"grant's last battle." he talks about his book which recounts grant's life post-presidency including his financial ruin at the hands of inscrupulous business partners, his throat cancer, and his decision to write his memoirs to support his family. this talk kicks off a night of programs from the group's spring program. watch american history tv tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern and every weekend on c-span3. and a very good thursday morning to you. you can go ahead and start calling in now with your view of the u.s. supreme court. a poll on this topic from last fall, before the death of justice ruth bader ginsburg, finding 56% of americans viewed the supreme court as middle of the road back in the fall rather than too liberal or conservative. republicans were more likely than democrats to say the court is middle of the road.

nearly half of democrats, 47%, say the court was too conservative compared with just 12% of republicans. that's the pew research poll. we'll go through that poll a little bit more throughout this segment. we mostly want to hear from you think morning. if you think the phone is too conservative, 202-478-8000. too liberal, 202-478-8001. about right, 202-478-8002. for a look at some of the high profile cases left in this term we turn to kimberly robertson, supreme court reporter at bloomberg joining via zoom this morning. good morning. which of these cases left are going to get the most attention from court watchers here in the last couple of weeks in the term? >> what most people are waiting on is the case on the affordable care act also known as obamacare. this is like the seventh time the supreme court is considering

this landmark piece of legislation. but this is one that could take down the entire act, and in particular red states are challenging the obamacare by saying that changes that republicans made in 2017 and 2018 when they were in charge of congress actually undermined the supreme court's rationale for upholding the affordable care act way back in 2012 and so they say those changes mean that not just the changes that congress made but the entire affordable care act must fall. so that's one that we heard back in november and we're waiting for that one sometime in the coming weeks. >> when you see in the coming weeks, will that be one of those that's likely to come out on the final day of the supreme court term? >> it is, we usually see the consequential and controversial cases come out the last week of the supreme court term which is usually the last week in june. so that's something that i'm going to be waiting to see. of course this was argued back in november, so this is something that could come out really any day now, although i think, as you are hinted, it's

probably more likely closer to july. >> we've seen in the past the supreme court adding days. can they get through 22 cases in the days they have left for decisions to come down? >> yes. it sounds like a lot, it is a lot, it means we'll get multiple days where we have several opinions handed down. but this is really the only thing the supreme court is doing now. so during the earlier months the supreme court was also hearing oral argument. it takes a long time for the justices to get up to speed to hear the cases. now they're focused 100% on getting out these opinions. they've all got summer gigs to get to so they find a way to get there by the end of june. >> that affordable care act case, california v. texas is the title in that case. take us through the voting rights case, brnovich v. democratic national committee. >> this is one of those cases flying under the radar because it really challenges two provisions out of arizona that

aren't in a lot of other states. some of them are. in the case is going to be more important beyond those two provisions and where the supreme court lands on those. and in part that's going to be because the reasoning that the supreme court comes up with is going to apply to almost all voting rights challenges going forward. i think it's really important to have some background on this case. it goes back to the supreme court's shelby county decision where they struck down one of the major provisions of the voting rights act, section v, which required that states which have a history of discrimination get any changes to their voting rights laws approved in advance. now that's no longer the position, people are stuck doing it after they go into effect. so what the supreme court says, how it says that courts should look at these issues, is going to be really important outside

of arizona and really across the nation. >> and just two other cases to touch on this morning, although as we said, 22 yet to be decided. fulton v. philadelphia and ncaa v. alston. >> sure, the first one you mentioned is part of a long line of cases where the supreme court is really trying to balance antidiscrimination laws that are meant to protect lgbt citizens with the first amendment right to practice your religion freely. it's a subject that the supreme court has really been trying to engage and trying to find that right balance. and, you know, this is one of those cases that's really sympathetic to the religious issue here, and that's because it has to do with philadelphia's foster care system and catholic social services. catholic social services has actually been involved in the foster care program for longer than the city itself. yet the city has said it can no longer participate in most of the foster care system because it has said that it will not place foster care children with

