tv Washington Journal News Headlines and Viewer Calls CSPAN March 20, 2017 7:00am-8:04am EDT
preview the confirmation hearings for judge gorsuch which begins later this morning. as always, we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on this first day to have spring, several key events taking place on capitol hill. james comey will appear before the house intelligence committee to answer questions about russia's influence on the 2016 presidential election. other topics will be discussed. you can watch it live on c-span3 in the senate, the three-day hearings of the supreme court, neil gorsuch. see that live on c-span2 at 11:00 this morning. o to c-span.org for more information. and we welcome thoughts and comments on both when it comes
to judge neil patrick harris. what do you expect to learn from today's proceedings about the judge, his judicial philosophy and other legal matters? 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and 202-748-8002 for inns. if you want to call us and talk about either the russian hearing or the supreme court hearing that takes place today, you can post on twitter at twitter.com/cspanwj and on our facebook as well at facebook.com/cspan. "the hill"'s katie bo williams who will be joining us to talk about the russia hearing as a story out on the website about what's expected from today's ferguson featuring the f.b.i. director. e writes while it is unclear how much they can discussed, they will be pushing the f.b.i. director to resolve president
trump's claim that he was wiretapped by his predecessor. but the collusion have some predicted that the delegate we nce representatives -- will talk about it when katie bo williams joins us in about an hour from now to talk about that hearing. again, also, judge neil gorsuch on the circuit court from colorado expected to appear today and make his opening testimony on his confirmation hearings to the supreme court. democrats are approaching the hearing are multiple goals. --
host: again, that just sets up on the focus on what these hearings takes place today. you can watch both these hearings on c-span. go to our website on how to view it. all that information is at c-span.org. we want to hear your thoughts on both of these proceedings that takes place today. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and f inns, 202-748-8002. -- independence, 202-748-8002. judge gorsuch was speaking in that speech and in part, he talks about the supreme court and the topic of activism by the
court. >> the cynicism is easy enough to see when justices try to defend laws of discipline, when they explain their jobs of interpreting legal texts, when they evoke and echo the traditional 78 conception of a good judge. they're mocked, often viciously and personally. leading media voices to call the deceiving or behind their benign beige facades lurk crimson partisans. even law professors hurry to the microphone to accuse him of perjury and actual quote, everyone. "if this bleak picture i've sketched were an accurate one, if i believe the judges and lawyers regularly acted as sealeds and hacks, i would hang up the rope. i would turn up my license. but i just don't think that's
what a life in the law is about." host: we will show you more from judge gorsuch over our time. also legislatures talking about that russia hearing that takes place today. both of those topics of discussion for our first hour. let's go to ed from georgia, republican line. go ahead, ed. caller: good morning. i believe that this whole thing about the russian thing, it's just the democrats trying to do a bunch of reversed engineering. there's no way in hell that trump is involved with the russians in any other way except some kal.ind of buss that's it. host: so do you think the hearing then today clears up any of that? caller: no, of course not. this thing will go on for years. it doesn't matter. and you could see that trump's ratings might be a little low this year but that's ok.
by the end of the four years, everybody's going to want trump back in 2020. host: do you think it matters if the f.b.i. director testifies on these matters? caller: well, he can testify. but there's not going to be anything coming out of it. host: let's go to randy. and randy is in fort wayne, texas. -- fort worth, texas. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe this trump wiretapping and russian interfering was the election, i think this is going to be huge, man. first of all, there's no truth of the russian interfering with election. i watched all the morning show on sunday and nobody had any proof. and secondly, the f.b.i. director this morning's going to testify. i think he's behind this. i think with the trump wiretapping.
i think after we go to the british media because you know the british didn't like trufment so they believe that trump had something to do with the brexit. so they were really hating trump. so it wouldn't take much for obama to get with the british and say i want you to wiretap the trump tower and it wasn't come back to the f.b.i. or the c.i.a. so what's going to happen, i believe they're going to get somebody out of the c.i.a. it is more like the directity. this is going to come back to him. >> he adds it's a feast for
c-span about the gorsuch hearing and the comey testifying for the house testifying. he describes this specifically for the gorsuch hearing that starts today. richard rogers saying there shouldn't be a hearing at all until president obama's nominee to the supreme court. he says this is the process due. you can see that first day of the supreme court confirmation hearing. initial comments by the legislatures and other days of c-span planned. let's go to paul, appleton, wisconsin, democrats line. hi, paul. caller: hi. yeah, i don't have a lot of faith in james comey bringing out the truth. i think he's a republican political hack. trump is so linked up with the russian mob it's not even funny.
