a few minutes on c-span's of he beg spendland security, the state depart operations. on c-span2 at pro andgrams isr the ore radio we are funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> when connection is needed most cox is bringing affordable internet to families in need, boys and girls club and support to better wheneverit matters most we will be there. >> coports c-span as public service along with these other a front-row seat to.. >> no problem how are youthis morning? >> how about yourself? >> great looking toward to an horrible supreme court decisions i can imagine coming up. >> why do you think it's always at the end when this happens?>> well,

there are two reasons. one is procedural, right the cases that are most important most -- that are most contentious are the cases that take to mos you to write it, you have to have a decent, you have to are the more contentious cases they end up at the end of the procedural overhaul of t the situation, issue though, and we are seeing clearly thier that the court is also kind of aware of its political standing of where -- there are politicalti aware of the political calendar and when you have things of case and the january 6th terrorist cases and whether or not they can be told the end because quite frankly ite hel the terrorists and donald trump to have the cases at the helps him in the trump case specifically delay his trial reckoning until after thes opposed to before and that's really why the timeline has worked out this wayear. >> as far as the immunity case is concerned remind our viewers courts can go on this? >> yeah, sour let's -- roll the december 11th when jack smith asked the supreme court answer this question

whether or not donald trump is absolutely immune from a that's trump's argument that hihe's absolutely immune from anything and t argument both on constitutional and moral level jack smith asked the hat on december 11th the supreme court did it, weighted and dc circuit that donald trump is not immune from anything, that would be stupid i think but supreme court didn't just affirm the dc circuit, they had another april 28th, i believe, and then since thatpril 28th we have been wait to go issue a final ruling. now while theti that ridiculous for a president to be absolutely immune for the right answer, there are a couple of ways trump out.ng one, most result here pedro, the leader in the club house, if you will, is that the to reman the case back to thehe district court and say something like, well, trumptlike he's arguing because again that's just dump but perhaps some places, who can help, we don't know, it's up to the t ' a way that they didn't decide it

already. that, that's a reman that w delay the trial because judge make another ruling, appeal tol circuit and appeal to the supreme court and maybe if we are year this time two years from now, theactually tell us whether or not donald trump can be brought to that's the ultimatetrl delay tactic, obviously they d, i don't think they will but they could just say 6-3icans versus democrats that trump is immune from everything but of course if that will supply to both democratic and dent and i don't think they want democraticesidents immune forever and that doesn't help them out. i don't think they are going to do that and o there's the third and most rational option which would be to say that, of c not immune prosecution because the president is not above the a country of laws that's what the dc circuit said that'she theswer but i will have little

confidence confidence that the supreme court will reach thee right answer >> parallel to that, the january 6th obstructingecifically what are those about and could that relate to the former president as yeah, this is actually the more interesting case legally immunity iss just bad and his -- to win that is truly just based on politics. the january 6 little more interesting. the january 6th who attacked the cap charged, obstruction ofwhich they are charged was aft debacle. enron, bad thing. we are trying to figure out how to hold the guys accountable obstruction of proceeding is inserted in that law as af the things of financial crisis, financial criminals tend to be

worked their ways around statutory prohibitions, so the proceeding is put in to that law as a catch-all provision to kind stop all other crimes that congress hadn't thought of at that point well the catch-all provision to apply it to the january 6th terrorist the law for things that congress at that pody was going to attack the capitol and defecate and tried to hang mike pence. you can't use the law against us when we dct of violence but the law that was essentially aboutal crimes application of the law as applied to us. now, i think that's a not a republican. there ahat oral arguments there are some republicanrd judges who obviously they want to help january 6th so they are thinking this might be ap ay out and quite frankly there are some liberal judges that you know, you could the idea here that they were also a little bit worried prosecutors having this ability

to kind of use laws from other parts of the code and applyew situations, right, so i could definitely see c not just -- i can see the case coming out 8 to 1. the question becomes not the if the january 6th terrorists are relieved of their obstruction of congress charge, whether or not that -- how that case. now jack smith has charges not just obstruction of congress and proceedings the elector scheme, for instance, obstruction charges but you never know and so you could be where the court declares trump immune something and then the next day declares him you know, dher statute prosecute him on -- that you can't use it him a full get out of jail free most politically aggressive thing the courts would do. it's

