♪ cspan2 his washington journal, like every dave with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, we'll talk about the impeachment process with molly reynolds, government study senior fellow in a discussion of president trump his impact on the federal judiciary was the ethics and public policy ed whelan, archie spans washington journal 57 easter was a morning enjoyed the discussion. ♪ on wednesday president trump pulled the campaign rally in monroe, louisiana. watch live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan2 online is he's been done at work or listen live with the freak cspan2 radio.

campaign 2020 watch our live coverage of the presidential candidate on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. cspan2 his campaign 2020. your unfiltered view of politics. >> we are joined by gabe roth executive director affects the court. their efforts to change transparency and understanding and the confidence in the u.s. supreme court. tell us about fixed report to begin with. we want to d fix in the part. the supreme court. >> started with the supreme court and we decided that we do have brother cores that need to be fixed. his only nonpartisan that one that asked for greater transparency primarily in the supreme court. we believe that transparency and accountability be the few different things. so the live streaming, thera hearings, the supreme court which are currently not live streameden either the video, hopefully on cspan2 at some.

anyway tenure as the supreme court, starting longer than ever so we want to believe that the last ten years, start policy change, financial disclosures of the justices to be put online and will be more open, what the duties laying their conflict of interest when there are traveling, and code of conduct. the justices the only judges in the federalists, really nationally, if you include the states don't have to follow a professional code of conduct. want to convince them to the top one. >> what led to the founding of the group. take support. >> share, workingal in dc as a political consultant like monday brother people of sutton his chair i was working on cases that would reach the supreme court on issues like healthcare or marriage or votingal and the california or texas, cspan2, that's what i was told. i could watch him live. and then i realize there's really no organization, cspan2

was to some extent but they have 27 brother things to do. an organization in the country solely dedicated and, before he started that, bruce collins, brian lamb, reservoir care, lots of people and they encourage me to start it. but my background is really in broadcast journalism. i started in chicago and was shown of the courtrooms there because i would show up with my computer and i thought that i was single organization dedicated to demystifying the up andaving an open making people realize that it's become the horse most powerful link accountable department is in existence. >> what about downstream or upstream depending on how a you look at this report, but at the federal judiciary system itself. what is your organization say needs to be done there. >> parallels, but to your., differences. hei see the broadcast issue a st ofis a ladder engagement. both urinaryge arc and the secod circuit, their linked audio

hearings at the end of the day have been able to work the cspan2 and mud move that to live audio for some cases. similarly with all the nation, confirmations there is always no matter who is president the last 20 p years, who is 70 and a hundred vacancies per image which means older and older justices are surfing. we want to be sure they would have the resources that they forget their keys on tuesday and not going to forget the fourth amendment on thursday and if they do, what if some of the cognitive health researchers that they have. not c only that where we are advocating for more transparency but also for breast practices and ensuring that the judges who are working are able to do their jobs to the best of their ability. >> our guest is gabe roth. let us stay in the broadcast,

the live streaming of arts and what is on the record of the circuit and the appeals courts and the federal system. where are the c now. >> likes to me for about a decade. the dc circuit started like streaming audio about two years no. and replace two cheese garlic, and he brought a case that cavanagh was actually sitting on and it was an abortion case about weather undocumented minors could have access to unproductive health care including abortions. there was a first case that was live streamed about the viewers years ago. live audio there. sports circuits, travel men cases, the second circuit for the trump packet cases. ande we started the course the start circuits based in philadelphia and then in chicago and doing video on a delayed basis. we are slowly moving these course of goleta of engagement.

supreme court releases audio at the end of the week for appearing, we really say the court can and should do at least a live audio if not video. >> what is the biggest agreement against airing live video. they're worried >> only about is it really, tight our long argument a lot of back-and-forth and there's a lot of jargon being thrown out. maybe they say the american people can't understand what is going on. i fundamentally disagree. i say that it would show that the justices right or cavanagh are green more often that they dealt. the was of the lift, have seenat that conversation that high level conversation, maybe not every american or criminal care, but you can do or explain with the lower levels are. second of all we would like to at least believe that one rank of our government is working well. in oral arguments show that.

each site has 30 minutes of the idea that somehow change the nature was going on in the car, is far from it. assuming it is a pretty tightly regulated 30 minutes. >> exactly. chief justicece plays a good empire when trying to get everyone to keep to their time and everyonery on the bench, isn the hot bench. yet to wait two minutes of your adjust is to ask the question the more or less following that. in the people to see and understand, and the audio ministries released on friday so much changes between monday and friday. the idea that were going to wait until friday to hear news is kind of really ridiculous. >> you joining us right as marquette university law school u releasing a full on the nationwide conference of the supreme court finding overall fairly high amount of confidence especially stacked up against the brother branches.