he is the biggest shyster crooked president this country has ever seen. he's so linked up -- anybody watch the rachel mad dosho. he's so linked up with russia it's not even funny. he's way in with the russian mob. we've got the first mobster president. host: paul from fort lauderdale, florida, republican line. good morning. you're next. caller: that was the most di calculousi've ever heard. two things. number one, why can't we get a straight answer from somebody about where michael flynn was when he was wiretapped? we have a transcript of the phone call. where was he when that phone call was intercepted? could it have been in the trump tour? -- trump tower? and i would like to see the members of the democratic committee appear before congress and testify as to whether donald trump warned, warned them, that
they might be hacked. and they didn't take his advice. so if it's true, then we have donald trump warning them they might be hacked. they get hacked. and did the democrats turn around and accuse him of colluding with the hacking of the russian government? how ridiculous can you get? that is just stupid. host: do you think any of your questions are going to be -- are you going to get information about anything from that fromed to's hearing? caller: i think those from two critical questions. i mean, it's simple. where was michael flynn when he was wiretapped? host: i know you said that but i'm asking you if you're going to think you're going to learn anything from the questions you posed yourself? caller: i have my doubts. because why haven't we learned it already? >> let's go to ann from ventura, california, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you. i'm an independent and i'm just
-- i'm so afraid for our country. you know, this president has done more to disrupt our country than ever in history. -- before. putin is, i believe, taking advantage of all of this. and whether, you know the trens colluded and the trump people olluded with the. why would the russians stop? do people actually think they went into the election, they got all of the data. they were -- release this stuff through wikileaks. he has a lot of people that are principles that go to russia constantly and that are very
suspect. now why would russia stop? and also, i want to say that i am very afraid of gorsuch. i've read through some of his, know,ow, judiciary -- you what he has said, his -- host: his rulings? caller: yes, thank you. host: which one did you read and what caused you the most concern? caller: well, the ones where he talks about very lengthy. he talks about the fact that he doesn't believe that there should be class action lawsuits. and i know have many lawyers that represent small businesses and people that are handicapped, etc., and that is one of the only things that they still have left that they can get any kind of justice for their clients.
it's extremely difficult to get any kind of a case brought up so use of the cost, because many of these, you know, companies and many of them are not american companies. that's what people don't really understand. you know we've been kind of inundated with all of these companies coming from other countries and they bring in immigrants that are employees, etc. here's all kinds of rules. host: i got to leave it there. i want to get a couple more calls and tweets in you heard her call about judge gorsuch's hearings and her reference to the russian hearing that will take place on c-span.
call us about it on the line. one of those two topics. go to our website at c-span.org where you can find not obviously how you can watch them either now or maybe you could watch them later if you don't have a chance to watch it this morning as they take place. all that information at c-span.org. tweet us at well. it is going to be a bad day on democrats. neil gorsuch on his way to the supreme court. and no rsia ties. referencing trump those hearings. and another one saying judge gorsuch looks totally justicey. and a line for democrats. go on. caller: good morning, pedro. host: hi. caller: hey, listen, now you mean to tell me that president, and i do mean president obama, he took land that was bought by russia for their diplomats.
he kicked them out of the united states. he closed the embassy. then the new president come in there and we're talking trump now. e says nah, don't do it. all of this right here was done for no reason at all. is this is what you're telling me? i'll take my answer off line if anybody can answer that. host: ann is up next and she's from east orange, new jersey, democrats line. caller: yes, good morning, pedro. host: hi. caller: this is for the gentleman that had called in, a pan that had called in and said where was flynn? it's all over the news all the time. he was in the dominican republic when they wiretapped the russian guy and he got caught up in that. and everybody knows donald trump , his own son said that money was pouring in from russia. his daughter, nothing but criminals.