.. .. .you are on with our line, democrat, good morning. caller:g and hi, i think i think what you've done is a good job of setting the stage how far the supreme court has gone outside and bitty typetape of judicial norms. as anybody rational would them. and i kno in a 1970s going to act like. and the d following along. might question if you were in position what would you do for the supreme court we some of the historical things you would utilize court? and at looking no shame, what would you do if you really wanted to take it to them and try to set the judicial

system over all on the correct course that's the country? lexmark met the perfect setareer and book. i was to theanswer here is court expansion. the constitutionally of handling an unelected unaccountable supreme court isthe people's court expansion is been used by jon adams, thomasefw jackson abraham lincoln johnson and quite effectively fdr put with think of the court packing you failed. remember what happened fdr was in front of aea conservative court he expand. failed court expansion elective fail like fdrailed. for some people cling to some externally partisan. well it is about r court. if you read my plan 28 more justices and i am

willing to char them with a republican 11 -- night not 10 -- 10 because it of m was trashed and needs to be stopped. but if you give extra judges and justices but them nine that would maintain a conservative majority on the i can live 15 -- 14 with a conservativeourt. my idea is that more judges who are more committed to democracy less committed to whatever flags their wives are flying is what is necessary for the country but you give me 20 judges the supreme court should have less power and now we're cooking giveme appointed and they should status as every other federal judge i gas. a whole bunch of supreme court performance you can get through if you have judges to that point willing to agree to ethics performs an court packing is the a tip of that love the court with more judges were more committed to americanhan

they the currently of conservatives in the majority a while. ask erin is up next and virginia democrats >> good he is my 30 day call to speak with this gentleman. in a time it is evident it up us versus live in a country of laws it is against the law togainst theay law to for abuse and i'm not sure if it's against lot to pay offring star but we live in a country of laws but they seem to not apply to certain people are not specific people talk about donald trump. supreme court it has become evident supreme court wife to life like upside down by the honor of the rights of women to make decisions for their bodies. the supreme court said they wouldthey'renot logan's precedent but they had. what makes you them that not a pr immune there is a divideup president

trump is immune to anything he are going to go the powers of that community. oks like that's a situation where and in this country. we are clearly divided as we should be i believe the left is galvanized against donald trump.nk we are with this whole divided supremede court? d forward with making changes. >> a better point thank yuest: first of all i do not think the supreme court hasonsistency. i do think they are perfectlype capable of saying donald trump is immune the only reason i do not think they'll say t because democratic president happens to be the one in power now. that hurts them right now to say that intellectuals not this report has been i've already talked about court extent expansion is one way to court. to bring them to heal.

there are othal powers the branches could used to bring these people in funding. funding mechanism for the supreme court. the constitutionay t by the constitution does notot say and will give them a nic building. the constitution perspective t c can hold their hearing and a park for all the constitutionares congress gives them money for the nice building. it is a congres cleaning on the roads and it is congress back and take ity. one other reform idea is for congress to cut their funding untime court agrees to submit to ethics rules getting funding from harlan crow that's another solution take. altogether there are lots of things the political the political branches won't do those things until they think dope votersdon't voters care enoupreme court to vote them oute of

office based on the supreme court reform that is not what is happening on if you will come at but republicans on their side of they aisleave enjoyed for years for pretty much my entirey gain of voters motivedhe supreme court they decide. donald trump down the escalator mascara. and here's my supreme court list it is completely standard and normalt i am paint normal and nowonald trump.e brought to heel on the supreme courtbe because republican voters demandednd it. democrat our candidates are strong on the supreme court and that in short form as are the republicans have won the supreme court and why they are now in control for there is of democratically appointed judges on the supreme court since 1969.bout

this h effort among some republicans to take the decision comes to the hush money casing is a former president directly to intervention one making is the florida republican byron donald i want to play a little bit about what he had to say about it get your thoughts on >> the original indictment they nevere identified an underlying crime. under our bill of rights under ourand ourlieu of all entitled to note he's been charged with. donald trump wasbility. how can the legal team prepare an offense to be done with the actual crime is? look in the prosecution can assert a crimethe case in closing arguments. we are not allowed d toge knows this this is what everybody believes is going to be overturned o . if it'seal we accept that verdict?>> understand what i'm trying to explain to you. this is been done for political knows of the court system worksudible] >> it can be overturned isoing to be happening two or three

years from now part we all know this. this is what hpenedn lower manhattan was to interfere with an election but that's why speaker johnsonspeaker johnson myself included and many americans believe the supreme court should step into this >> how some of his concerns aren't legal issues concerning the when you make of the argument? >> very bad. says not with donald trump wason charged with a been in new is lying. given views on jim cro may think is bad for them to tell people he knows how to read. read he could've read the trump was charged with he was charged with falsifying business records for campaign finance fraud.ords is record is a crime. for the purpose a felony, that's what trump is charged with but that what trump was convicted with the by a jury of his peers. the issue without the supreme court is to weigh inoming from republicans who comment every other e might have about federal said like to tell me about states rights. that's what byron donald would

laws and the defendant. all of a t sudden you don't lik what happened the new york state defendant and overrule in any other sit happen. to have the. they i w want one several for donald and one set of rules for everybody else. giving history and position comfortable with one set of rules for rich whiteet people and went several for everyone that is not the country i wan way. anam example of what republicans usually say happen. >> joining us for this conversation. built in ohio the and ohio the republican line your next >> caller: thank you for taking my call.

