scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> oh, you think this is just a community center? no, it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1,000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled lift zones so students from low income families can get the tools they needo get them ready for anything. announcer: comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. on facebook, it is facebook.com/cspan. good monday morning. start calling now. this is the headline from usa today from overnight. the supreme court could rule on trump's colorado ballot

eligibility as soon as monday. the subhead saying the justices will decide if states can use an anti-insurrectionist part of the constitution to kick back -- to kick trump off the ballot. colorado and maine are two of the sates waiting for decisions from the high court, and they are among the many states holding primaries tuesday, super tuesday. the court heard oral arguments february 8 on donald trump's challenge to the colorado supreme court's decision that he is ineligible to return to the white house because of his role in the january 6, 2021 insurrection act attack at the united states capitol. that is the story on usa today. asking you your level of trust in the supreme court when it comes to cases having to do with elections 2024 or relating back to january 6. it was last week on wednesday that the supreme court decided to take up the question of

presidential immunity, a claim former president donald trump is making when it comes to one of his federal cases. they will hear his presidential immunity claim case april 22, delaying the start of that federal case. this is the headline from last week after the court made that decision, delaying his trial in that case, a picture of donald trump there. cnn with a pole asking this same question, do you trust the suprem court when it comes to elections 2024 cases? here ie of the answers to that response. just 11% saying they trust the supreme court a great deal when it comes to decisions on legal cases relating to elections 2024, 20 3% saying not at all, 25% saying they trust the court just some, 31% saying they trust the court a moderate amount.

wondering what you think ahead of the expected decision coming down. it is 10:00 a.m. when we are expected to hear from the supreme court, and that is when this program ends this morning. jasper up first out of cleveland, ohio. caller: good morning. host: what is your level of trust in the supreme court these days? caller: i have a bad feeling about it, because i do not think he will -- hello? host: i am listening to you. caller: oh, ok. i think thomas should recluse himself because of his wife's situation on the case about the january 6 case and everything. i really do not think they will give him the right opinion on that. we will see what happens. host: what is the right ending?

caller: it would need him to recluse himself to get a fair chance on it, and people should know what happened, that his wife was involved. i think you should be on the ballot, to be truthful to people. host: from new york, independent. caller: good morning. i believe the supreme court is working properly. i do not think politics have slipped in. i believe colorado, president trump, will be on the ballot. there is no reason why he should not be on the ballot. my feeling is, if we go on this road, and -- i hope independent-minded supreme court will decide on the merits and keep him on the ballot.

host: you think the supreme court has proven to be independent-minded? caller: i do believe, because i follow them. people told me this and that. they make decisions on their merits. why do you only think -- the judiciary is not independent? then it will become a battleground in politics. i hope it will remain independent for a long time. host: this is ann out of new york. caller: good morning. i do not trust the supreme court. i do not think that, after trump three supreme court justices, i think they are political. i do not trust clarence thomas. i think c needs to recluse himself from january 6 because of his -- i think he needs to recuse himself from january 6

because of his wife. host: one was the last time you trusted the supreme court? caller: i have not trusted them for a while. even when obama was president, mitch mcconnell would not let him, obama, bring up merrick garland, to bring someone on the court. so the court has become political for a while, not only now. i do not trust the court. i think of our becoming -- i think they are becoming too political. the last three before jackson, i think they have really been too political, and i think the courts now are very, very political. i would give them a 10%. host: that's ann in new york. a favorability ratings are any indication, the supreme court becoming more unfavorable over

time, according to public polling. this is pew research with their chart, dating back to 1987. back then, the favorability ratings of the supreme court would bounce from 80% to 65%. you can see those numbers tightening over time, from 2000 7, 2017, almost 50-50, just after 2022, unfavorable ratings then favorable ratings, that dating up last year, and some of the latest numbers from the gallup organization as well, their numbers for the supreme court, the latest polling from september of last year saying 9% saying they have a great deal of trust in the supreme court, 32% saying they do not have much trust in the supreme court, and 19% saying none at all at this

point. you can see the gallup polling continues over time every few months or so, asking the same things with approval ratings. out of new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. sadly, after all the years i have watched the supreme court, i am disappointed. i will tell you where it started. when the federalist society chose the judges. how does that happen? any time before, they would go to -- the judiciary committee would always submit the name to the american bar association, up or down, tell us what kind of person this is as a judge, up or down. oh, no, we do not want the american bar association, we want the federalist society to

choose care that is when we went downhill. host: presidents get to choose their nominees. are you talking about recommendations from that conservative -- caller: they literally chose, for president trump, the names, because he was not a lawyer. he had no clue. they chose them here they did not go to the american bar association, which was the tradition. they literally chose who was to be put on the court. then when you find out that the three people, billionaires putting the money up for the court, i am sorry, i am just dismayed this has been allowed. i do not care whether you are republican or democrat, what your background is, but at least the american bar association was a neutral party. the federalist society is not. host: chuck out of farmington hills, michigan, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, america. thank you for taking my call.