donald trump has been involved. so we all know that he's that type of person. i think these people don't want to see the forest from the trees because they don't want to see it because they voted for him and they know it's going to make them look stupid because they were conneded. host: fi things to be looking for in this russian hearinghat takes place today. question three, she writes is it just about the wiretapping or other surveillance involved? she says what we still don't know is whether there were wiretaps of president trump's affiliates outside the tower or in the course of other investigations whether the intelligence community picked up on communications on the president or his team had with the campaign or the transition period? this quote has already helped take down michael flynn was caught on tape speaking with the
russian ambassador whose communications was being watched -- host: here's devin nunes, republican from california, chairman of the house intelligence committee from yesterday. >> you said earlier this week that you had your words, no evidence of the trump claim that he had been wiretapped in trump tower by president obama during the campaign. on the friday, you've got response to questions from the f.b.i. on this issue of whether they had any evidence of surveillance there. i know you can't say much about it but based on what you received from the f.b.i. on friday, do you want to amend your statement if there is no evidence of wiretapping? >> no. i've said this a couple of weeks ago that the president did you
want go into and physically wiretap something. we know that general flynn's name was unmasked. was there a physical wiretapping ofrump tower no, there never was. >> i just want to make that point before you -- there is no evidence that there was any wiretap -- i'm not talking about president obama doing it or his administration. no wiretapping of trump tower? >> there was no pfizer warrant to tap trump tower. >> and that's after you received this information? >> that's accurate. host: that was the chairman of the house committee who will be hearing at 10:00 this morning and you can see i on c-span. the president tweeting this morning on issues concerning russia. several treats this morning.
james clapper and others stated there is no president that potus colluded with russia. the story is fake news and everyone knows it. the president tweeting that the democrats made up and pushed the republican story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. and the president also tweeting about the real story that congress, the f.b.i. and all others should be looking into is the classified information. whether or not comey will be asked about those questions, you can fine that out for yourself when you see those hearings. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and for independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to comment either on today's hearings or judge gorsuch's first day of confirmation hearings as he's being considered for the skort -- supreme court. jean from california, republican line. thanks for waiting.
go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't pay that much attention to politics but i've been paying attention recently. and i am astonished. you know, my whole life, republics have been the ones who have been patriots and they and firm against our adversaries. and now we got this putin guy, this k.g.b. guy who wants to restore the supreme soviet. and the republicans are absolutely weak kneed. i don't get it. and i know that there are people who say we should be friends with putin. well maybe, but i remember when ronald reagan used to say. trust but verify. i don't see any verifying going on. and it used to be in our country that they used to say about us
that partisanship ended at the border. , he it doesn't even end at red square anymore. and i am astonished at the republicans. i have known the republicans my whole life. i don't get it. they were always the patriots. i haven't heard one word about patriotism from them and they are amazingly incredibly soft on communism. host: ok. let's go to santa barbara, california, democrats line. pauley, good morning. caller: is -- am i being heard? host: you're on. go ahead. caller: ok. i'm calling about fred gorsuch. he is the son of ann gorsuch who ran the e.p.a. under reagan. she undermines the e.p.a. and cuts the budget by 20% to 30%, undermine regulations and subsequently was cited in contempt of congress for not
producing records that congress requested regarding the sure super garding toxic -- fund, regarding toxic regulations. host: why do you think the actions of neil gorsuch's mothe is important as a consideration as he heads to the supreme court? or if he heads to the supreme court, i should say. caller: i think it should be brought up. she sounds like somebody that trump would hire. the fruit falls close to the tree. and i'm just wondering if he's also one of these people who wants to deconstruct the administrative state and then will be on the supreme court. that's all. thank you. host: cynthia, davidson, north carolina, independent line. caller: yes. i was wanting to call in and say that i'm a registered independent. i voted on both sides. i voted for democrats. and i have voted for republicans. i 100% am behind trump and his
supreme court pick. i think it's a great pick. and support him. and i just sit here and shake my head at some of the accusations of some of your callers that call in. people can i guess say anything. i can sit here and say -- excuse pedro. people are ok with it. people have no factual basis for all these ridiculous claims i sit here and listen to. but begin, i support trump 100% and his supreme court nomination. host: give me a specific of why you support neil gorsuch. caller: for his conservative values. i think that we need to get back. this country needs to get back to common sense and we have lost that common sense factor. host: is there a specific ruling that he made or at least actions he made as a judge that you would consider would reflect the conservative value? caller: yes. and i don't have that in front of me right now. but yes, i have read up on him
and there have been absolutely. i wish you had some of it in front of you that you could quote, you know, to give people facts too. but yes. if people will look him up, most definitely. he's very conservative and that's where we need get back to is common sense legislation. host: the former mayor of new york, michael bloomberg had a piece yesterday taking a look at the gorsuch hearing that is to take place today. and as far as warning democrats who are going to be on that committee and democrats who have to decide on whether judge gorsuch goes to the supreme court or not, he says don't use the republican playbook on judge gorsuch. some of the thoughts from the former mayor says this. republicans were wrong to stonewall. but the fact remains that the country needs a full complement of justices not only to break ties on major issues but also to prevent a breakdown of constitutional order.