you are talk about supreme court funding. were you against the ruling with the consumer protection agencyy d en not need to get their funding through congress? with alito and thomas are you saying they should control their better? >> no, no, no i said they should people's wives. you cannot understand the differ is going to fly a flag supporting the if you cannot tell the difference between allowing that to happen versus telling limit they are forced to bring a pregnancy to term a free. ifyou cannot tell that difference i do not knowow to help you sir. now in terms of t a pretty good decision. if you read theirng i thought that was accurate. there split r between the conservative reasoning and that liberal reason conservative thomas did his usual thing. use the ouija board and find a letter from thomasrson

through that in that that liberal version coming to the same conclusion back to 1787 to find that because history and tradition of congress executive agencies is so clear course congress can fund the cfpb and the way that it did. am not saying every single case in the supreme court decides is wrong. every single case the supreme court decides that i disagree with is it is corrupt that's based on reporting at this i am saying they are extremist. i am say they hold a power nobody elected them to hold yet they hold it over us over the political bill of the people. that should and m stopped. ethics some democrats on the capitol tried to do that by various to what degree is their there separation of p body doesn't tell the other how to do its job? le say was a huge separation of powers issue. the onlyra that can punish

the supreme court is the supremeoberts position. i believe john roberts is wrong on the face of the constitution. which says again article three supremee court it's very it saysrce there will be a supreme court congress will set up that congress will decide what that court can do. the supreme court and so that is white why we cannot have term limits as the legislative manner. someough seniorhr status or some kind of it says nothing about how they are powers devolved to congress congress to use its powers as opposed to dead every time the supreme court stomps around and takes away rights. >> other cases to be considered. emergency abortions being one of those. social media cases several homelessness law and federal agency power. what is the latest one concerning emergency abortion? >> it is in idahod in the wake of

dobbs and revocation of roe v women cannot receive medical care a resulted in abortion. how we determined have you ever try to call your insurance company and tried to explain to why you need a procedure or why you need a drug you know that is difficult. now imagine trying to explain to being counter that you are so sick you need an abortion in the state that does not abortion. what is been happening in idaho sick. since thatr this spring, six women be airlifted out of idaho into other states to receive medical they could not receive in idaho. there law of some goods into the them. law. you in danger of dying.

idaho said no we don't't have too. there's ataho's law and the federal law the supreme court is we are n that. i think icans are christian conservatives on the supreme court will once again side with and let women dive. that is what the right wing has done to be comfortable with. the ideaen should die untill republicans believed in terms of abortion. independent >> the democrat dropped the against ginsburg de before she passed away. but mcconnell not allowing president obama@v pick. can you explain to me on the supreme court why are that? these federal judges have a lot

ourts. could you please explain to her please? thank you. >> if i can explain why the democrats i would not have a job. e i offer his two to they the punish republican candidates i republican primaries is weak on the supreme court d primaries do not punish re weak on the supreme court democrats are responding to that voter it's theoretical. it's sensibility as liberals like to about powers of the people it's all about the vote if you will a messiahex. brahma will fix everything he is joe

biden everything's going to be mentality. not as on structural issues. it is the liberal who shows up to vote every four years. but not every two years. not every year. and so we look drop in a liberal turn out it was the two years aftered 2010 and 2014 the turnout went o cliff. what happened when turnout went off the cliff? mitch mcconnell accrued a power in the senate press democrat that showed upnn in 2014 and kept mitch mcconnell her right in the senate then in 2016 obama would've been able to name his mcconnell had all the that structural problem of ote not just every four years but at police every two year and really every year to get them focus on the supreme as the thing that matters.at is within successfully sold to the voters republicans say i would love to do something about

abortion but the supreme court court. we've go gun. republicans made one -- one for their voters all of the time. democrats even now even in the wake of roe v wade. th losing abortion rights what did the democrat say? we're were going to pass a national abortion light rights lauper that's will overturn before breakfast.e reproductiveve rights if you do not control the supreme going to have gun regulations if you do not control the supreme court. you are not going havens if you do not control the supreme court. in is not a connection democrat leaders make is not a connection have and so we side loses. >> from georgia republican line roy is up l next. >> yes i must truly commend your guest for hiscoesty when he sa h hould not have a job i truly believe tha but there are three things -- for things i wanted to address charlottesville why did biden lie about why he ran

