today by your television provider. >> tonight in the communicators, freedom founder and free press co-ceo jessica gonzalez on tech issues that may play a role on campaign 2020. >> with the administration is trying to do here is near the protection for content moderation so that websites can only be protected if they tried to remove content that they thought was false or perhaps racist. >> i am no fan of big tech forms. and how they abuse their workers and how they abuse the privacy rights of their users. but frankly, going after section 230 is not a right approach. to the very real problems that we are seeing with online platforms. a. >> tonight, at eight eastern on the communicators.

on "c-span2". >> your familiar with wall street journal supreme court correspondent joining us. on the opening date of the new term of the supreme court . but before we get to that, just give us an update on judge hope hicks confirmation timeline and what impacts the presence diagnoses into members of the senate judiciary committee diagnosis will have on judge amy coney barrett supreme court domination >> so far the chairman no affected all. posting ahead. the begin next week. that he is announced 40 the committee put out a fact sheet last night. claiming how any hearings they've had so far. wereey some members at a participated remotely so intentionally right now from the republican leadership is to continue moving as quicklyci as possible to attempt to confirm

judge amy coney barrett before the election. we have not heard any change there. i think we will find out if perhaps something comes up to delay the democrats on the committee. demanding that they hearings take place in person they say. and they also are saying is too dangerous to have such . but they don't have the power to enforce such . >> you talk about having the votes if multiple republican senators have to be the room for a committee confirmation for it is anything that the democrats can do to slow up this process as we move not just through the hearings but then through the committee vote before goes to the floor. >> will work requirements and the senate rules. theoretically the democrats could all walk out of median to pry the republicans of a quorum.

and they could then respond by changing the rules of the committee. which then both sides, when they had the majority to get rid of rights of the minority head. so i guess it is possible that the democrats could slow down by forcing republicans to change the rules for the forum. so the answer is, we don't know. it's kind of, republicans have the upper hand. the democrats might have some procedural moves to slowing it down. we also don't know whato is happening with the spread of this horrible disease. and whetheran members will haveo be hospitalized. so there's a lot of uncertainty now. but everything we were hearing from the republican leadership though is full steam ahead. there is no issue, nothing is more important to them than filling the vacancy left by justice ginsburg. that seems to be the message whether events allow them to

fulfill that. thus the pledge. we will see. >> how far the democrats tried to play this out in terms of the quorum requirements. how long if they use that tactic, with a delay a confirmation vote. how long would it take for lindsay and trent lindsay graham would have about them changing the rules. would there be quorum requirements on voting changing the rules. how far we have dug into that process at this point . >> there's never been an occasion for me to learn this in the judiciary committee. i know that historically the minorities had a request and require delay of one week . of a vote on a no money. has traditionally been with the minority does when they have someone they don't like these try to slow things down. such as writing your speeches and so on. in opposing for history ultimate judgment.

but i really don't know how effectively the democrats can or will play whatever bad hand they have in this dispute . sure, they're looking at the records from the 18 hundreds and elsewhere to find out what exactly can be done. it. >> in terms of what it will look like in the room next week. if and when as lindsey graham his promise, the hearings go forward and prayed what do you know at this point what new testing procedures might take place and he will be in the root and other works. it. >> so far it is not been announced so we don't know . really been of the hearings will be conducted entirely remotely. a partially . all of those things seem to be up near. if right now, there's only two members, any have tested positive for the coronavirus infection. we don't know.

certainly, once you test positive, the have to quarantine. the canopy in person. we haven't heard much from the judge. there was a report last week that she and her husband have tested positive earlier this year for coronavirus infection. but we've not heard anything from her or from her white house members of her situation. so it's all quite mysterious. haven't heard from the court. and with respect to justice ginsburg, when she laid in repose in the supreme court. in front of the supreme court. so a lot of those questions are unknown to us. but this is amidst the tragedy. we don't know. it's very fluid afraid of what i

can tell you is that the supreme court schedule but will not be disrupted. they don't fool around that kind of stuff. one observer noted that the contractor the white house, the supreme court justice work all very cautious about infection when you saw them paying respect to justice ginsburg . they all had masks and a lot of them had a face shield as well. they were socially distance from each other. they also the message that they are taking it very seriously. they have not been in person for months and months as a result of the public health guidance. closer much more branch of government that does not really deviate from schedule and method very easily. i'm . certain the supreme court will move right ahead with a cell phone hearings next week and what will happen across the street, the committee. that is very much up in the air. but the chairman said we will full steam ahead .