if democrats use the filibuster to block a vote on gorsuch, the look tradition of approving the high court nomination now on life support will die. the cower's -- court's credibility will suffer from it. the thoughts of the former mayor of new york, michael bloomberg on today's hearings. several years ago, c-span put together a special d.m.ry taking a look at the supreme court. you got us looking at the building and interviews with justices themselves. one of those interviews that took place was with justice sonia salt mire. -- society my year. talking to c-span about the confirmation process about with a she thought was important about the process. >> interestingly enough within a couple of months of my actual
hearing, i had moderated a panel for the federalist society at yale law school. and on the panel were a couple of professors and a couple of people involved in the process. and each of them had a different opinion on the meaning of process and fears statements, -- fierce statements and criticism about the process. and my very last question of the panelists was ok, what would you do instead of what we do? nd they all basically had some miner tinkering fixes as i recall them except for one. but one of the panelists looked up and said the purpose of the nomination process today in the confirmation hearing process is to introduce the perspective justice to the american people.
so they can get to know that justice. because once the selection is made,ost americans will never again have an opportunity to actually hear the justice talk or to learn anything about them. until the end-of-their service. and so it gives the american poem that chance. i think that's what i learned. he was right. that may be the most important purpose of the confirmation earings. questions even over three days are not going to tell you much about a perspective judge. you have to look their life work . that will be a clear reflection of who they are and how they think and what they will do. in the end though, getting to know the person is very hard from an artificial setting like
a hearing. but i think over three days that you get some sense of what the person is. and that, i think, does have value. >> the insights from judge sonia sotomayor. a lot of information at our website not only about today's hearings put activities of the court, perspectives on it when you go to c-span.org. you can type in judge gorsuch, learn more about him. you can type in supreme court overall, learn more about that. 11:00 today is that hearing. you can see it live on c-span. let's go to lynn from massachusetts, democrats line. caller: thank you, good morning. i hope i'm speaking directly into the phone. host: you are. go right ahead. we can hear you just fine. caller: thank you. i respect the chief justices comments. she selected her words very carefully as do many of the reporters or the speakers on your program.
they're intelligentizing. they have long drawn out explanations of what's going on. the problem here is that the damage-to-is being done to the moral fabric is irreparable. the president doesn't use long drawnout twectle responses. he uses concrete simplistic. and what it's doing to the country, what it's doing to the people that have faith in our government is not going to get undone as quickly as what people might think. if you look behind what is really going on, he's doing a tremendous a lot of damage in the first and i apologize to the trump supporters. i apologize to the people that have faith in the government but i truly truly believe that each day that goes by, he does not really have the best interest of our constitution at heart.