same-sex couples. that's a really tough case for the justices, that's one that i do expect to be handed down the last week of the supreme court term even though it too was argued in november. >> and that ncaa one? >> that is kind of a fun one for the court. a whole bunch of sports fans on the supreme court. so they had a lot of fun with puns during this one. at issue is a serious issue of whether student athletes can be paid, particularly given that a lot of schools get a lot of money off of these programs with football and basketball. that's an antitrust case that the supreme court will figure out how far schools can go in compensating these individuals, or if they can compensate them at all. >> after the case dust settles, the two terms that come up with retirement watch and the docket next term. >> all eyes will be on justin

stephen breyer. supreme court justices can announce their retirement whenever they want, but traditionally it's at the end of a term, once the supreme court has handed down all their opinions. that makes sense, it gives the supreme court and the president time to nominate somebody, the senate time to confirm someone, before the justices pick up back in october. had they pick it back up in october, it will be a big term. we've got cases that the supreme court has been putting off for a long time, cases on gun rights, on abortion. that's so far what they have on the docket. they still have quite a bit more that they can add, including affirmative action which the justices will consider whether to take up today. >> bloomberg law reporter kimberly robinson, thanks so much for your time. >> thanks for having me. >> now to your phone calls, asking for your view of the u.s. supreme court, do you think it's too conservative, too liberal,

do you think it's about right? we have phone lines for each of those answers. alan thinks it's too conservative, out of brooklyn, good morning, you're up first. >> caller: good morning, that's very much. my reason has to do more with process than results. in a democracy that is the way we keep a democracy, by getting the results in legislation or in the courts, through a fair process. and what we have now is a court that was created largely by unfair processes, going back quite a while. most recently, we had a president who very likely could have been indicted but for a rule the justice department had hanging over from the 1970s, that a sitting president can't be indicted. and this president, who was possibly indictable for collusion with a foreign power, picked three members of our court. if he is ultimately found to have been truly guilty of any of the crimes he now could be

indicted for out of office, i would say that all three of his nominees should be considered poisoned fruit of a poisoned tree. they should be excludable from office and should be given the chance to step down. otherwise if there were a way of compelling a removal after trump were found guilty of any crime, that should happen. several of the justices that were appointed by george w. bush are also suspect because the bush presidency, bush 2, began with a very questionable decision in bush v. gore that overturned the vote count process in florida in 2000. and but for that very strange decision, bush 2 would not have had the chance to appoint roberts and alito. >> alan, how do you feel about the chance that chief justice roberts has done leading the court since way back in 2005? >> i think he's acting like a

little bit like hughes from the 1930s, trying his best to keep the extremes between the left and right from coming to a head and making so clear that the court has a legitimacy problem, that he's been able to salvage the appearance of legitimacy. but i think ultimately, from decisions that he has joined in, in shelby county, in heller, whether it's on gun rights or voting rights, he is more of an extremist than his appearances would let on. he's not as bad as some of the others. he tries his best to join a liberal majority on occasion when he sees the possibility that he might agree with it. but in general, we have a court that is filled with people who got there because of questionable parts of our past history, those presidents put

them into office, and they otherwise would not have been there. >> james is next, from auburn, washington, he says the court is about right in his mind. why, james? >> caller: yes, i say it's about right because the simple fact is, the supreme court, nothing is right and nothing is wrong, no decision anyone makes. abortion could be legal or it could be illegal. we had the dred scott decision. what i'm trying to say is, the court is not based on law. it's based on simply what the judges' ideology is. if they don't believe in abortion, if they're conservative, this is what the republicans do, and this is what they believe in. they know that you can legislate, you can pass legislation, but the supreme court and the courts can overturn any decision that they want to make. that's what mitch mcconnell and the republicans know. and the democrats, they really don't know that. they don't deal in the supreme court, because it really doesn't