>> to be very glad with us this morning from the wall street journal . with about 35 more minutes. hor your phone calls and questions . and you can call in and the phone lines.8- anfolks are calling in. what happens today in the opening date of a new term. and how does the supreme court work with a bench of eight justices. >> follow if we were in theco courtroom, the black dripping over justice ginsburg seat. last time we saw that was when the justice scalia died in office in 2016. we'll see that because it's not meeting inside the courtroom. the meeting by telephone. the horses same procedure that we sawaw or heard rather in may when they conducted a reduced

speaking schedule. and got into the telephone arguments rather than in person. i suspect we will hear new voice their 31st on the order because we have a new acting marshall. for almost 20 years. in the deputy marshal, will hear a male voice for the 31st time. as they look for permanent replacement. the chief justice will make minor technical announcements. in the beginning of anyone . may say something about the loss of justice ginsburg. probably very briefly. when the court will vary move directly into argument. involving this structure of the judiciary in the state of delaware. so the court will spend a little time on the ceremonial matters but then get right to business. and then we will hear much emotion or politics in the way

of the argument it unfolding. >> will get right to business with our callers this morning: t 31st. this morning is joe and georgia. 104 every 30 day callers. eventually this morning. joe go-ahead . >> thank you john. i love cspan. i just want to say that judge amy coney barrett will be confirmed and she will become a great justice. and i want to applaud president trump. a will be reelected in a landslide. john we have leadership class who strongly favors judge comey led by a young man who will be the future president but i think she will be confirmed i think shall be a great justice. and i think president trump will be reelected and huge landslide. and i love cspan. and i think steve scalia would do a great job moderating the second debate. >> i know you talk about the

barbecue we need calling. have you got more folks signed up since calling in an advertising into . >> his great-uncle young man who i think will be president of the united states. as a reagan trump conservative. and he is just incredible and he is a great bunch of young leaders. i think five orx six of them could be president of the united states s . just want to say i le cspan. it i've been watching this great network for 30 years. and you've done a great job. and i think scully will do a great job during the second term. >> every 30 days for 30 years, he's called them . faster bill is next.er democrat good morning. >> good morning. with that last general consent. cspan. i wouldn't know what was going on the world i love cspan. >> what are your thoughts on this opening day of the new term of the supreme court . i asked

you test about exactly how it works with only eight justices. and especially if we have disputes after this election on november 3rd. really when asked your guess here, you can enlighten us a little bit by the way were all praying here in erie, pennsylvania for a speedy recovery for the president and his family. in all ofow the other people cae down with the virus . but i wanted to ask this gentleman. he could give us some insight on exactly what is happening with the general plan. because here's a man the service country for 38 years. i've been following it but i can't bite my arms around it is far as what is going on the last month. and it's called seasoning, its artists are now that word. all of this evidence is in the

general plan was not going bad it was never turned over to the court. is it going to eventually end up in the supreme court. >> jump in a general plan. >> for small, 31st question answer to, what do we do when we have eight members of the supreme court . that's great question because we don't have another number. so what happens particularly. if there were a 40 form decision. they cannot one find way to reach a majority to get five votes together. what happens is the lower court decision fence on the appeal remains in effect. so in other words, if i didn't go to the supreme court it all. mama typo than anything, then the lower coat decision stays in effect. it's any regular case or an election case. that's very important to remember . right now, any of