number one, having served in the marine corps for many years and gone to foreign countries, wake up, america. you cannot deny people from being on the ballot that has never been charged with anything, democrat, independent. let's look at what the situation is. what will happen is, if you allow this, then why shouldn't the republicans close off all the ballots to the democrats? thank you very much. host: what do you think the supreme court is going to say today, less than three hours from now? caller: indeed, if it is the supreme court, and indeed, i think that they're going to have to allow president trump on the ballot. host: and you think it is a good

thing they make their opinion known, handed down before tomorrow, when colorado and maine vote? and those are two of the three estates, along with illinois, that this -- two of the three states, along with illinois, that this ballot issue has come up. caller: number one, the 14th amendment does not apply. the supreme court is going to vote in favor of keeping donald trump, or anybody, on these ballots. host: that's chuck in michigan. to the bluegrass state, this is gina. good morning. caller: yes. first of all, i blame congress for not doing their job. there are many things that they should be doing that they are not doing. and yet, they bring it to the supreme court to be the final decider. if you will notice here lately,

we have more supreme court cases than we have ever had in history. it used to be a dynamic case to be brought. now look how much money it cost us, for someone to take a case to the supreme court. therefore that case, only the rich can afford to take a case to the supreme court. furthermore, we cannot decide -- we cannot say "i don't want no press," because the press is what helps us get the ideas and the information out. i am confident in the supreme court. yes, there are rulings that have never done so good. that is in the eye of the beholder, because you cannot get everything your way. host: what was a good ruling by the supreme court, any recent

one that you would say is a good ruling? caller: well, there was a number of good rulings. a lot of times, the supreme court, when they decide to not even take a case up -- and right now, the case they have with the internet people -- i just think that -- a lot of people were disappointed when the gore v. bush thing happened. but when they put god on the cross, the romans did him wrong, but he said we have to believe in government. he had the power to overtake it, but he didn't, because he said there are things we have to endure. as long as we live, never put

more than what you can take. host: back to new york, this is john, independent. good morning. caller: i watched the beginning of this, and you sure -- you presented the question do you trust the supreme court regarding the selection thing, and then you showed a chart saying how many people have faith in the supreme court? you showed a chart, some people do, some don't, some people are in between. but they were two different questions. we do not know what context those questions were put in. you said today we have a question that possibly could answer the election results, and another -- host: so stick with whichever you want to answer. the question we put up this morning, do you trust the supreme court when it comes to election 2024 cases? we have also talked about

supreme court approval ratings over time and that sort of thing, but stick with that question. do you trust the supreme court when it comes to election 24 and for that election 2024 cases -- do you trust the supreme court when it comes to election 2024 cases. today they will likely hand on the decision on the ballot access. caller: so the question you are asking is setting up the audience to answer this question. how many people who are calling in no the constitutional, what is written in the constitution? the supreme court justices are put into those seats by the american people, whoever, and of these are the best we can put up in front of us, and you're asking a question -- wouldn't it be nice if you did what they used to do in the old days and have a constitutionalist represent one

point of view, a constitutionalist on the other side of the table represent another point of view, having questions asked -- host: i promise we will have more roundtables. what we do is take an hour asking questions, taking your calls about the news of the day. so do you trust or not trust the supreme court? that is my question to you. caller: on what? on the election? i have my own opinion, yeah. i trust them, but i hope we, as a voter, i can vote for a person i want to vote for and not have him removed or her removed. what is going to happen is, if you remove one candidate from a blue state, then the red states say, hey, we will pass through our legislature and all that, we'll ban the blue candidate.