matter to them, to the levels. they say they do, because this maintains white privilege, the court does. even minority rule. and we'll see. the reason why they're doing what they're actually doing with the courts now, what you're seeing, with the voting rights and stuff, because they know if it goes in front of the supreme court, the supreme court -- the supreme court is obsolete from the very beginning. >> you still think its leaning is about right, that it's not too conservative or too liberal? >> yes, i say that because any decision made, it's not right or wrong. that's what i'm saying. the court basically -- it's the final decision on anything. so any number of conservative judges or liberal judges on the supreme court, it's not right, because the decisions they make, what i'm saying, either one is right or wrong. listen what i'm trying to tell you. if they outlaw abortion, that would not be wrong, but abortion is legal now.

it would be a supreme court decision. >> that's james in washington. this is john out of frederick, maryland, saying this supreme court is too conservative. >> caller: yeah, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i listen to c-span every morning and i do appreciate it. i think the court is too conservative. and i'm kind of like, that's not even a question. you have eight justices with one chief justice, with five of them -- i mean, four of them are conservative. i think john roberts is, in my opinion, is the only guy in the middle. justice thomas, i mean, i just think america, the way that the supreme court justices are being selected, is not a good method, because if you are choosing, a president is nominating someone,

do they feel loyalty to that party? and someone who is in power for the rest of his life, feeling a certain loyalty to a certain party. we are destroying the fabric. i know that's how it's been. but a hundred years ago, things have changed. when you look at the court now, we have "roe v. wade," where women feel like, oh, my god, we're going to be losing our rights, our own bodies, to choose for ourselves, because nine people in the supreme court, in the land, canalter all of that for us. >> john, do you think neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett, have demonstrated loyalty to donald trump in their time on the bench? >> caller: i'm going to go all the way back to justice thomas, for example.

the charade that we had in the senate, the selection process, i've never seen justice thomas even being talked about, everybody already knows he's going to go with whatever the republicans are going. justice kavanaugh, for example, is very obvious. donald trump was the guy who stuck behind him, who was his backing, so look at his track record, his voting record, for example. don't we feel sure, it's not donald trump in particular, isn't he showing loyalty to the republican party? >> that's john in frederick, maryland this morning. this from a gallup poll on this same issue, the same question, do you think the supreme court is too liberal, too conservative, or about right. you can see how the numbers change over the years. the dark line here is those

americans who said that the court is too conservative. you can see, i pointed to 2005, that's when chief justice roberts took over the court and turned it into the roberts court. you can see the changes along the way in recent years. that number ticking up, to say that the court is too conservative, in the years after donald trump took office and made three appointments. this poll ending in 2019, you can see is the end of this line here. the gray line, the top line here, the number of people who say it was about right over the years. and then that green line, the number of americans who have said over the years that the court is too liberal. and you can see that dipping significantly down, again, after donald trump takes office. john is next, out of telford, pennsylvania, on that line for those who say the court's balance is about right. >> caller: yeah, thanks for having me. let's go back to the first caller who wanted to get rid of

all the trump appointees. the rest of government confirms these judges. i don't see how he can get rid of him just because donald trump was in office at the time of the confirmation of these judges. thomas, what they did to this man, they don't even recognize him as being a black supreme court judge, they treat him like an uncle tom, you know? these liberals have to have their cake and eat it too all the time. didn't they just get away with the great lie that joe biden won the election, okay? the supreme court wouldn't even hear the argument. in pennsylvania they stole the election. >> so john, you say that the supreme court's balance is about right, and as you pointed out, the supreme court wouldn't take up the issue of the 2020 election. >> they did. yeah, so how can it be too conservative when they wouldn't even take up the argument that