those cases it may be chief justice a grain with the other three liberal members of the court for you may not be but that's the main dynamic to understand. >> and regarding the general plan relyrs saturday, is efforto the justice department's effort to dismiss the charges to which he already pleaded guilty is underway. and i guess judge sullivan's courtroom. but i have not been following the district court as closely some of my colleagues. it's not it supreme court right now. maybe it will get thereno at soe point. but right now i guess we have to look and see what comes out of the district court because right now, i don't see them made a decision whether to allow the justice department to do this . statement back to the 31st part of your as a election dispute cases, do they have to go through lower courts . could

they be fast tracked 18 members of the supreme court therefore not have lower court decision full back on. >> you mean that they would be well think it's very unlikely. in any of those cases would go directly to the supreme court meant that the lower court making any findings whatsoever. you generally file in the district court. .. .. >> guest: dispute between texas and mexico over water rights, and that goes -- that starts at the supremed court. pretty much almost every other case has to start at a lower court first. >> host: to virginia beach, bill. good morning, you're on with jess bravin. >> caller: hi, i don't know you from adam, so what i'm about to say is nothing personal to you, okay? >> host: always a dangerous way to start, but go ahead.

[laughter] >> caller: okay. you're a supreme court correspondent. i have a comment to make, and i'd like your response to my comment, okay? so far i've learned from my television set in the news media that chuck schumer and the democrats in the senatemo do not think that it's okay for members on the republican side that have the virus and had to stay at home, not allowed to vote by proxy for a supreme court nominee. okay? but it's okay that the democrats, for everybody in the country even people you don't meet face to face to sign a ballot and mail it in for the u.s. president. for some reason those two rules just don't seem to click as being quite right with me. would you care to comment? thank you. >> guest: well, you know, i don't give ad vice to the senate -- advice to the senate

or to citizens on how to vote or how to conduct their business, but i will say there is something different about conductinger a confirmation hearing in the senate and voting a ballot for president or city council or anything else, and the difference is that the senators are entitled to have a hearing to ask questions of the nominee before they confirm that person and to make judgments about that person's credibility and temperament and so forth. which goes, which is something that we as ordinary citizens don't have the right to do when we are voting for president. hopefully,y, i'm sure -- [inaudible] will do us all very proud when he asks this question on our behalf. so it's a somewhat different type of proceeding, but you're right in the sense that a lot of our business has transferred to remote. just like today. i mean, unfortunately, i had my c-span "washington journal" cup

at home -- >> host: and we appreciate that. >> guest: you bet. any advertisement for you guys. but so a lot of things have transitioned to remote hearings, even including the supreme court itself, so that's a fair question. why can't they do the confirmation hearings by remote as many other things are, and the answer is they don't want to. whether that'sth purely for political reasons or because they feel that the in-person environment is essential, i mean, if you're accused of a crime, you have a right to an in-person confrontation with the people accusing you. justice scalia was a very strong advocate of that right under the bill of rights. so, you know, i don't think i can make a judgment about whether the democrats are doing this based on principle or based on politics or some combination of both. i think that pretty much everything goes on across the street from the supreme court at the capitol has a very strong political motive regardless of

who is behind it. >> host: and, jess, i have to say that mug you have is one of our older mugs. i'll get you one of our campaign 2020 mugs. >> guest: okay. >> host: you can't see it on your screen, but it's a lot bigger and holds more coffee. someco way, somehow we'll get tt to you. wewe appreciate it. >> guest: thank you, because i had to bring a resupply here since this cup is so small. >> host: you don't need a resupply on one of these. to raymond out of atlanta, democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning to you, sir. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: okay, yes. first, let me say thank you very much, you have been extremely educational in the information that you'veyo given. my question to you today is the red -- [inaudible] the beginning of the supreme court session this morning at st. louis cathedral in new orleans at 9:30 there's a red mass. could you please comment on that, please? >> guest: well, the red mass is a, is held by the catholic

church at the beginning of the supreme court term. it's at st. matthew's cathedral in washington, and the members of the supreme court andd other leaders of government are invited to it. i've attended a couple of those. this year's red mass was live streamed, so anyone could have watched it. it's been explained to us that this is a very old tradition in the catholic church, to bless judges and leaders in government and seek divine guidance and inspiration in the weighty duties that they have. sometimes, often the homilies that are spoke that i've heard there have been fairly general efforts to bring in divine help to these people who have very serious responsibilities. one year there was a very strong sort of anti-abortion/pro-life message, and justice ginsburg,