what kind of country are we going to have? why don't you have someone on to explain this, that way people are not calling up and just ripping each other apart -- host: appreciate it. thank you. i promise we will. on this 14th eminent case, we have had legal scholars talk about it, especially when it was being argued in front of the supreme court. today's the day the decision is expected to serve, down. we do not know for sure, the supreme court making that surprise announcement yesterday that there will be decisions, at least one, being handed down today, and the timing, with it coming right before super tuesday, tomorrow, the expectation is it will be that 14th amendment case. this is marked in maryland, republican. -- this is mark in maryland, republican. caller: good morning. making the court political. i think both parties do. definitely, democrats do.

people need to look in the mirror and think of what their party is doing when it comes to the court and not just try to blame the republicans, since we have the majority on the court. i have a couple extra points. janice rogers brown was a conservative black justice. she had potential to be a supreme court justice, but joe biden and barack obama held her confirmation back several years to a federal bench, under the bush administration, to prevent her from ever. getting to the supreme court. the reason is because they did not want a black female conservative justice on the court. host: on making the court political, it is a question that is not unique to this time. it is certainly a question that has come up over time. do you think, in a day and age

where justices have more access to the media, social media, do you think the justices do a good job today, or a better job today, of staying above the political fray for protecting that image of not being political? do you think they do that well today? was there a time in the past you think they did that better? caller: i mean, i do trust the court today. as far as that, i think it is very difficult to try to do that. but i think they are doing a fairly decent job, some of them are, anyway. do not see amy coney barrett out ther much talking. -- out there much, talking. you do not see kavanaugh. i just want to make one point. progressive judges do not put the law first.

the point here is that judge in illinois last week, george tracy porter, she made a comment, when she accepted her federal job, my motto is impacting lives and changing communities, and that is going to be my approach to my new position. that is an activist position, and that is where most liberal judges fall, is acting, being an activist before being a jurist. host: thanks for the call. this is wisconsin, teresa, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment regarding the supreme court, and i definitely do and trust their decisions. i would also like to say that former president donaldmp, who claims a president should have immunity, is totally wrong.

if that were the case, and they were to rule today, that would mean that current president joe bidenou sic seal team six on former president trump and his far right wingers. host: ok. that is teresa in wisconsin. from phoenix, arizona, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not have a whole lot of faith in the supreme court. there's been too much talk about whether justices are conservative or liberal. whatever administration is proposing these individuals to be justices, it seems they come from their camp. the big concern i have now is

one of the cases before the supreme court, on the presidential immunity. the only real question i have on that is i wonder if they are asking themselves, does a sitting president, who is also a candidate for elected office, have the ability to say an election has been stolen or is fraudulent, and therefore, the right to do things, to not let it proceed in the fashion it has for decades? that is the question i think will be answered by their decision now, and i think it will have a far-reaching effect in the fact that it would increase the power of the executive office over congress

and the judiciary, and that is not the way it is supposed to be set up. host: have you thought much before about the idea of presidential immunity? that is what the supreme court decided wednesday of last week, that they would take up on april 22, and this federal case on january 6 is going to wait until that decision is made in april, so it will delay that federal case. in general, do you think presidential immunity is important? a be free from prosecution so they can do their job? how much have you thought about presidential immunity in the past? caller: as far as presidential immunity is concerned, they should have immunity, but when it comes down to anzj i think that is a different set of circumstances.

functioning as president, yes, they should have immunity, so they can do their job. that, for sure. of course, within my thinking on this particle instance, ev if are not going to hear it until april, what happened on january 6 and stuff like that, it should not havepeit really se happened that way. even if it was just a delay, as far as actuano if they were just trying to delay it and that type of thing. my point is why wasn't it brought out when those cases were filed before januaryhost: r comments from social media to this question we asked -- do you

trust the supreme court when it comes to election 2024 cases specifically? joseph in nevada at writingey kg them. this from lawrence on facebook, i not see why not. we trusted a less than credible da in fulton county to bring charges against him, why wouldn't we trust is up in court to do their job? gerald onacook saying people o not trust the supreme court are trump haters anyway, and nobody cares who they trust. sandy not trust the supreme court to be impartial. they have's, i no longer trust any branch to do their deleting needed -- delineated job. about half an hour "washington journal "washington journal left in this first segment of" with this decision we are accepting today. it is likely going to be on that 14th amendment case in colorado, the ballot access case.

we are asking do you trust the supreme court when it comes to election 2024 cases? this is gloria in virginia, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. e supreme court, 100%, in making these decisions. i take that from the bible. i am a christian. when moses appointed the judges, he specifically told them, in deuteronomy one, 16 and 17, the underlying criteria they should meet in judging any calls before them. host: bring me up to 2024 and trust in government today. caller: i do trust them, because they are not a respecter of persons. trump is not on trial.