that election was meddled with, okay? and you know it was meddled with. in fact they want to make this covid type drive-in unsolicited -- i voted in person. there was no reason for me not to vote in person. but i must have got half a dozen of those unsolicited ballots. i could have broke the law and filled them out like the democrats did. >> john, what would it take for you to believe that the election was legitimate? the supreme court which you say you trust or you think the balance is about right declined to take up the issue. what would it take for you to believe the election was legitimate? >> caller: because there was more votes than registered voters in some states. joe biden getting 81 million trumps surpassing not only donald trump who surpassed his voting in 2016 but he also beat hillary clinton and barack obama? >> all right, that's john out of pennsylvania. this is joseph out of tallahassee, florida, says the

court is too liberal right now. why do you say that, joseph? >> caller: well, first of all, no matter where the supreme court votes, not everybody's going to be happy with it. in other words, if they say we're going to vote for this, people don't like that, will say, no, no, no, they're no good. this has always been a problem, all the way back from when the supreme court voted to take prayer and bible out of the schools. and for just the fact that let one person override everybody else in the country. i think one of the problems that i'm seeing with it is that either the supreme court decisions that they have to make or the congress has to make, they have to put these issues before they vote on a ballot to the american public, and that's the public vote so they can go ahead and know where the people stand. but if it's not going to be done that way no matter who was on the supreme court, no matter what the issues are, there will

still be problems. from what i understand, when i learned it in school, it was a very simple truth, that our elected officials represented the american public. that is not true today. and i don't know if it was ever true. so personally, i just think that with voting, everybody's talking about the election and everything. i think the country's got to get back to one system to vote. and at the same time, if people can't get there, it should be a national holiday where people can go, get off from work and go. >> so joseph, a question on that issue. hr 1, or s 1, the for the people act that got so much attention, especially in light of joe manchin on sunday saying that he would not support it, seeks to set federal standards or minimum standards for voting issues in this country, for access to

polls, for early voting timing, a minimal standard that states can then go above if they want to. do you think that's a good idea for there to be federal minimal standards that states have to live up to on some of these issues? >> well, this is where the conflict comes. like, even the questions that you ask, there are three different ways to call in, and that's opinion. i can give an opinion today on one thing and it changes next week. but if there was a major issue like shall we have more people on the supreme court, that needs to go to the public. and that's how i really feel about it. until we go ahead and allow the people to really be the voice of the people, there will never be a clean, clear, objective way of letting our elected officials govern us. >> that's joseph out of

tallahassee, florida, this morning talking about the supreme court in this first hour of "washington journal" today, asking if you think it's too conservative, too liberal, about right. call in as you see fit. an interesting story about the supreme court coming out on capitol hill yesterday, here is the "roll call" story, noting that two key senators want the travel records of supreme court justices as part of a broader congressional look at financial disclosure standards for their receipt of gifts or travel or other financial gains by senior government officials. rhode island democratic senator sheldon whitehouse, louisiana republican senator john kennedy, asked the justice department and the u.s. marshals service last week for information and documents about the last ten years on trips by members of the supreme court. the justices can request security from the marshals service which is part of the justice department during their domestic travels. that letter was sent june 4th.

it was made public yesterday. here is just part of that letter from senators whitehouse and kennedy. they write that executive and legislative branch disclosure rules require disclosure of estimated dollar values of reimbursements, require descriptions of meetings and events attended in connection with the reimbursement, narrowly construe the ethics in government act's personal hospitality exemption and require prompt online publication of and easy public access to financial disclosures. the judicial branch's comparable guidelines are significantly less stringent, even those requirements, however, do not formally apply to the justices of the supreme court. as a result the justices of our highest court are subject to the lowest standards of transparency of any senior official across the federal government and those members of the senate looking to change some of that. an interesting story to keep track of amid a busy time at the supreme court. 22 cases left to decide, and

just six decision days left. today is one of them. we're expecting any decisions that would be handed down today to come at 10:00 a.m. this morning eastern. greg in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania is next on the line for those who say the balance of the supreme court is about right. >> caller: yes, i do, mr. mcardle. let's see what's happened in the last four presidential elections. democrats have won three of the four. what's happened across the country? riots, looting, and it's okay, according to the mainstream media. now, what part of that scenario, your first caller was talking about, it isn't fair, it isn't right. so what are the results -- i just gave you a couple of results. what do they want?