who had attended, felt that she no longer wanted to attend. she was not there to be sort of lectured about her job. she was, you know, there to listen and take part in this reliberties and spanish chul -- religious or and spiritual exercise. but other judges have generally attended. justice breyer, for one, who's jewish, has often attended. often other government officials have, and, you know, the chief justice generally has attended. but that's, but that's pretty much what it is. it's not in that -- it's no secret, it's not secret rites. i think members of the public may be able to attend if they have left over seats, and this year it was live streamed. >> host: you mentioned judicial preference. do members ofou congress -- or members of the supreme court, i should say, do the justices like working remotely? how did that work in the spring? has there been complaints about

the process and how the supreme court's handling it? >> guest: well, the supreme court has beenli under great pressure from the power brokers of c-span, those very, very powerful people, to broadcast its hearings for many years, and the court has very politely declined those invitations until now where the court is having live streams of those arguments. so the combination of a deadly global pandemic and c-span's arm-twisting has gotten the court to have a live audio feed that everyone can hear. so in that sense, you could say the court has become somewhat more transparent even though no one can go and watch the arguments anymore, at least untill this crisis is over. the arguments unfolded somewhat differently than they do in the courtroom. the courtroom, it can be a free-for-all where any justice ajumps in with a question when they have one. there are some small courtesies, generally justices with more seniority go first or can cut

off another one, but in general, it's a rather exciting rhetorical brawl that can take place. for the telephone arguments where no onela can see each oth, they just went to old-fashioned phones, the court adopted a serial sequence. in other words, the chief justice goess first, he asks questions for several minutes, and then he turns it over to the next most senior justice. in this case it's justice clarence thomas. next came justice ginsburg in seniority, now it will go to justice breyer and so forth in order of seniority down the line. and they don't interrupt each other, and they don't -- they don't have the same kind of dynamic that they did before. some people thought it was an improvement because questions could be articulated without interruption, or and the counsel, the arguing lawyers, had a chance to answer without being a interrupted except by te person asking the question. others thought that they missed the other style and there was a

bit more formal and stilted than the normal way the court operates. so one thing, the last thing we did here -- and this was significant to those who are at the court all the time -- we heard a lot more from justice thomas. at the live arguments or in-person arguments, he very rarely asked questions or said anything. but when the microphone went to him, he was very engaged and asked many questions that other justices followed up on. and so that, for us who don't get the chance to hear him ask questions and engage with the attorneys, was really exciting. the back row story just about how justice thomas was an unexpected star. >> host: jess bravin's stories available at wsj.com, on twitter, @jessbravin. this is james, independent. good morning. >> caller: yeah. i'm a first-time voter. i'd like to know do all votes

count? do they count all the votes november 3rd? because they're voting by mail, and if they do -- [inaudible] poll is out now for the president. >> guest: well -- >> host: in virginia. >> guest: well, let me say that i, certainly, i think we all certainly hope that every vote is counted for president. whether there are -- sometimes there are disputes or what they call contests after an election, particularly when it's very, very close. sometimes those end up in court. we got to see that in excruciating detail 20 years ago in florida. whether that happens this year or not remains to be seen. as the exeberts like to say -- experts loo like to say. the question, we can't know until after the election takes place on november 3rd, and we haval ballotio counts and we see if there are any problems, we know that both campaigns, the trump campaign and the biden campaign and their allies, have

legal teams that are studying up and and getting ready to deal with any issues that might arise. i think that everyone, including the supreme court itself, really, really, really hopes that judges do not have to resolve any disputes about the election. so the biggerec the margin, the less likely there's going to be any dispute the court has to adjudicate. but it'd go to the supreme court, as president trump appears to expect it could, i think that would be the 12th -- [inaudible] because justices of any philosophy or ideology, one thing they really don't like is to be seen as just another group of politicians and not jurists. they don't want to be the ones who tell you who the president is. >> host: before that possibility after o the november election, take us through the october calendar at the supreme court. what's the most high profile cases that the justices will be hearing? >> guest: interesting, there are a number ofca high profile case,

