have prosecutors in conservative counties begin to prosecute president biden because of the negligent homicide of soldiers in afghanistan. you could go after president obama for bombing innocent people by mistake. those become criminal. the idea that you have to have some immunity. maybe they haven't drawn those lines perfectly at. over time, new cases come up and maybe they could be better or they did it exactly right. this idea that because you don't like the opinion, we will possibly ruin our court as has happened in other countries is really the wrong approach. if you are really being honest and you are betting these justices, they are doing their best, come to the right

conclusion on what the law says, if you don't like it, let's have a public discussion about those issues and let's see if we could put more justices in the future on this approach or philosophy. that would do great damage to our country. host:>> "washington journal" continues. host: bloomberg was first with this story that the wall street journal reporter who has been imprisoned by russia is said to be freed in a major prisoner swap, along with evan gershkovich is paul whelan. a multi country prisoner swap.

more on that coming up. we will get your reaction to that news in open forum. we are continuing our conversation, joining us this morning is the executive director of fix the court. your group has advocated for reform to the supreme court. did president biden go far enough? guest: it's definitely a good start. we were pleased to see the president is on board with these reforms, 70%, 80% of the country favors an enforceable ethics code with popular policies that make sense. it's very consistent with the where the american people want to see the court. they are acting more political, less ethically. certain guardrails should be

established with more traditional background where they weren't serving for 30 years like they are now. the average is 16 years up until recently. i think anyone of us has been reading any article in the press , the ability lasted longer than that. it is a really important step for president biden to think about. host: nathan lewis is a lawyer, he writes the high term limits are a waste, alexander hamilton wrote in federalist 78 that the judiciary was the weakest of the three department. the periodical appointments could be fatal to their necessary independent -- independence. experience on the bench and with

them that term limit would quickly eradicate. guest: opponents of term limits love throwing out federalist 78. to me, what we have here is the justices are exerting political power. the idea that you would take away their independence. if you read the constitution, it is a little bit more important than the federalist papers. you have the senate, all politically elected officials confirming the justices. maybe we have a kennedy, o'connor, in the middle. if you read the founding document, of course they will be political, based on what their political views are. you will not have a republican president.

you will not have a democratic president, the random flips we have seen with stephen's, that is happenstance, that is the outlier. the court is a political body, how do you make it less political? by having turnover. host: you have proposed increased access. guest: c-span has been on top of that for years. ryan has been amazing on that. that is something i'm very excited we have live audio not just in the supreme court but every federal or of appeals on the shoulders of giants on that one. host: c-span has repeatedly asked the court to allow cameras into the courtroom to do what we

do congress, show the process unfolding, uninterrupted and no mmentary. 18 year term limit for justices, enforceable code ofthics, adopt financial disclosure rules , more openness around public appearances, what do you mean? guest: a lot of the justices are appearing and we only find out about them months or years later. just like when i worked for politicians, i would say governor asked -- x, the supreme court could do that too. justice breyer is an example. if you have justice sotomayor or

justice thomas speaking at the federal society or one of these other groups, it is important for the public to know about it. i think the supreme court police could manage that. the justices meeting with people in their chambers. this is the historical society. if you remember 18 months ago, the historical society was being used to get to influence the justices. him and the political operatives use the supreme court historical society to get close to the justices to influence them on issues of choice. i think knowing a little bit more about who the justices are speaking with, i just found an

appearance justice jackson made. i.e. mailed the supreme court about a week ago. it's important to know who they are meeting with. host: what is this incident you asked to clarify? guest: justice jackson attended a dinner with the head of the u.s. patent and trademark office. the head of the u.s. patent and trademark office is named the litigant of the supreme court. there is a picture of him with justice jackson. there's many cases where he is the lead litigant.

her personal capacity on the one hand. if you had justice sotomayor meeting with merrick garland. they might be friends even though it is a friendly event, because they are litigants, you want to be sure no gifts are being exchanged, that this is a one time thing hosted. if this is only a new thing that justice jackson and her would have met because of her position , we are all worried about harlan crow, he only became justice thomas because he was a justice. the timing is a factor. host: we will go to alan in sterling colorado, republican.

we are listening to you, question or comment? guest: a little bit of both, where does the speaker think our justices are not following the constitution? we have imbalances and the supreme court is the major balance and check for irregularity from our constitution. they need to follow the constitution regardless of whether they are republican, democrat, or independent. guest: in terms of when they are not following the constitution, that is other organizations concerns. my concern is about are they following federal ethics laws. other other federal ethics laws that could be drafted?

when someone like justice thomas or justice jackson doesn't file a disclosure accurately, there is a federal law that says they will referred that individual to the justice department for an investigation. that justice could be fined, a lawsuit is filed against them. similarly, there is a federal refusal statute that says any justice shall disqualify him self. to me, the way i read the constitution, congress establishes one court, the supreme court. congress sets its docket, it's

changed how its docket has developed. the fact that it is 100% discretionary, that is a decision congress made. how much money it gets each year, the number of justices. this is just my organization, there are other organizations that deal with the environment, marriage, health care, all of that. i'm more worried about the justices following ethical guidelines, not the courts. host: on president biden's reform proposal, the leader of the republican party had this to say on the senate floor. sen. mcconnell: the president says he wants term limit, never mind what the constant says. never mind the senate. president biden has left his

allies in the current composition of the court. they want to change the constitution. what the president is actually proposing is a process for people other than justices, again, the constitution be damned, the fact is that president biden himself stood up to investigate whether to change the supreme court. this morning the president backed the commission for the insightful analysis that supposedly informed his reform. never mind this cochaired by one of his closest political confidants didn't recommend he do anything.

