see this program, let alone refrigerate their food or study for exams after dark. electricity impacts everything that we are trying to do in terms of lessening extreme
poverty, particularly in africa. , presidentfrica obama's initiative to get more electricity to africa, and bipartisan legislation in the congress called electrify getca, is an initiative to 60 million people access to electricity for the first time tourban and rural areas and begin to build this transformative impact that axis to electricity will provide. the sport of this legislation andbrought republicans democrats together. a few weeks ago, it was passed in the house and senate and signed by the president. host: our guest is a former senate staffer for cranston of california and in west virginia, a graduate of harvard and the u.s. executive director of the one campaign, tom hart. our phone lines are open. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. c-span wj andt at
join us on facebook. gary in indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. that me point something out that i believe is the most significant as far as what the problem is. and is that the congress the two parties in particular, they have a dream, to create an oligarchy political society and they look down on poor middle-class people and say, you are an obstacle. if you want to settle for this and not strive for finer things, we will implement policies like higher taxes in place and leave by the time we are done with you, you will be at the caveman level. host: thank you. we will focus on the situation on this country.
we are an organization dedicated to feeding extreme poverty globally and that includes the united states. we work with tremendous partners around the country from state organizations to secular ngos and to the government and state localities who are fighting poverty in the u.s. that is not one particular expertise but we focus globally that we do support those who are doing it and it is the right thing to do. host: when you talk about poverty in this country, how significant is poverty tied into the opioid and heroin and drug epidemic that we are seeing in so many blue-collar areas and a have been losing jobs and struggling? guest: there is no doubt that many americans are struggling, whether it is drugs, poverty or even hunger. the kind of hunger and malnutrition and disease burden that we see in places like sub-saharan africa, i have to say is that a different scale.
there is not the social security or medicaid program to back them up or a local emergency room someone can come to or a food pantry. there really is nothing. the kind of extreme poverty that we are talking about is so widespread and where there is no sort of safety net to catch those who are the most formidable. that is what the united states doesn't generously along with other donors and those of the programs we support. host: this is from edward perkins, imagine if we attacked poverty around the world with the same support we do for war. guest: that would be incredible. is an underinvested part of our foreign-policy apparatus. experts lookpolicy at the foreign-policy toolbox as 3-d, defense, diplomacy and development. development is underinvested and provides a huge development or a huge [indiscernible] andamerican self-interest
stability when we invest in it. it is less than 1% of the u.s. federal budget of more people think it is close to 20% but it is less than 1%. we have contributed to housing global poverty and we have put -- million people on inter- anti-retroviral drugs for hiv aids that we have cut malaria and have to many countries. incredible progress with pennies on the dollar. host: a clarification from another viewer saying that when you say, seven out of 10 in africa, are you speaking of the continent, urban and rural areas? guest: i am speaking of sub-saharan africa, so there is a band of countries in the north and i'm talking about below the saharan desert and the 48 countries there and i am talking about urban and rural. host: let's go to george in california. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: thank you. it is a very important topic that you are discussing. ono for with b
ourting poverty, etc., but planet is overpopulated and i am a physician. we have gotten rid of cholera, smallpox, aids, but we have not .ontrolled the world population it is inciting poverty and disease. shouldn't we also talk about the population of this world, such as promoting worldwide birth-control? host: thank you. guest: thank you so much. a great question and a good point. how we lived sustainably on this planet is tied to fighting poverty, particularly in africa. people are feeling the effects of overpopulation, climate change almost first and hardest because of the poverty the experience. it is an interesting phenomenon.
as countries become wealthier and people gain years in education and better health, they have fewer children. women in africa often -- i hate to put it crassly, but hedged their bets because unfortunately, too often, children die so they have many more in order to ensure that at least a few of them survive. there -- because of the poverty of population growth in sub-saharan africa, it is large. we believe economic prosperity, education, health care is one, not all, but one of the tact ics to address your concern. host: a lot of tweets, one from christian, simple question -- what can those of us with less money to give due to help? guest: great question. one of the things that we are asking everyone to do is contact their members of congress to support these programs. one campaign this not ask people for their money.
we ask for their voice. little, togreat and participate by being voters. we need to give our politicians the permission to do the right thing and support programs we know actually make a difference in poor people's lives. you can go to one.org and we will arm you with the information and possibility to weigh in on this. attainhe growing gap more educated and less educated is also a contributing factor. guest: we believe education is the cornerstone for one of the things needed to build economic prosperity as well as the human dignity. my kids are always praying for us no day here in maryland, but people in africa are praying for the chance to go to school. there is a hugely important issue that binds the issues together. host: let's go to john in ohio. you are with tom hart, the executive director director of the one campaign and the united states. caller: good morning, tom.