what is on trial, if you want to call it that, is the call. the relate to the office of president. it does not relate to the president himself. host: that is gloria out of virginia this morning. donald trump has had plenty to say when it comes to these cases agai him while he has been on the campaign trail. on saturday, he took aim at special counsel jackinvestigatip and leading those two federal cases, one in florida and one in washington, d.c. this is someto say over the weekend. [video clip] >> we had the thing in washington, deranged jack smith. s eight arranged human being. he has a huge record of failure, because you go so far out, and people and up not being convicted -- pe not

being convicted. he goes too far. he is a terrible human being. he is at arranged person who wants tople. we are hurting him. that's not the kind of people -- being prosecutor is a very important thing. being a fair prosecutor is a very important thinking about some of these animals, they are bad. i've done is all coming out of crooked joe biden. he can't campaign, he can't speak, he can't walk, he looks like hell. and i will say this. before my indictments, i talked much evenly about him. front rows know. i had respect for the office of the president. lwif you sent to msnbc and cnn, they are all getting their ratings now, which is great, but if you listen to them -- if you saying, you can never indict

trump on this. they indicted me. you can never indict trump on january 6. indicted me. you can never indict him on that document a hoax. i come under the presidential records act. i am allowed t times did a stor. please, please, please, mr. president, could we have our boxes? ■% no, he does not have to give them. host: trump on the campaign trail over the weekend. speaking of the gop primary over the weekend, nikki haley winning her first primary, the republican primary here in washington, d.c., a city of some 700,000 people. a little over 2000 people participated in the republican primary in, as you can see from the washington post story today. haley got 63% of the vote compared to 33% for donald trump, winning washington,

d.c.'s 19 delegates. nikki haley last week, after the supreme court decided to take up that presidential imnity ce.■w on an interview with nbc, she talked about that case. here is a little from nikki [video clip] >> i think voters are going to want to know what they are walking into. if they are walking into a president who is still going to have to be in court or if they y where he can get rid of a court case, voters want to know that. that is this -- that is apart the supreme court has you goings verdict? what does that mean for people who have voted? will they have answers before the general this is not just about trump. i want it for biden, clinton, trump. we need to make sure a president knows they are never above the

law. >> you think voters deserve to know the verdict if thica trials sick case before election day? >> i think he deserves the right to defend himself. i think, unfortunately, court cases ta can drag them out. that is probably going to happen. but i think voters are going to want to know what happens foapp. hopefully, they will get the opportunity to know that, but there is a likelihood they will not. >> you have said no one deservey scenario where the supreme court decides that mr. trump has total immunity? >> i do not know. i am not a lawye i dootbut i think this needs toe clarified. we have never had to clarify it before, but i hopet >> but base, you do not think anyone should be given total in unity? >> i think a president should have to live according to the laws too.

you cannot just assume anything and everything you will get full immunits have to live according to certain standards as well. host: nikki haley talking about that presidential immunity case. it is a different case if that 14th amendment ballot access case are expecting to hear a decision on today, the supreme court anunciy will hand down at least one decision at 10:00 a.m.the supreme court heat case not toogo, back on february 8, that case having to do about colorado and the colorado primary is tomorrow, super tuday, 15 states participating in the primary tomorrow. a busy. week here in washington. dress. anthere is a potential partial government shutdown that could happen, congress giving itself a little more time last week to do its budgeting duties before a

potential shutdown. here is the story from today's washingt post, the last-ditch funding bill heads to theou, a 460 billion dollar funding package would finsi agencies. those agencies include the nt, veterans affairs, energy, agriculture, interior developing, environmental protection agency, the food and drug adnistration. an effort to continue funding for those agencies and staving off a potential partial government shutdown. that is set to play out this week. you can watch in the house and senate here on c-spanq# and c-sn 2. back to this question, do yo cot cospecifthis is mark. caller: to c-span. no, i do not trust the supreme court when it comes to the 2024 election. ■■l)kai can tell you all kinds f

things about the 6 jurists, but let's concentrate on clarence thomas, because there is no time. inds of gifts from billionaire republican donors. and not only that, his wife was involved in organizing the january 6c[k"if he is not recusf from any cases involving january 6, t is totally corrupt, which i believe he is. he should be investigated.

trust? caller: my trust was destroyed in 2000, when they did bush+gor.