for president? he did not speak the whole statement trump said. money $17 million paid by congress for hush money to different staffs. the election, intelligence officer lied about hunter biden why aren't they being brought up on charges? thing about the generate six inmate really want to say this democrats and this election several congressmen and was to -- have the democrats challenge every elect >> hold on hold on hold on let me finish let him finish in the will get your response. >> what i am trying to say there were several and a senator, said recruits five states to change the rules. so it happened is that washington knew that challenge was going to be legitimate. they could not allow that to goug

they started the whole january 6 thing and they were ve successful because the child shouldt nrection that they started. >> oh m not melt steel what happened on 911 question of what is that man talking about. i do not know the democrats did not start the generate six terrorist insurrection at the capitol. noain election procedures but they have not tried to overthrow election. no did the democrats i've never put forth electors to try to combat a slate of real electors. no the democrats have never tried to hang the vice president for his refusal to abandon the constitution ceremonial duties. to certify certified the votes. i don't know what else to say to that. all of that, all of what that is wrong. is, pedro what they believe. they're not going to listen to me. you're not he listen to whatever he is listening to rot

you cannot reach those people. say for people annoyed by that man is i am got to remember when you are trying to figure if you're going to go out and you are going to participate in the process. friends, your colleagues and your family to care about the process. that is the guy you are fighting right the only way to fight him is by november. stu won thr you break this down quickly with the court faces when it comes the specific >> guest: excellent question i don't know. honestly i doating for mee too listen to an oral argument and notw but the court is going to do. they are complicated issues about the first amendment when it comes to social media caseslic foofficials. on the one hand we have a very strong first a protections. saying that you can say whateverctions are strongest when you're talking to publicn one of the biggest things about america as i go up to my mare or congressmen o

president, i can yell at that person peacefully. but i can scream at them because them on facebook and twitter customer complaint block me on twitter are public official are they diminishing might my first amendmentg throw a hissy fit? i don't know it's a really good question on the other hand if you are a public official is there any space for you to be in social media in your privatepa you are a public official you got your public whatever you also have the of your dog up are those two things now the same questo your dog are you violating the first be local are about and honestly, pedro, i do not note thes going to decide the fact is taken this long for them to them to decide it's going to you might thinkin there's going to be a lot of concurrences in aor them kind of excited to see what they say. intentskly when theret is one if i'm correctly republican attorneys general of missoi in louisiana says they complaint

online platform such as facebk suppress their views about vaccines and lockdowns. sore from the wall said lower courts largely sided with the plaintiffs in the by the administration required to to government coercion.g question as i dislike disinformation and misinformation and all of that the question is wetho g decide what's misinformation disinformation is? is it twitter? is it elon it must've to get to decide what's real and not reai don't know if i want to live in that world either. the social media cases like i think the used to be able to so disinformation odious i am not gets to decide what is odious. clearly it cannot be this government. it's a relatively clear the government cannot play that is odious, that's not that's open get a publish that is not that's the proper function of the government. but i the proper function ofd to see with the supreme court does with these

cases. stu wentbarbara is democrats line >> caller: hello. i just want to put out a t have. i think the supreme court should that say there's nine right now that should be three democrats tbl independents at all times and i do not i what the president someone that passes away if it's a democrat than a democrat goes in that spot i think that will help immensely. >> that is very sim moody judge plan he was a proponent of 555. five liberal independents are two critical problems with the plan. defining who is especially when we deal with people. people might think that a justice like anthony kennedy independent because he tended to be a swing voter. sometimes he was liberal

sometimes conservative. anthony kennedy was an extremist. mist for the first amendment and his extreme views on the first amendment meant that he would decide who would win. sometimes he would side with ate rights like in citizens united. do independent or do we call him an extremist conservative on certain issues? similarly for the breyer. liberal, you could call him, but real independent type when it rights rights and against labor so is he a liberal justice or centrist?n determining who thesee are is a real challenge and that'sy i think pigeonhole these people into partisan boxes but to flood the zone with more of these people and

narrower. to limit the power what they are allowed to support in the first place. shouldn't it be a final arbiter that's a possibility. the supreme courtl overturn but you can write the law and to review such a law. thereions democratic options to cut the h supreme court and i think those are more likelynta on the republican line, go >> it seems he believes democracy only when the outcome rules in his favor. he is an emotional individual when it isn't in his favor so it he

picks and chooses whatmocracy is working and isn't based on his beliefs. >> can you give you anle like what's youre? >> he's gone, sorry about that. >> i think democracy -- i don't always like the outco i more democracy. in the next term a tendency law looking at gender transition. the current conservatives on the supreme court are on revenge tour so all the things over the they are in the process ofing so

you've already destroyed women's rights abortion workers rights. a trans people are next. >> serving as th correspondent.