guest: good morning. caller: i was watching in toledo, ohio, and ipad i would be remiss if i did not mention that there is a candidate for the president of the united states, the governor from ohio, john kasich, who if you remember, worked with by law when congressman kasich championed the effort not to poverty but for aids in africa. it was one of those things where bono got together with congressman kasich in an effort to make sure that he could get in front of other congressmen because i don't think bono was being taken seriously, and there was one of those things that ono got together and there were many stories on it. could you speak on that? you for remembering that. governor kasich is a good friend and remains a good friend of
bono and the one campaign. he was there in the early days and i was there as well when congressman kasich, then, helped introduce us to important players around washington and helped us understand how things work in this town, and really made a huge difference in terms of debt relief for the poorest countries as well as building support to tackle hiv-aids. governor really does understand how the u.s. government can make a difference in poor people's lives and he has been a good friend and champion over the years. host: michelle in wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i admire what you are doing. it is a good thing. i do believe that, even though you are not funding in certain government, if one needs to have helped to the government to do what you are
doing, i guess it is a good day. you probably have a little battle with some of the republicans because they have already made it perfectly clear that even in wisconsin, they are doing so many cuts to help out the poor. they just do not seem to have a conscience to that. they do not want people to get higher education unless you can afford it right up front. they are cutting medicare and medicaid or the disabled and the most vulnerable people in our thinkities, so i just that you are probably having a battle with some of the republicans because the establishment has changed so much on the republican side, but i admire everything you are doing. i am glad that you are making our country alert to what is going on globally, so thank you so much or your efforts. guest: thank you. very nice of you to say. if i could comment quickly, we have enjoyed support from both
democrats and republicans over the 12 years or 13 years that we have worked. i have to say, it was president bush and republicans in the congress that really broke the mold to fight mobile hiv and aids, working with democrats. it is one of the areas where the two parties have come together. sometimes it does not get headline news because they agree, but it has been exciting to see the kind of great progress they have made. legislation has been passed and partnerships have been built between the two parties working on the issues. you are absolutely right that it is a challenge for republicans and democrats worried about the budget for making sure we get the most from every dollar that we commit to these issues. we are committed to getting the most from every dollar. or gently, we continue to enjoy that support from both sides. view comment from another were saying that clean air to breathe and clean water to drink need to be top priority. in terms of federal dollars spent on this effort, can you
identify a specific number? guest: it is about 50 billion dollars, which is an sounds like a tremendous amount of money, but like i mentioned earlier, less than 1% of the federal budget. spend think that we upward of 20% of the federal budget on foreign aid, and that is not to, it is less than 1%. wordwe pick apart the foreign aid. most people associate that with blank checks to dictators abroad . what i am talking about is money for programs that hit precise activated, get kids to get girls in school, to train farmers to grow better crops. this is not sort of our grandfathers foreign aid. -- there has been a revolution in the development industry to focus on results, transparency and targeted results. host: the scope to ohio.
good morning. -- let's go to ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for being there. mr. hart, thank you. i worked year marine, with the state department at that kind of stuff, and i really think that your focus is malign. i am in southern ohio. there are many places in this area and you will not notice a lot of difference between sub-saharan and other places. we are forgotten. the drug problem is absolutely stupendous. it is hardly ever talked about, even on the state tv in columbus. [indiscernible] kasich is a nice guy but he is an attorney. all of that on bills that the state carried for the lower poverty areas and turned ofund and put the burden
taking care of those bills on the poor people. if you're in an area where you're making good money and you are lucky to have jobs, you are great, but in other areas, it has turned worse and you have generational problems with the welfare. host: we do have a few minutes left but i want to give tom hart a chance to respond. thank you. guest: people in america are hurting. there is real poverty and real need and we need to make sure as a country and ask the u.s. government that we are tackling those issues. my organization focuses on one element, which is global extreme poverty around the world and the very targeted ways that we can tackle that. there are unbelievably good partners and groups and government programs that the government supports that tackle poverty here and we should do more. host: a number of tweets, let me read one from john in north carolina. how much do churches contribute?