thank you very much for taking my calls. host: let's hear from larry from tennessee. a republican line. good morning. you're on. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to comment, you know, that we all need to look at everybody that's put up there on that hill. and regardless of what they do, no matter what side they're on, it doesn't matter. republicans, democrats, at the end of the day, it's about all of us. we have to come together and rule this country as it was intended to. government for the people by the people. host: so apply that -- sir, apply that to either of these hearings that we're talking about in this hour. what do you think about those? caller: ok. ok. i don't know enough about judge gorsuch to really make a definite answer on that. i mean, i think we will see what comes out in the hearings and
hopefully he's asked questions that we as people can understand and frankly some of the language that used is not understandable. legal languages. not understandable by the ayman. i for one appreciates somebody that talks like a -- you know, like sitting at the dinner table instead of trying to throw in vocabulary that's not understandable by us and being hrown smoking israeli. -- veil. and we all need to realize at the end of the day, we need to live together as one family. host: saratoga springs, new york. democrats line. hi, there. caller: hi. i think gorsuch even though i trump mpathize for the administration should be
approved because from what little i know about him, he seems to be highly qualified academically and to his experience, he will be conservative. but you know, as -- since trump is the president and he comes from conservative values, i think he has the right to choose his own picks. unlike the republicans who refuse to act on obama's nominee . i think they should to be ahead and approve this for the sake of the country. host: 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and for independents, 202-748-8002. if you are just joining folks t for the next half-hour either on one of the two hearings that take place today that will be featured in washington on capitol hill on c-span and other places. that to the callers reference of
today's hearings featuring the first of several days of hearing with judge neil gorsuch of colorado about the confirmation process for the supreme court, and then on the house side, house intelligence committee, james comey, the head of the f.b.i. talking about russia and the things related to russia and the 2016 election. also the n.s.a. director featured in that hearing too. off of twitter, a viewer asking to ask judge gorsuch whether consent will be construed by the founders to deny hearing for scotus. that's america garland. "the washington post" had this story taking a look about the church he attended. --
host: ed from lebanon, indiana, republican line. ed, go ahead. caller: all right. i was wondering today is the intel hearing on russia today and everything. we have comey coming up. didn't they all swing by lynch and a few others that they said they wouldn't bite. and later, they had peanuts for them to come in. host: tim from flat rock, many. democrats line. hi, there. caller: turk c-span. i just want to thank you for everything you guys do. but my comment, i think it's very sad. they went to obama's administration. and with judge gorsuch, you know, it's just terrible. the republicans, you know, blacks, obama. it's very, very sad.
host: is it merck garland or is it other things? caller: it's a combination too. the republicans, they don't want to speak with him. nd this will change the way. they don't want to sit down with obama, you know. host: his nominee? caller: yeah, his nominee. and just, you know, the republicans just basically bullied their way through and now that trump's in office, they got their chance and they just want to ram it down and get him in. and i think that's very sad. host: a couple of comments other on judge gorsuch. this is vick from twitter saying forget what gorsuch believes. he is attempting to take a stolen supreme court seat. what is is the say about him. and the hobby lobby decision
alone should disqualify neil gorsuch decision. it also talks about the topic of contraception. a roundtable discussion on judge gorsuch and today's confirmation hearings with two experts. host: this is bill from lubbock, texas republican line. bill. caller: pedro, whether you be republican or democrat, i would like to see whether it be a democratic nominee or a republican nominee, i would like to see someone that's not from harvard, not from yale, not from oxford or columbia. i wish that they would get someone in the mill part of our country from just a regular not one of the high speed, high society type schools but get
somebody in there that rlly se what's going on. because they're not doing it at the universities they're graduating it from. it's pretty much a one-track mind in that part of the world and they've not that liberal mentality. but i would like to see a federal judge or a supreme court judge nominated that's not from those schools. and that's my comment. thank you. host: so do you think out of judges nominated from not an ivy leaguer, he's more related to other people. is that what you're suggesting? caller: i'm suggesting that the ivy league people have no clue. these judges have no clue what's going on across the united states of america. because that particular school system, the ivy league is a liberal system. it's pure liberal. and we need someone in there that is no going to follow that line, it's not going to fall to the far right. someone that's going to be right
in the middle that takes the constitution and interprets the constitution but does not change the law. that actually defends and supports what the constitution says. and we're not getting that from the ivy league supreme court justices. it's just not there. host: judge gorsuch described as a conservative as the viewer mentioned. did attend all those three chools that he listed off. ost: he received -- maria, bloomfield, new jersey, democrats line. hi, there. caller: hi. this is maria. i am so tired of all this disagreement with the people. -- judge --the jung
and i have to say something. because there's nothing accomplished. it's already how many months? down hing is being turned by the other party. so i pray that this will go through so that our country will -- can do something and just pray to god that everything will be all right. host: joy from bethany, oklahoma, democrats line. hi, joy. go ahead. caller: hi, good morning, and thank you for c-span. i've seen some interesting panels on c-span over the weekend to talk about judge gorsuch. and one thing that caught my eye was a case. it's called trans am trucking vs. administrative review board. and judge gorsuch had a dissent decision on that. it's also called frozen trucker