but the court somehow managed to schedule themgh all after novemr 3rd. i don't think that's really a coincidence. i that the court was doing whatever it could to be making the arguments a focus of political debate. obviously, the death of justice ginsburg sort off quashed hopes that they could keepe a lower profile during the election, the outcome of that vacancy and the possible reaction should the democrats take the majority afterwards has been a major, major, major news coppic. the actual -- topic. the actual cases we hear are interesting, but they are not, i would say, pivotal to the life of the republic. as i say today, we have a water dispute between texas and new mexico, this dispute has been going on for decades and decades. we have a case that looks at the structure of judicial appointments in the state of delaware. delaware has a rule that requires some parity between the political awe fill use of the

judges -- affiliation of the judges onn the state court and whether that's constitutional or not is at the floor of the u.s. supreme court today. we're going to hear some cases coming up that involve, gosh, we've got one about whether bankrupt motorists have to pay their parking tickets to the city of chicago to get their impounded cars back. that's one fascinating question. we have a, we have some disputes coming up, we have a big copyright dispute between google andd oracle. that may be the most consequential in terms of pocketbook issue and the stock value of those companies. supreme courty. case may or may not resolve that big money dispute. what else do we have coming up? pretty much it's lower intensity issues. but as soon as the election is over, things begin to get exciting once again.

we're going to have a big, big religion versus secular interests case where the question arises about whether these private nonprofit foster care agencies that receive t ntracts from the city of philadelphia must adhere to the city's nondiscrimination rule. the city of philadelphia requires that no discrimination against lgbt people. the cath hick social services agency -- catholic social services agency, which has been a foster care agency for decades and decades in philadelphia, says we won't place children with same-sex couples. the city said, fine, we're not going to give you a contract then. whether the catholic services had a constitutional right to exclude couples and still qualify for funding comes to the supreme court a day after the election. one week after the election there's a case about the affordable care act. anyone remember that? that was passed during president

obama'sf administration. the supreme courtac has withheld it twice against the challenges filed by conservatives. this is a challenge that says, okay, when congress reduced the penalty for not holding insurance to zero, it made the affordable care act unconstitutional because there no longer was a tax involved. i'm sureau many of your viewers remember that the court held that because there was a tax penalty, congress had the power to pass an overhaul and for people to hold insurance under its power to levy taxes. now that the tax is zero, is it still constitutional, is the question that's coming up a week after the election. so there are important things in the offing, but the court has tried to push them all off until after the election and folk on parking ticket -- focus on parking tickets. just just about ten minutes left with jess bravin, "the wall street journal" with. your questions on this opening day of what is known as the 2021

term of the supreme court. >> guest: october term 2020. >> host: it's officially known as the october term of 020. when is it known at the 2021 term? is the timing a little bit different? >> guest: well, in thete olden days there were different terms for different parts of the year. they would start with the name of the month that the term began. they had different themes, if you will, because the justices had to travel across the country, there were different seasons and sessions. but now by statute the court begins on the first monday in october, also the name of a somewhat dated play and movie about the first woman justice that was written in the 1970s. and it's known as the october term of the year that it begins. soow we just are going to be wrapping up -- [audio difficulty] and again today, october 2020 is the target of the supreme court. other people would say, you know, more casually say it's the

2020-2021 term. but if you said the 2021 term, people in the very small world of the supreme court would think you're talking about next term. >> host: and that's why we have you, jess bravin, on this opening day -- >> guest: showing off. [laughter] >> host: no, appreciate the facts as we do it. new day and new term, this is a mark in new york, a democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i had a couple questions. one is there's all this talk abouted aing additional supreme court justices -- adding additional supreme court justices. does the congress have the ability to change the ruling from four justices to hear a case to eight? and the second question is, are the congress -- i mean, justices heard or talked about term limitations? thank you. >> guest: well, one thing we know that congress can do is that it can set the size of the supreme court. the court was established in the