i assume he means percentagewise. guest: i am afraid i don't have that specifically. host: how important are religious organizations? very important. much of the u.s. funding that we advocate and they provide is directed to faith-based and other nonprofit organizations. the catholic relief services. worldwide in health, hunger programs, education and they are one of the ways that the u.s. government tackle these programs around the world, so the majority of money from the u.s. government to fight poverty is directed through nonprofit and faith-based organizations. host: let's go to gary, orlando, florida. good morning. gentlemen.d morning, thank you for c-span, "washington journal" is a national treasure. , with ask the gentleman some detail, what is the difference between poverty as
described as extreme poverty in the united states and extreme poverty elsewhere? i will take my answer off the line. host: good question. thank you. can tell you what i see directly, which is people living in mud huts with grassroots -- with grass roofs, rain making through, there is literally no trash and you are and i thought it was clean, but that is because every piece of scrap is used in some way. children playing soccer with wadded up grocery bags that they can get their hands on. obviously, no light after dark, health where people are dying and suffering from diseases because of lack of medicines that you or i could get from any corner pharmacy. thatajor difference is there is no ability to go to an
emergency room or to go to a neighbor or to a church food pantry. to help no safety net people who have nothing, and it is also not just an isolated part of the state or your town. it can at times be 80% of the country, so it is the lack of safety net and the vastness of it that i think are pretty overwhelming. that is the new way -- that is in no way of diminishing it here, but it is a challenge to tackle it there. host: let's go to john in franklin, tennessee. good morning. caller: hi, tom, how are you? guest: great. caller: my question is, we had to mimic in the public and -- we had dominican republic and haiti who may be have three or two hours of electricity a day. my opinion is if you do not have electricity, you don't have civilization. we, as a government, though the power plants for
these people? great point. i completely agree. i cannot imagine functioning through my day without electricity, so imagine if that were the permanent state of affairs. those two countries you mentioned and so many places across sub-saharan africa, there is a need for generating power, both through renewable and other sources. there is a need for disturbing the power went to generate it at the power plant, getting into people, and you need to create a market where people can get it from telephone calls. -- these not simple are simple problems with profound importance but the solutions are often not simple. it would take many years, but we have made a start with bipartisan support with the passage of the legislation. you mentioned haiti, sub-saharan africa, even if we provide the assistance, the money and the tools to build these hospitals and clinics and well waters, why is it so hard succeed?
guest:guest: let's talk about corruption. corruption is a real issue in many of these countries. we need to mention the people are not being forced to pay bribes to get things done. the oneo be clear that campaign works not only to provide more funding for programs we know work, but also hides to promote transparency and accountability in these poor countries, so that -- but also works to promote transparency and accountability in these poor countries, so that we can they should the money goes to help. host: good morning. power: the problem with in africa, and i give to one campaign, you build power to be, but we don't need putting co2 in the air, but specifically, there are no power lines to where the poor people are, so you build the big plants, electrified the capital city on the wealthy people can buy the electricity, but if you put the solar panel plant there, go out, put them on, put them on
getr mud huts, then they electricity. if it is only during the day, you sterilize the water and dirty water kills more people. andt: you are 100% right power africa does have a dual strategy of both what we say is big power plants, whether they are hold power, which is less and less of natural gas or turbine or geothermal in big cities, and combine that with renewables solar technology, when technology because you are bright. years, before the telephone poles go from cities to the villages, and the development in the poor villages are current and right now, so this is an important part of that strategy. host: e last call from connecticut, eddie, good morning. caller: good morning. i will give you a chance to think about this before you answer it.
is it not self-evident by now that best as americans are not truly independent when we depend on those we voted into office to represent us? when the american people are permitted to vote on the issues that are put on the floor of their house that the representatives think that we want past, that is when representatives can truly represent the american people. guest: well, let me see how i can answer that. let me pick up that to some of the things happening in africa in terms of civil society precipitation -- participation. today is called super sunday in africa. there are five countries in africa with elections today and another dealing with referendums on term limits for their leader, so we are seeing some of the welcome multiparty democracies
forcing in africa. bad news stories. that is not to say there are other parts but sub-saharan africa is a big place with 48 different countries with different histories and forms of government so we are excited about the progress. host: it is called the one campaign because? euest: because every on voice can make a difference. host: tom hart, thank you for your time. guest: great to be here. host: "new york times" previewing the trip of president to cuba. 80 years since the president has been in cuba. the white house releasing this conversation between a leading comedian in cuba, phone conversation with the president. here is a portion. casablanca. --go de cuba con
>> the real one from the tv show? >> yes. >> no med >> i'm looking forward to it. the american people in the cuban people are friends. president spending the next three days alone with his wife and two daughters in cuba and then argentina. we will have a special tomorrow. our guest with the atlantic council and a conversation with on a piece "can america put itself back together again." i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. a great week ahead.