case. host: yeah. caller: exactly. and that's a real interesting -- i like to read about supreme court decisions. another one back in the day is -- d kilo vs. new england new london -- host: new london, connecticut, the takings clause or using -- exactly, yes. caller: yes. i love readg about that. there was a book lled -- written by a guy. anyway, i think that decision by judge gorsuch kind of really shows that he's going to kind of go for corporations versus employees. t i do feel that he's more moderate than scalia was. and also with the russian hacking thing, i'm open-minded about that. i think people have real strong opinions but i believe with
everything, there's a saying that goes truth wins out. host: so joy, you'll be watching the hearings, i suspect? or will you be able to do that if caller: oh, yes, i'm lucky enough to be able to do that. and it is interesting to watch adam and devin nunes. and i like devin nunes, the republican. i think he's going to be a straight-up guy. i like adamship but they both talk real well and they both seem to want the truth. host: do you think you're going hear a lot of insights with the f.b.i. director? caller: not really. i think that there will be a lot more going on behind closed doors on more classified information that we won't be hearing at least at this point. that's my gut feeling and i got that feeling from watching c-span come and of the different espn's i've hear on that. host: appreciate that, joy. thank you for watching. several panels that took place
on both sides of the spectrum that aired recently on our network concerning judge gorsuch. again, hate to sound repetitive, but c-span.org is where you can se that. and the hearing with judge gorsuch. you can watch it live, see that at 10:00 today. you can watch it live. adam shipp talked about russia hearing and those related opics. >> collusion is what hasn't been proven here between whatever the russians did and the trump campaign. mike morale reminded people and took director clapper on his word saying there has been no evidence that has been found of collusion. at what point do you start to
wonder if there is a fire in all the smoke? >> first of all, i was surprised to see director clapper say that because i don't think you can make that claim categorically as he did. i would characterize it as the outside of the investigation, there was circle evidence of the collusion. i don't want to prejudge where we ultimately end up and there's one thing to say there's evidence and there's another thing to say we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or there's enough evidence to bring grand jy but there is enough for us to conduct investigation. the american peoplhave a right to know and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether these self-confidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more. >> i want to get to the witness list here. you have subpoena power if you choose to use it.
you and congressman nunes seem to come toon great. on that. >> he's going to have to use it because there will be people who may not be willing -- witnesss and if we're going to do this, we're the only game in town. we're going to feed the power of compulsion. i still think we have a lot of spade work to do before that. you don't want to bring the witnesses in before you review the witnesses you want to question with. you may only get one shot of the witnesses but we're going to have to do that. host: this is ernestine from oak hill, west virginia, independent line. caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning. caller: pedro, my concern on -- i can never pronounce the name. the supreme court nominee. host: neil gorsuch. caller: yes. i believe trump appointed him because trump wants to have roe v. wade repeeled. i feel that it should not be
because a woman has to make that decision for herself. and we're finding that even adolescent girls and even younger girls become pregnant. and if they do not abort, who is going to take care of that child for the rest of their life? going to go on medicaid all her life? this is the thing. and also might lead to more bathroom abortions which could cause life-threatening things for the woman who has that bathroom abortion. and this leads to planned parenthood who does pass and takes care of contraceptives. so it all coincidence in there that -- coincides in there and i
think it is a hard decision for a woman to make the decision to have an abortion. and perhaps later on years, they forget. they regret it. but at that moment, it probably is the best thing for the woman or the adolescence or even younger children. host: so you're looking for questions specifically on that, i suspect, from today's hearing? caller: yes, i am. yes. although i -- i think it's a -- i've known one or two women who they did it for financial reasons, unable to feed their present family. so there are many factors why i think a woman or an adolescen aborts a child. host: ok. at's ernestine from west virginia giving her thoughts on
today's hearing or at least the topic she's most interested in hearing. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and for independents, 02-748-8002. from pennsylvania, independent line. frank, you are up next. caller: thank you very much for having me. i just want to make a general comment that it's pretty embarrassing for one of the -- well, the best nation in the world, and for the age of our country that we have not have parties that can sit down together and figure out how to provide health care for everybody and move on to the next thing. it seems like all they want to do is sit and fight back and forth with each other and create a smoke screen to where nothing gets done. and things stay the way they are and then all way till the next
presidency. obama care, if it wasn't the best, let's not call it obamacare. let's just call it health care and improve on what obama has done if people don't like it. host: ok, frank. we will live it there because we're talking about other matters today. jackson, mississippi, independent line. ken, hello. hi injure on. caller: yes, thank you. hank you for c-span. about the nominee for the supreme court. host: ok. a little conservative there and the court has had -- is at a point right now. we have four and then there's going to be a swing vote which will be this man. host: well, this man from with a we've seen the lead-up to is is
supposed to be the one that replace antonin scalia. when you say right wing, do you say that because the president chose him or there are things that specifically that kind of leads you to think that he might be for your terning right wing? caller: no, the president chosen which is why i would say that. host: ok. carol, you are up next from north carolina. republican line. caller: yes, thank you for c-span. people are concerned about whether to reverse roe v. wade or not and i think people should read the case because with a it does is decided a constitutional issue that texas does not give e lady that was accused of malicious abortion due process because the texas law was not sufficiently clear so that she would know whether or not e was violating it.