guest: because of the executive order creating the commission that says don't give us recommendation. most of the commission went on record saying we want ethics reform. there are op-ed's from larry tribe, all of these people on the commission. that they were not allowed to give recommendation. to the other points, this ethics code is something that almost existed for the supreme court. after watergate there were a lot of good government rules being put into effect. also laws that would establish the ethics commission that could have investigated any unethical

behavior of the justices. unfortunately, they lobbied against their inclusion. we voted for five people, jesse helms, barry goldwater, joe biden, pat lahey. we are talking about a bipartisan bill 45-50 years ago. there should be a way to file a complaint, it is not a radical idea. it was put into place before mitch mcconnell's favor court, the ninth circuit, they said we will just take what the ninth circuit is doing. that was the way it developed. it is no more dangerous than having the senate ethics committee or house ethics committee. host: we will go to nikki,

rockaway park, new york, independent. caller: good morning, america. i wonder sometimes how did our nine supreme court justices when there are 13 judicial district? i also wonder how did any other federal judge including aileen cannon, donald trump's court master who presides over his last criminal trial was decided to be a special master over the supreme court. it just gave a current sitting president, joe biden, immunity from any criminal act including removing the supreme court today. he could be prosecuted.

guest: my organization doesn't deal directly with supreme court opinions. it should be a good steward of moral leadership. on your first point about nine justices currently, the country has expanded since they were initially created. it is not difficult for justice roberts to oversee one circuit. other justices are seeing more than one circuit. the argument has been made, america needs to have more justices. i don't necessarily buy that argument. i think that is sort of to the notion that we will be a joint democracy. i would lab -- rather our elected officials moving forward

and whatever the supreme court is. it is an interesting thing to think about. i don't think it has any bearing on the court. host: scott in lincoln, nebraska, democratic caller. caller: i disagree with you there, we need more judges to represent, maybe preferably one per state. that number would represent, have a good feeling to it is what i'm trying to say. you mentioned ethics. i'm calling in a question how competent some of these judges are. this person is not competent, whatever it comes to something else, maybe a traffic ticket. i think accepting gifts, bribes, spending that much time when you are in charge of something very

important, when you are looked up to by your peers, somebody with that much power, we need to make sure they are competent and they understand how fragile something like that is, especially when it is a handful of them. we need some more judges. that way they could monitor each other's activity. host: we will take your point. do you think there should be more justices? guest: i mean no. i think i was pretty clear earlier. if you have 50 justices on the supreme court, one per state. you have paddles of justices, that would violate the one supreme court law of the constitution. in terms of ethics and gifts, the problem we have, if bennie

thompson asks justice thomas to recuse himself in the january 6 cases, which he could have, it would only be justice thomas deciding that recusal motion. the idea that you as an individual are masters of understanding your own bias is ridiculous. this goes all the way back, no man should be a judge in his own case. that includes decisions of impartiality. i feel like the idea of having other outside officials, other justices, that would -- just like in the lower court write a report and recommend remedies for discipline for the justices should they violate their oath.

host: let's hear from kathy. caller: three points, the democrats didn't have a problem with the supreme court until the left was no longer in control. and the conservatives had a say. the only way to counter the weaponization of the justice department and to counter the executive orders is the supreme court. sandra day o'connor said years ago that sooner or later the court was going to have to address affirmative action. they have done that. one thing i think is odd is no one is talking about that decision by the supreme court.

it is off the radar. i do agree with a lot of things. thank you. guest: my organization has been around 10 years. the supreme court has had a majority of justices appointed by republican presidents since 1969. i think there have been a lot of reactionary opinion on the right that i probably don't agree with. i think some of the opinions that are more left-leaning, might not agree with some of those as well. to me, it is less about is the left or right winning but are the justices issuing opinions based on political preferences? despite the fact that kelly told you this half an hour ago, half of these opinions are unanimous.

the cases that matter, it is not like all cases re: will. no one cares about the affirmative action case anymore, it is 9-0. the justices are political because they are acting politically, they should be subject to the same ethical guardrails that politicians have. to give a quick example, hopefully there will be a companion in the senate to restrict the gifts that the lower court justices have. the loopholes are giant norma's -- ginormous. that is really what my organization is to sort of as

people are realizing the justices are political, requiring them to follow some of the same rules the political branches have to follow. host: you could find more information if you go to x >> c-span's "washington journal", our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics and public policy, from washington to across the country. friday morning, we will talk about the rising tensions in the middle east after israeli strikes on hezbollah in beirut and hamas in iran with bradley bowman of the foundation for defense of democracies. and university of texas austin's joseph first flex on the anniversary of the signing of

this civil rights act of 1964. join the conversation live at 7:00 eastern friday morning on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> friday nights, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover what candidates are saying to voters, along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated full numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics.

>> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 3:30 p.m. eastern, vanderbilt university professor joshua clinton on the rise of public polling on political issues from the 19th century to modern times. at 4:30 p.m. a july 4 celebration featuring the reading of the declaration of independence by actors portraying historical characters including abigail adams, benjamin franklin hosted by the national archives. watch historic convention speeches featuring notable remarks by presidential nominees and other political figures from the past several decades. this week, rainbow push coalition founder jesse jackson spoke at the 1988 democratic national convention in atlanta after losing the nomination to massachusetts governor michael dukakis.

watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program gue, or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more, including sparklight. >> the greatest town on earth is the place you call home. at sparklight, it's our home, too and we're all facing our greatest challenge. that's why sparklight is working around-the-clock to keep you connected. doing our part so it is a little easier to do yours. >> sparklight supports cpan as a public service, along with these television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> wall street journal reporter evan gershkovich and former u.s. marine paul whelan are now free after a