journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the google store and apple play. january the q.r. code to download it today or visit c-span.org/c-spannow. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> 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 sen.s -- lift zones so state of the unions >> c-span is brought to you by comcast and these other television providers. host: at our table this morning ed whelan

. we are talking about the supreme court in upcoming decisions they are yet to issue by the end of june. i want to start with justice alito's letter on calls for him to refuse -- recuse himself from cases. he said about the flags at his i had nothing to do with it. as soon as i saw it i asked my wife to take it down. my wife and i own a virginia home jointly and she therefore has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit. there were no additional steps i could have taken to have the flag taken down moreu agree with him? guest: i agree with his decision recuse. it is easy. the broader question that was spelled out years ago in a different context spouses

views and actions however passionately held and discharged are not imputed to her spouse. it is the exact situation we have here. it is in stark contrast to other episodes that get little attention. back in 2016 during the presidential cign that ruth bader ginsburg gave two prominent interviews in which she spoke very harshly of sidential candidate donald trump. she called him a faker and said she couldn't understand how he hadn't been required to disclose his tax returns. she even said i can't imagine what the country would be with donald as the. i can understand her saying those sentiments but sing them in national interviews and she never recused from cases involving the 2016 election. and when the case come up on donald trump's release of the taxes, she didn't recuse.

you had the justice herself engaging in conduct that presented a stronger case for recusal than what we have in the conduct of justice alito's wife. s leuestioned, when unbiased and reasonae person who is aware of relevant circumstances would doubt the justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. in the new york times when he writes about the letter to congress he says notably at the justice alito letter does not dispute that the upside down flag conveyed support and before the court this term is a case dealing with a january 6 brian turk. -- january 6 rioter. guest:guest: in the legal aftermath of this ugly neighborhood dispute this reporter went down and determined this was a neighborhood dispute. mrs. alito said this was a

sign of international distress. no one back then thought this until two weeks ago and i can't imagine one person in 100 in this country would associate an upside down flag with the movement. justice alito not address the points. it was irrelevant because whatever she meant by it had no bearing on his obligation to sit in this case. you cited the standard for recusal that what comes first is the general obligation. host: there was another flag, the appeal to have an flag that was flown at a different property in a different state. and this from the politics in nation from the washington post, today it is an emphasis that the

flag is embraced by eight movement that hasmore comfortable with the idea that political violence might be necessary to save america from those largely imagined in the left. extremists say they are fighting communism and satanism that they blame for societal ills talking about the appeal to heaven's flag. guest: the same appeal to heaven flag flew over a san francisco hall for decades until they decided it last week to take it down. flags can have all sorts of different meanings. this is a flag george washington authorized and is flown widely. the idea this is some sort of symbol that we understood as stop the steal is far-fetched. ho interpretations very and it is saidhey appealed to have that flag broadly to host political id that mythologized

his revolutionary history are a precedent for a modern-day uprising. guest: the san francisco city hall was flying that flag over itslding as it was for decades up until last week and that interpretation is far-fetched. host: the january 6 case that i referenced talked about the decision before the court that these justices had to make and the impact of it. guest: the question before the court is whether a former president has criminal immunity from federal criminal charges for actions taken as president and if so, what the extent of the immunity is. this is a question that relates just to donald trump's conduct on january 6 but to his course of conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 election. i was and remains very critical

of his conduct during that period. that is a separate matter and legal question whether he has immunity and we will see with the court rules in the next few weeks. host: what do you think about not getting that decision yet from the justices? do you read into that or not? guest: that case was argued barely a month ago. the court is right near the end of its term. still half of the cases are yet to come out. it is a very intense and busy time for the court. i would be surprised if the ruling had come out by now especially given all the issues that were raised by lots of different thinking through the consequences of this issue. i think it is very likely the ruling will come down in the probably day of the term.