that was the whole decision in roe v. wade. made s. supreme court .nalysis of abortion issues they did very good research. people have good research. host: so the caller had mentioned -- caller: they decided the states should decide whether or not what laws to legislate on abortion issues because they're e ones that decide how unwanted children are handled and cared for at the expense of the state. host: hey, carol -- caller: this roe v. wade issue -- host: let's go to stan from florida, republican line. hello. caller: hello. how are you doing today? host: fine, thank you. caller: i want to speak on this. name is stan hart and i'm a
pentecostal minister and a christian of the gospel of jesus christ. now if we want to kill some more babies, let's support roe vs. wade which says there is no such name as a reform that was a lady seen on the some christian channels. she repented of her sins of this ungodly thing that roe vs. wade. she repepted of her sins, said she was sorry that she did this thing. o it's a sin to kill babies. host: stan, the caller had referenced the roe v. wade over her concerns about judge gorsuch coming to the court and possibly overturning that. what do you think about the nominee or do you think this should get revised again in the court? caller: i think this nominee should go in because donald
rump was voted by the most christians in the world today that's ever been in history. host: when neil gorsuch appeared during his announcement by president trump at the white house on january 31, i believe, it was then he talked about some of the influence that shaped him and his judicial philosophy and he also listed some of the judges and people that he had clerked for that had influenced his way of thinking and his way of doing laws so to speak. here's judge gorsuch from then. judge gorsuch: he was one of the smartest and most courageous men i've ever known. when justice white retired, he gave me the chance to work for justice kennedy as well. he was incredibly welcoming and gracious. and like justice white, he taught me so much. i am forever grateful. and if you've ever met judge david sentel, you will know how
lucky i was to land a courtship i was right out of school. [laughter] thank you. these judges brought me up in the law. truly, i would not be here without them. today is as much their day as it is mine. host: the first of several days of hearings on judge gorsuch. 11:00 today. if you can't see that, we will reair it tonight for those of you who want to watch it this evening. 8:30 this evening is when you can watch it. dee, houston, texas republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: i am fine, thank you. caller: ok. i'm all for something that's going on, but i don't think it's right that they giving this other young man that's coming in for the justice of peace a
hearing and they didn't take time enough and give enough care pick.e barack obama now i think fair is fair. the caller you had before might have been a christian, ok. i'm a christian. i'm evangelist. and i do know i am so wrapped up at the politics so much that trump, even though i'm for him, he did not get a lot of christian votes because of the carried himself on -- disrespecting his wife for number one. went behind her with other ladies. disrespecting the former president with his birther thing. and i'm just going to come out and say i'm not judging. but i feel within my heart fair is fair. you should give each and everyone -- let them both come
forward and then choose and see who is best to be that next judge that sit on that bench. that's how i feel about it. bring them both forward. and i feel like that president trump, he has a vendetta against our former president obama. he want his approval rate to be more than his. he needs to stop making up stories about obama and do what we put him there to do. host: ok. that caller references merrick garland. you saw his picture there. that was president obama's choice at the supreme court while he was still in office last year. that hearing never took place with merrick garland. but the hearing for neil gorsuch today does take place. several callers mentioned merrick garland this morning as well. let's go to fort washington, maryland, independent line. and -- sons i punch the button, apologies. hi there.