18th century. it had six members, and the number of members have changed. congress has changed it from time to time up through the 1860s. since then it's been at nine members. congresst could change the numr of supreme court justices again if iter wishes to, and that woud require, just like any other law, a majority in each house and a president's signature. so that's how, the size of the court. the congress also has the power to set the jurisdiction of the supreme court, and what that is exactly is not -- the outer limits have not been fully defined. we haven't seen the congress take away issues and say the supreme court is not allowed to hear one kind of case or another kind of case, and the supreme court might have to decide whether congress can take away some of its powers. can congress decide how many justices are required to put a case on the docket? right now under supreme court rules, as mark points out, you

need four justices to put a case on the docket. of course, you need five to have a majority opinion or at least a majority of those who are participating in the case have to vote for one side or the other. could the congress say, oh, you cannot hear a case unless eight justicess agree? my immediate answer is i don't know. i've never heard them, heard of the congress trying to intervene inside the internal rules of the supreme to -- of the supreme court to that degree. byr that matter, could the congress say the court must have a unanimous opinion in order for a decision to take effect? ti think that the court would , there would be what they call separation of powers issues. in other words, can the congress encroach on the internal workings of the supreme court to that degree over the objection of the court itself? we have not seen that type of issue arise, so the answer is i don't know. i think it's unlikely though that that kind of proposal

getting into the internal machinery of the supreme court would catch the attention of congress. i thinko much more likely would be some discussion about whether nine is the right number of justices shouldh judge barrett e confirmed under the circumstances we've seen over the last several years. regarding term limits, again, an unusual issue has a arisen, can the supreme court's terms be limited, the members, say, to 18 years. the constitution says that the justices serve during good behavior which is interpreted as for life. could congress say, well, you keep your salary, you just can't be making decisions of supreme court cases after 18 years, again, i don't know. it's never come up before. the supreme court itself would probably have to decide whether that is constitutional. i suspect that the justices would believe amending the constitution is the proper way to address the terms of federal judges. when this type of sort of --

whether this type of sort of super clever effort to get around a constitutional amendment would pass muster? that we don't know. >> host: to port townsend, washington. this is david, a democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. hi, jess. so the question i'd ask is, has to do with textualism. i believe, and originalism. and there may be one other one. so what does that mean, and are there two or three, and which justices would a liberal use either of those terms or the other term, i can't remember? if you could give a definition of those. and then how -- so a liberal would be textualism or would be originalism. and how do they come to that? is that the school they go to? their law school? how do they -- do they choose that at some time on how how they actually interpret the law?

>> guest: thises a -- this is a really good question, and it affects sort of the approaches that different judges and justices take when they have to interpret a provision of the constitution or a statute passed by congress or a legislature. one thing that i've sort of noticed is that there are no, there are very few extreme cases where a judge uses only one pipe and none ever -- approach and none other than that. really it is a matter of degree. s there is no member of the supreme court who'd say the original public meaning, if you will, of the constitution is irrelevant. none of them would say that. and none of them would say that the point of the law is totally irrelevant to my decision. you won't see that. it really tends to be a matter of degrees, what they give the most weightwo to. some justices, let's say, let's talk about what is called originalism. originalism famously championed by the late justice scalia and

judge barrett says she is a follower of this approach says the paramount question when interpreting the constitution is what it meant when it was adopted. so what did cruel and unusual punishment mean in the 1780s and '90s when that provision began, was added to the constitution. what did it mean then. so, in other words, if they felt that it was not cruel and unusual to tar and feather somebody or whip them in 1790, then it's probably a bad idea to do it today, but it's not banned by the constitution. that would be the example of an originalist approach to the eighth amendment's cruel and unusualhe punishment. others say, you know, the founders used sometimes very specific terms, you have to be 35 years old to be president, and times they used much broader terms that are not so easily

defined such as cruel and unusual, what does that mean. and in 1958 there was an opinion by chief justice warren that the meaning of those very broad terms is not static, but it is defined by the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society and, therefore, what was considered cruel and unusual in the 18th century wouldn't really pass muster today because we all would think that whipping somebody would be, in public, would be cruel and unusual. so that's an example of, i would say, an originalist versus what you might call an evolving or living constitution approach to interpreting it. so that's originalism. textualism is related but not exactly the same, it means looking at the words of, say, a statute rather than thet legislative history. in other words, what did the congress pass, and we're going to give life to those words with.