57 percent and a high level of trust in the judicial branch but not so much for the legislature and executive branch and in terms of parties not surprisingly the court dominated by republican 54 percent oft republicansan in the court, 34 percent democrats and independents 23 percent with a high confidence in the supreme court. how are you or your organization able to stay out of the partisan arguments of the court. >> in terms of taking hillside of where the court should be. >> solely focus on expanding access and transparency. >> we say the transparency and accountability should be nonpartisan. there's certain cases that touch on what we do right there, case a few years ago where judges should be, but soliciting her name when when they run for

office and we set the needs to be some sort of walls between the court when the judges are asked for her name and judges when they are cases so there are cases that touch on what we do in cases in the 60s and 70s of' access. there's a case in about 25 years ago, where chief of justice o'connor said probably a good idea to keep mandatory retirement edge for supreme court justices. justice stevens chet served until he was 90. refusal of conflict of interest and tenure lengths. but overall, i say that we troy to see cases undocumented immigrant children were allowed to stay. we troy to stay out of that. when the course in session, when the opinions come out, that is not our time. but all of the brother times in her cases, we want to demonstrate to the american

people. about two or three times a year, i don't have any special access, i don't really like supreme court have always tried to ask them and get them to probably do things that their little reticent to do. sometimes i make it at 5:00 a.m. with everyone else sometimes no. sometime i forgo that line and i go for the three minute line but the idea is that you have to line up days in advance for just a run-of-the-mill case. it's absurd. >> let's go to calls, will start with lynn and woodmere, new york. good morning. >> in my opinion, the fundamental things that make the supreme court a balanced institution. going into the future. one is, the need to expand the number from nine probably past 11 to 13.

this is so you can have a situation where president might even have to have the opportunity to nominate three supreme court, maybe even for justices but it wouldn't be the primary impotent to vote for president they expect him to be able to move the court. the brother, given the fact that when the constitution was written, people are leaving that long, perhaps a 26 year limit which they could be renominated for, but once every two years, just have a motion that every two years, the justice will be retired and a new one, if not renominated is going to be renominated. just depoliticize this thing entirely t because. >> alleging brother lynn, just on this first one on to.out that shared the 8 percent strongly favor increasing the number of

justices and 35 percent, follow through 3 percent are favorable strongly favor increasing the number of supreme course justices. >> 72 percent said they want in life, and tenure sprint has more proposals consistent with our proposal. i like the math of the caller. and he is also from where i'm from which is exciting. if each justice was rotated on every two years, nine times two is 18 and 18 is also a nine house terms and three senateer termss etc. so this regularize the reappointment process you have a new just as a rotating on every two years and the one rotating off every two years we do do additionally, if for some reason, there was some sort of tragedy and you had fewer justices, you could bring them out of retirement so you would always have and you wouldn't have to have a positive more than two nominees upper term so we want to regularize the process that we have the

apocalyptic shutdowns. >> honeydew any of that particular if you want to increase the number of appointees. t and not wind up like franklin roosevelt. not be deemed as entirely a political move by the president or the senate. >> his his holes actually takes the best from the lift and the best in the right. as a paper a few years ago but by the founder of the federalist society that called the right lane ring called for 18 year term limits and a few years later, the paper was co-opted by one of the liberal american constitution society. the liberal and conservative academy is run this 18 year idea. when i was growing up, he served maybe 15 to 18 years on average another soaring closer to 28 and 30. it is changed that much. in short time. so the idea that we have individuals having so much power only on further positions for so

long is completely undemocratic. in 18 year term limits would fix it. >> caldwell, idaho. >> when i am interested in gabe, california at about called proposition eight and it was overturned by say one judge but millions of people voted for that direction. then you've got three women on the supreme court and not a single one of them makes marriage as between oh man and a woman so i will never be able to figure out how these people are able to obtain a position that are supposed to be judging things. that is myy comment. >> that's a 12th question in the sense that you have a vault in california q made the same-sx marriage cannot be legal. wawas overturned. by it judges in california in the case like ultimately it was decided by the supreme court.