host: this is an opinion piece from msnbc where they say the court delay on trump immunity gets more outrageous by the day, each day without a ruling on immunity from the justice is an intentional delay. this was written by a former house judiciary committee member. he writes in the piece that what is more unbelievable is the supreme court had the chance to consider the issue in december but chose not to and decided to take the case in late february. now it is dragging out deciding the case. guest: with all respect to the author that is far-fetched reading. no one would expect a case like this with such consequences and importance to be decided so quickly. the justices want to think this through and get it right. there will probably be more than one opinion. i don't see how anyone familiar with the operation of the supreme court could fault the court for taking two months as

it will probably to issue the opinion in this case. host: other decisions we are waiting on from the court as well. we want you to join us in the conversation to talk about the cases before the court this term. you can do so if you are a republican at (202) 748-8000 democrats at (202) 748-8000 and -- republicans at (202) 748-8001 , democrats at (202) 748-8000 independents at (202) 748-8002. what else are you watching it for from the court this term? guest: you are testing my memory on those yet to be decided. host: if you have the two abortion cases. do you think those are key cases to watch? guest: they are certainly interesting and important cases. one is involving the fda

approval of the abortion pill and that presents interesting questions on legal standing. we will see what the court has to say on that. host: a legal test for a standing, what do you need for that? guest: standing is legal jargon or not a plaintiff has a right to pursue a claim in court. there is no general tax payer's standing. i can't file suit and say i object to the weight the government is spending money on x, y, or z. that is a case for how am i suffering particular injury from that. the question is the plaintiffs, the doctors associations have suffered recognizable injury and will see how the court decides that question.

the other abortion case you referred to is a very complicated one involving how a federal law and how it fits with idaho's life of a mother exception for abortion. i think the court will end up determining that federal law does not override the state law but we will see. host: there are also a couple of cases before the court dealing with social media companies facebook and content moderation. what do yourt comes down on those cases? guest: those aren't cases i follow closely i have to acknowledge what based on oral argument it seems the court may not have a lot to say on those. people are looking at some decisive ruling may be disappointed. thcourt takes cases with big issues and they end up being decided often on narrow grounds. host: we are waiting for the

justices to decide on a case dealing with the january 6 rioter who is accused of disrupting official proceedings. guest: this presents a technical statutory question about whether a provision seems to be dealing with destruction of records can be interpreted more broadly to relate to any interference with a proceeding. it has implications for the prosecution by the actions of donald trump in that one or two of the charges against him are rooted in the same provision. it is also possible the provision could be interpreted in aen if it doesn't apply to this one protester but might still apply to donald trump. interesting and challenging questions. we will see. it wouldn't surprise me if is a broad

ideological consensus on that one. host: let's circle back to the idea of recusal. what to think about some calling for justice thomas to recuse himself based on his wife's actions? guest: it gets back to the same standard set forth in a case in which a ninth circuit judge's wife had participated in a very case in which she was sitting. the organization she led wrote the amicus brief and she had conflict engaged in strategy sessions and celebrated on the ruling. yet the judge did not recuse himself and they told the supreme court a spouses views and actions however passionately held and discharged are not imputed to her spouse.

and judge reinhardt is not presumed to be the reservoir in carrier of his wife's beliefs. that broad principle is correct. in that case it was conquered by the fact that judge reinhardt's wife had participated in the very case by submitting briefs and making comments and she should have recused. the broader principle answers some of your question about justice thomas. host: let's go to david in gaithersburg, independent. caller: thank you for including me. it been interesting to listen to the comments in the juxtaposes with something you all aired recently. there was a with people and hearing the gentleman be so dismissive about the reporting on alito, which i kind of agree with and putting that against the panel where they were

accepting of the new reporting and how could he not recuse himself in hearing the gentleman talked about that he thinks prob law, and how on the panel, i can't believe i have sent mention the supremacy law. i just mente because i hope others like me find themselves not at all on either of those pages. i hope when it comes to the media and the left and with the gentleman that if i had an upside down american flag because i was listening to rage of the machine. at the same time i wish we would look at alito on the merits. he is an embarrassment as a jurist and so is thomas. some who may be leaning a little left can draw a line betweengh who seemed to be trying to get into the administrative questions of the places. my question is, how do you feel

about the chevron deference? i am asking that you may want to see it go but do you have a read on the justices? and also the immigration case where dhs keeps not doing with the court says. do you think they will rule the same way. guest: i don't think i have been dismissive of the news reports. i've tried to put them in what i think is proper context. on the case i have a good read on the legal issues but he raises another interesting case being decided this term involving the so-called chevron deference, should judges continue to defer to agency interpretations of federal law so long as those interpretations pass a minimum threshold of

reasonableness. i have been supportive of chevron than other conservatives and it is difficult to come up with just the right test should be but i think there are some conceptual problems with chevron and i think the court may at the very least cut back on it quite a bit. i am not familiar with the dhs case as familiar as i should be. host: ray ohio, democratic caller. caller:50 years ago in august that richard nixon resigned. president ford pardoned richard nixon. as such appear that they both knew that richard nixon had no immunity. all of america knew that richard nixon had no immunity. the appellate court held a