do they want somebody to say you get everything you want, give us a list and you got it? the system doesn't work that way. it is ridiculous, these people that call in and complain about everything and want everything changed yesterday. you've got a constitution. it has to be addressed. now, if you think it should be completely revamped, you can do it one of two ways. constitutional amendments or a convention. so don't just complain, bitch and money all the time to c-span and to whatever and then go out and do nothing for a while. the system is the system. if you don't like it, move. leave the country. now, as to the supreme court specifically, look at some of the recent decisions about same-sex marriage and all that.

if you want to complain about the supreme court, complain about this. ginsburg and sotomayor or kagan officiated gay weddings before they voted, before they voted on the same-sex case six or seven years ago. there is no recusal, it's all up to the individual justice. now, was that too liberal? should the rules have been changed and said just because you participated in an event that's pending before the court, you need to recuse yourself? that's pretty objective. >> i wonder what you think about that transparency issue on the supreme court that we talked about before your phone call, the effort to add more transparency to travel and spending by supreme court justices.

>> caller: well, personally, i'm a lawyer, personally, i'm admitted to the u.s. supreme court, so i know i've been practicing 41 plus years, i think it's likely some of the justices have been cutting corners, intentionally or not. i mean, you want to talk -- let's do an audit of the pentagon. let's do an audit of the white house. let's do an audit of nancy pelosi. i mean, okay, you know, it seems pretty objective, give us the numbers that you're supposed to submit to the government so you can get the benefits you get. there should be nothing -- how about welfare? >> that's greg in pennsylvania. this is richard out of louisville, kentucky. he says this roberts court is too liberal. why is that? >> caller: well, just recent rulings that they denied to take up some questions about irregularities in the election.

and, you know, just to ask the question on something as important as the supreme court, as the election for president of the united states, you know, it was just asked of them, hey, look, some funny stuff, looks kind of crazy here, could you check it out, they wouldn't take it up. so the supreme court is currently five so-called conservatives, thomas and alito are the only true conservatives, 5-4, meaning john roberts is as liberal as they come, 5-4. so i just -- i'm real surprised. there was talk earlier about, you know, donald trump elected all these conservatives and everything. well, who did you think he was going to pick? >> richard, do you think neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett, qualify as conservative justices in your perception? >> caller: they're at best moderate. there's something about the supreme court, most times they

go from the conservative views with their families and their life when they get on the supreme court, all of a sudden they move back to the middle. >> do you think donald trump should have done better, in your mind, at picking his justices? >> caller: no, i think barack obama should have done better at picking his justices. kagan, sotomayor, absolute -- well, i won't go there. >> all right, that's richard in kentucky. jim in glenwood, maryland, says the balance of the court is about right. good morning. jim, are you with us this morning? >> caller: yes, i am. >> go ahead. >> caller: oh, hi, i'm sorry. good morning. i listened to three calls while i was on hold. and thank you for taking me, by the way, it's a beautiful day. >> thanks for waiting on hold. >> caller: i appreciate it, i always watch your show in the morning with my coffee. i really enjoy it, i've done it for years.

very quickly, in listening to the prior comments, i was going to say a couple of other things, but i've changed my idea of what i'm going to say. i think maybe i'm speaking -- i'm 58 years old now. i was born in washington, d.c. and i have lived here my entire life, love my state, love my country, love washington, d.c. i don't think i could live anywhere else, love it here. i will say this, i've seen a lot, in other words. i think what we have is i think we are -- our supreme court has treated very balanced over the years. i think it's been just about right. a little leaning one way or the other. that's the way it goes. the problem is, anymore, you can't -- like the bible and the christian faith or -- you can't interpret the constitution. they have to go by -- it's not like my interpretation of, you know -- so they have to follow that guideline. that's all they can do. had they start interpreting it and straying off of it one way