want to havee supreme court it is the supreme court that ultimately is deciding these fundamental questions. it is a little weird the nine people are judging our rights. they are supposed to be ineligible competition and all that. but overall, when these things happen with those of the recalls of california have all these crazy propositions and all that, it's important to have a supreme court that we can continue trusv someone honey opinion comes out we can have faith that their judgment is done that went out favor bias. >> maryland, democrat line. >> good afternoon good morning. two quick questions. clarence thomas hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign against the affordable care act. the her name certainly made his way into her household. her husband not only did not refuse himself but believed she wanted him to vote. how in the world is that no

class is thomases bought ten paid for and shouldn't he be thrown off the courtai and also tgiven kavanaugh his demonstrae lies doing his hearings to be on the court, should he be some.of the board. so the only way to remove a justice of the supreme court as you know is through impeachment and removal similar to the way the president would agree remove. currently there is no recourse or reprimand or inexcusable behaviorsco that he referred to see that i part of impeachment. right now is being debated. the democratic and republican circles. singer is this judicial chronic neck and lower judges and black coat judges can they be rebuilt of cases, ricardo to mandatory sensitivity training in the all these things getting done and there's a whole judicial process investigation is occur for misconduct investigation with

her, doesn't exist supreme court may understand your frustration but there are certain ethical lapses supreme court justices have worked clearly at the monday to be more but more needs to be done to ensure that justices are held accountable. just talking about it and realizing that the monday that the duty thomas for example we do need no brother publicly for several years after it happened. so pressings report more on this in your annual disclosures and ensuring that those disclosures are posted on line in a timely fashion is what we hear and i definitely understand yourr frustration. >> most of the time season is when they speak before a group weather as a university association or whatever in the dimes of the court generally has brought in session do you say were your organization dave that they should have to publicize the new pay for that speech etc. >> absolutely.

by and large it's happening at universities by a larger company legacy in session, enticed to a book tour or something like that but at the same time, we don't know. like there's no interning at the spring for this as supposedly like marginalized their use mechanism, thank you for ensuring that we have justice kagan says she strongly to the university of colorado, to speak there, she also go on a fancy ski trip with some donor who might care about was going on to the court next week. i feel like there's just gaps in the boarding. they are big wire to report some of them but not the amount and just that they were reimbursed for the travel food and lodging and working with both democrats and republicans on the bill that was introduced to aco that would require the justices and federal judges have the same exacting reporting standard members of congress and executive branch

officials have in terms of making a timelyls report so that few days of the trip to bayport in the exact amount so that we know trip to colorado like you mentioned maybe a couple thousand bucks about 20 or 30 an effort to troy to elicit justice. direct the course will probably be is with export their executive director. this is kurt in new jersey. that is the line. >> i gave. bear with me, i imagine and then educated but very opinionated i really enjoy this to talk about work and i see your enthusiasm in making the correct period of what would be the most important thing if you canan do right now, to straighten out the supreme m court did not have sideshows in the news, what would that be. thank you. >> this great question. that the most import right now q would be for the justices to be there right for themselves or

asked congress to help them on it. a code of conduct with the supreme court currently there is something all the code on expert the u.s. judges which has the origins bar a hundred years and almost in some some poinsettias were with the american bar association in the past into law in state supreme court is obviously the product is just basic public that certain sentences that okay, if i'm judging you know my sister is where is he someone had recused himself. i disqualify. same thing with chief justice roberts legal decoder case where the wife worked on so that is in the law. something that goes back to common law the british law etc. but the fact that there are nine justices city where the belief that they are above a professional conduct code for this very easy for them to adopt one, he would not just be, weather or notot constitutionaly

we can pull it to them this question for but symbolically, symbols are afforded right. symbolically, the justices see they are going to follow a professional code of conduct has brought weightier cases in which they up here to be a bias for. and unwilling to engage in illegal activities. very with the brick code would be a huge step in improving the integrity of the institutional might most americans. >> is one with the strips that the death of justice leah is the negative in texas misled divorce, to the opening of the seat held open during the election year 2016. the lévesque voice on that. the survey i should see. they ask people about population varies during lunch year particularly about 2016 and 73 percent of people surveyed said it was the wrong thing to do in terms of not hold the senate not holding a hearing