hearing for why there was no immunity for president trump. why is the supreme court taking this case up? it is obvious it is politically motivated and why the court would be taking this case up when most of those who know the history of america know not have immunity when it comes to criminal when out of office, that the hello -- have no immunity when it comes to the law. host: let's get a response. guest: it that gerald ford pardoned richard nixon and it arguably applies to could have been a prosecution. i am strongly against the notion that the former president enjoys absolute immunity. the supreme court took this case because there are interesting arguments that there may be more limited immunity in certain contexts and there was criticism of the d.c. circuit judge case, around some of its reasoning.

i think the court believes it ought to address the issues and give an authoritative answer to them. host: what part of the reasoning of the questioning? guest: well, the d.c. seemed to say that there would be no acts at all by some and sitting as president for which that person can be immune from prosecution. i think the court in looking at the view invited the parties to address whether there were some circumstances in which there might be immunity. host: public versus private acts, is that what it will come down to? was the president acting in a public capacity or private act? guest: public, private official, unofficial, defined official.

those are some of the questions. i think there is a lot to be said for the argument that there is no criminal immunity at all for former president. i would not be surprisedsome justices rule on that ground. that was my read on the case that i was expecting to go on my own thinking. we sought in oral arguments twists and complications. host: what were those complications for those who may want to go back and listen to the oral argument. we covered it on c-span and you can find it on our website. give your insight as to what parts or who should they be listening to. guest: that is the tough question. ng tea leaves, we all over read them. i would encourage people not to

go back and read the oral argument but just to sit back and wait. view the opinions carefully when they come down. i think there is concern about how expensive some federal criminal laws are and how open to abuse they would be. there was some discussion and oral argument about how some laws could have been deemed to apply against fdr's internment of japanese americans or against actions of drone strikes taken by barack obama. i think the court is really trying to figure out what are the sound principles here. my answer to that is, if anything goes as far as prosecutions there's something to be left to the local processes and there are not standards for deciding when immunity exists and when it doesn't. host: trent is in monroe

louisiana, independent. caller: i will bring this right back to the appeal to heaven flag. i wanted to tell our guests that the president of the ethics and public policy is to be kind to meet years ago. every once in a while i would call him and he would talk to him and ask intelligent questions and he was very helpful. you guys have been on some fascinating think tanks in bc and on your website is an article about how can we save evolution. it is about the evolution of man and i have been talking to olson about that. c-span on sunday it ran a lecture about cs lewis' abolition of man. i am using both of you guys to ask my question here and to tell

le-class americans are feeling such warmth about the appea hl to such decision -- a right now. host: speed it up i will ask because the house is ready to gavel in. caller: do you want me to wait? host: no, jusyour point. caller: it said once christianity is evicted from a society, a host of devils will rush in. do you feel like that could be a political position we need to exert. it is middle america. guest: thank you for your comment about the ethics and public policy center and about my late colleague. i appreciate that. the role and religiously guiding moral convictions in public policy is a crucially important one. those who are critical of

morally guided religious beliefs perhaps now may have more insight to what the alternative is and that may be much less favorable. we live in a societyhristian moral beliefs and wn see lots of problems in our society resulting from our straying from those. host:, scum a fille dennis, philadelphia, real quick. -- caller: i will try to be as quick as i can. but to follow up on the ohio caller, it is not just the fact that the supreme court decided to take up the case but also the fact that they waited until late april to hear the oral arguments, especially when the events in colorado took place only a month after they decided. host: comments?

guest: there was a vote in the court wanted to decide that case before then and it did expedite it. i don't think anyone here has made a strong argument there is any great advantage to rushing the decision. two months for a case like this is not a long time. host: >> advocates discussed how the overturning of roe v. wade has limited access to reproductive care at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span now or online at c-span.org. ♪ >> friday nights, watch c-span's

2024 campaign trail providing a one-stop shop for what people are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts, poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch friday night at 7:30 eastern on c-span, online or as a podcast on now or wherever you get your podcast. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your view of what's happening in washington. keep up with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from congress, the court campaigns and more at your fingertips. stay current with washington

journal and find scheduling information for c-span and c-span radio in a variety of podcasts. c-span now is available on google play in the apple store. or visit our website c-span.org/c-span now. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress. we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing unfiltered coverage, getting you to where policy is debated and decided.