caller: hey, good morning. how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: thank you. thank you for c-span, right? so here's my take on it. republicans control the house and they have presidency. so honestly, i don't see the argument -- i mean, they're going to get their way no matter what. we're talking about the investigations. we're talkg about everything that he wants. even the whole tax -- the last time i heard, republicans want to get the tax, not just their rate but just the tax coated is clarified and simplified. i don't see them working on that. and the funny part is everybody keeps talking about obstruction for democrats but you got all this time to create whatever you want to create and push it through. they are not really going to have too much blowback from anything they do because they've got -- from the compliance department.
it's sad that we're talking about something that doesn't have all the weight. at the end of the day, they carry all the weight. we just got to see what they do. so any time i hear anybody say oh, you know, how do you think this is going to pan out for the president? well, congress is the one that have to push for impeachment if they want to impeach him. and it's been helped by the voice. that's not going to happen. as u.s. citizens, if you really want to make any change, you know, contact your congressmen or at least vote for somebody else on your local elections. if you're not going to do that, then, you know, you don't have anything else to say. host: on top of the hearings that take place today, the caller mentioned the activity of the republicans and expected vote this coming thursday taking a look at the republican plan to repeal and replace the affordable care act. that's also on the agenda. it will be a busy week this week in congress. stay close to c-span.org to find out all that's going on. one more call on either of these
topics. kim from pennsylvania. democrats line. hi, there. go ahead. you're on. caller: yes. my comment is why can't we just have a straight 10% tax for health care? on your gross p, a straight 10% tax. that would be fair to everybody i think. and i think it would solve the problem with medicare and medicaid if they have enough money in it. host: ok. that will be the last call on the topic. even if we stop taking calls on this first hour, the topics that we've addressed in this first hour will continue on throughout the morning. that russia hearing that takes place today the f.b.i. director and the n.s.a. director is the topic for our next topic with "the hill"'s katie bo williams. she's going to talk about what's expected from today's hearing. the kind of questions that will be asked, the information that hopefully republicans and democrats are looking for. that will be next.
and later on in the program, we will spend an hour looking at judge neil gorsuch and get an guests, n him from two elizabeth wydra and carrie severino. ahead of this c-span had a chance to catch up and talk to members of the senate judiciary committee, the people you will see at 11:00 today on c-span2. we spoke with the chairman himself, chuck grassley of iowa, to discuss how he prepared for today's hearing. , whether itration is for this letter going way back to 1981 when i had the first one is about the same. you read all you can about the individual. the nonlawyer that i am, i tend to rely upon people that read
-some decisions he has written, but i like to read about them. i have papers i get from a staff in preparation of it. but i also give direction to the staff of the kind of questions i want to ask. for instance, appreciation of what they think about the original intent of the thetitutional writers, extent to wish they give deference to administrative bodies on writing the rules or interpretation of law. in other words, i want to know that they are going to be a referee of our separation of powers. in other words, there are certain legislative this month's abilities -- legislative responsibilities, and i want to know how they draw the line when they approach that because i see them as a referee of our constitutional system and the final voice in regard to what is
constitutional or not and whether or not administrators follow congressional intent as we write the legislation. host: how much of that do you feel like you can learn in those meetings with the nominee before hand and privately, and what do you need to learn and a public hearing? in private meetings, you try to understand and become acquainted with them as an individual. you do not get into the weeds of the law. they be some members have. past, iinees in the have done that, but withhis particular nominee, it was just kind of understanding where he has come from. but i also knew about his reputation for a year because he was on president trump's list that came out. some came out in march, and i think the rest came out in june. so you kind of had the feeling of the type of people that president trump, if he were
president, would put before the , and then you found out them with three or four of that were cropping up as possible nominees, then you zero in on those three or four. i can sure see why president trump picked this nominee as opposed to some of the other three or four that were prominently mentioned. >> "washington journal" continues. williams of the hill is writing about today's intelligence hearing looking at russia and the election. good morning. ,he headline for the web story suspense building, especially over the fbi director testifying today. guest: i think we could see a few fireworks today are the number one question people will be looking at