here. conversely asked about holding a confirmation hearing about this election year 2020 and 69 percent said the senate should boldly confirmation hearing is the vacancy happens in the supreme court. what do yous say the senate wod do. >> is theul question. i say currently this and it right to dos whatever it wants. assesses proclamations in the constitution is never really been fully defined and i, supported night sort look at it from a different perspective if you have term limits 80 year term in the justices are voting off every 18 years. you have a bunch of senior justices fight justice kennedy, good health, and at the time of the 2016 opening you also had o'connor and stevens so you have individuals to feel that nine seat he probably just fill it in reverse order of the lift. you have individuals who are also in front of supreme court justices who could fulfill that

night seat weather or not theea senate decides to hear or to quote confirmation hearings and lunch year, i say we need to take those step back and see what to do we need to know to ensure the continued success in operation of portrait can operate with a probably better with my and at the formerly soulless ensure that individuals tanner lao be in forpr good health, would be pulled back into service if there are brother future shenanigans in the senate. >> this is tony in new jersey on the independent line. >> good morning, toys wondering in kind and expanding the quart size, i guess the mayor has proposed himself about having different ways brother than senate approval to nominate or to get judges in. what are your thoughts on that. >> yesterday, the 555 plan where you have five democrats on the court and by republicans in the cart and then the tin would come

together to a point five brother justices.th i don't particularly like the plan. 'ul like the obvious of the plan to offer but that larger plan, is to see chief justice is our republican and these are democrat. we've never done that in u.s. history. . . . to fix the broken confirmation process and the problem of n-terminal tenures.

endthese folks wanted to tenures at the supreme court. you can check which candidates on the democratic side have similar proposals. i like the idea that he was thinking hard about ways to remove the politicization of the but this proposal he could make itro worse. >> we have enough justices on the supreme court already. now the democratic lying good morning. d >>caller: i recall niche mcconnell one.mitch mcconnell in 2016 saying on fox news that 2 with the garland hearings

that the republican senate would not consider a nominee not approved by the nra. i thought that was so staggerin staggering. so the question that i have significant big it was the national federation of independent businessess. so with those special interest groups that i understand the constitution of advise and consent and secondly, clarence thomas is political active along with his wife with left-wing politics. and he does not recuse himself as a donor or a speaker and an

activist. >> to my knowledge he hasn't donated to political candidates since he has been on the court but with mitch mcconnell it was that very afternoon on februar february 13, 2016 the republicans would not have a hearing and let the american people decide. we have mechanisms in place to ensure the continuing functioning of the court. we are we do have former cases one - - judges in justice souter is still hearing cases on the lower court he can ride the circuit or any other federal court in the country as long as he have permission from the chief justices and chief justice roberts. so the idea that you are done service but the

criticism is not true you can still hear cases in the lowerr court. >> and with your efforts and c-span efforts and then to read the course of the history of working with the court so what do you think it will take quick. >> it will take a generational shift. and then to have smart phones in college certain folks on the bench like justice alito who shows up and kavanaugh and were such in the younger folks and they are getting toward the majority but once justice

ginsburg or justice breyer once they leave the court but then there is a website ready to go that could do live audio. make it happen. >> and the courts have become way too political. in the same rights of the individual. and gerrymandering comes down on the wrong side we should get rid of all of that and they didn't do that either.

and with that radical idea to take the selection process men to randomly decide because who better to pick a justice than those that are already in the business with constitutional rights. >> that's not a bad idea. and with that supreme court selection process i definitely think that is it idea. meant to be on or off the bench in 18 years that's enough time but and then to have serious conversation of

tenure at the supreme court. and what we are talking about now and 2020 is a little bit more out of the open it's not tied to kavanaugh or scalia about a conversation that is in the mainstream that going on for a long time. and it's a positive for americans to think about. >> and fix the court.com thank you for being here with us this morning.

>> something and want the 2020 presidential candidates to address his violence there is a just one clear-cut answer but we have to initiate the discussion for what options are available. >> the question that i have is how do you combat the drugs and healthcare quick. >> and to fix the criminal justice system how we rehabilitate our offenders in support a positive relationship between community

and law enforcement and the mass incarceration rate. and how we are impacted by the parowan epidemic that shows that prison pipeline then those juveniles and those that are not currently protected by the us government that should be.

i hope everyone had a good lunc lunch.