what they intended to do by passing it, well, who knows, because there are hundreds of lawmakers, and who knows what each of them had in their minds, so we can't really look to their purpose.th i think every justice will begin by looking at the text of a statute. the liberal justice, elena kagan, said we're all textualists now in a remark showing that the lib calls -- liberals have adopted this approach as well. but what if you have text that doesn't make any sense or seems to be at odds with everything else going on in the statute? how do you figure that out? people who might be called positive, a word -- [inaudible] look to the purpose of the statute, and they try to construe the words to achieve the purpose that the legislators intended. that would be how they describe. textualists say, no, we don't figure out what was intended, we -- [inaudible] so those are some of the examples. you can always find counter-examples. there are, of course, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of

court decisions, and if you want to see one justice or another seems to bend kind of cheating a little bit, using somebody else's approach, that would not shock me. because sometimes you find people who adhere to these philosophies at odds with each other. here's one example, last term we saw a case which expanded the civil rights protections of 1954 to lgbt employees. on one side you saw justice gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion, on the other side you saw justice thomas who is known as a great original and textualist as is justice gorsuch. so who's right? they both said they were using the same method, they got opposite results, and they both thought the other one was doing it wrong. >> host: time for one last call with jess bravin of "the wall street journal." this is scott in new york, independent. good morning. >> caller: hey, good morning. god bless the human race. but i got a two-part here.

number one, the scientists need to figure out if somebody's already had the coronavirus gets around a super spread, if that person couldn't catch and spread the germ as a super spreader herself. the point being last saturday i watched -- [inaudible] while we're nominating a supreme court judge onto the courts. youa had no social distancing, you had a group over 20, and you had no masks. coney barrett didn't even have her little adopted son in the front row. he wasn't wearing a mask. how is it we can have a judge who does not want to abide by the laws of the land? god bless the human race in this small, tiny world. everybody get out there and vote, talk to you next month. thank you. god bless us. >> host: jess bravin, give youho the final minute or so here. >> guest: as we said, the supreme court is taking very seriously public health guidance by having are closed its

building to the public. they're holding hearings by telephone, again, seeking social distancing. they maintain -- the ceremony for justice ginsburg last month. so they are taking it seriously, and i'm sure all of us take very, very seriously public health guidancery to reduce and asop the spread of this horrible disease. >> host: jess bravin, supreme court: correspondent for "the wall street journal", thanks so much. always do learn quite a bit when you come on. thanks for coming. >> guest: thanks, john. mug. forget my [laughter] >> host: i will not forget your mug. i'll get that to you. >> c-span's "washington journal," every day we're taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day, and we'll discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, editor jessica taylor discusses key senate races ahead of november's election. then author and vice presidential scholar joel goldstein previews wednesday

night's vice presidential debate. watch c-span's "washington journal" live at seven eastern tuesday morning. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. ♪ ♪ >> watch live coverage of the senate confirmation hearings for judge amy coney barrett starting monday, october 12th, with opening statements by judiciary committee members and judge barrett. live coverage on c-span and c-span.org. listen live on the c-span radio app and be sure to visit c-span.org to see a playlist of amy coney barrett's legal views. ♪ ♪ >> you're watching c-span2, your unfiltered view of government. created by america's cable television companies as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. ♪ ♪

>> we take you live now to boston for a massachusetts senate debate between ini couple bent democrat ed markey and republican challenger kevin o'connor. this debate is sponsored gbh news. ..

massachusetts u.s. senate debate - next

massachusetts u.s. senate debate - next. today pennsylvania editor announced he is retiring