or the other, we're in danger. here's the thing. that's okay a little bit, perhaps. but we now have -- and i'm, again, born in 1963, i'm seeing a generation -- i'm a mother, love children, love teens, love youth, love everybody, i love elderly. but here's the thing. i'm seeing -- and i've tried to brush this off time and time again. i'm seeing a generation -- i didn't want to believe it. why? because i tend to look on the soft side of life, the romantic side of things, oh, no, oh, no, you know, that certainly couldn't be, oh, no, he's really kind. >> what is it about this generation? >> caller: real quickly, because i don't want to get too -- real quickly, what i see is, i'll just say it this way. when people ask you, would you want another one of you, like another kim, would you want a whole room full of kims, kim's

ideas, whatever i have in my mind, we start killing each other, literally. i mean, everybody -- there has to be difference. everybody has to be listened to and there has to be balance. they have to go by the constitution. that's pretty much all i have to say about that. >> that's kim in glenwood, maryland this morning. it's just after 7:30 on the east coast. taking your phone calls, getting your view about the u.s. supreme court on one of the dwindling number of decision days left in what is officially the october 2020 term, the end of the october 2020 term, the october 2021 term beginning later this year, and we're getting your view of the balance of the supreme court, do you think it's too conservative, too liberal, do you think it's about right. keep calling in on those phone lines. just a few news stories to update you on, finding out yesterday that president biden, as "the new york times" puts it, under pressure to aggressively

address the global surge in coronavirus, will announce as early as thursday that his administration will buy 500 million doses of the pfizer vaccine and donate to about 100 countries. the white house reached the deal just in time for mr. biden's eight-day european trip, which is his first opportunity to reassert the united states as a world leader and restore relations that were badly frayed by president donald j. trump. that's the front page lead story of "the new york times" today. on "the washington post," the lead picture, president biden addressing military troops and their families, speaking ahead of a three-day summit with the group of seven nations. today he's set to meet with prime minister boris johnson. we'll talk more about that meeting a little later in today's program. one other story on a topic we've talked about on this program before, a government report concludes that federal police

did not clear protesters from lafayette park near the white house last summer so president trump could walk to a nearby church for a photo op. the report, released wednesday by the interior department's inspector general, says the u.s. park police determined it was necessary to remove protesters from that area in and around the park last june 1 so contractors could install security fencing. federal police didn't learn of president trump's plan to walk through the park and examine damage from a fire at st. john's episcopal church until mid- to late afternoon, hours after they had begun to plan the fencing and contractors had arrived in the park, according to the report from the interior department inspector general. we'll talk more about that as well a little bit later in today's program. those are some of the main news headlines we're following. back to your calls about the supreme court. valerie is waiting in new york, says the court is too conservative. why do you say that? >> caller: good morning, john.

i miss c-span books and that's going to lead into what i'm going to say. i read last year, "supreme inequality," a nonfiction book about the supreme court in the last 50 years. i returned it to the library the day ruth bader ginsburg died. this is the most pro-corporate court that we've had under justice roberts. the most. i mean, they've overturned state decisions on lawsuits for fishermen in alaska getting money from oil spills. when we think about all these huge decisions, but we don't hear about a lot of the ones, the small ones that really affect us on a daily level, and it's gotten much, much more politicized.

i don't know what the answer is. if they overturn the affordable care act, it's going to be a real problem in this country. and i do think that they have tried in their interpretation of the constitution, because the law is very complicated and can be interpreted in different ways -- >> valerie, the court certainly had the opportunity to overturn the affordable care act before and notably did not. >> caller: and they did not. but it's been law for 11 years and they accepted another case, john. >> you think they will this time? >> caller: i have no idea. i actually do not think that they will, because i think the court is very conscious of the weight of its decisions. and i do think it tries to keep the country happy in its own way, because it's political. you can't say that it's not political, they're just justices. so there wouldn't be a

federalist society. and i hope that they manage to maintain the balance that they have where people still have faith in it. >> that's valerie this morning. you mentioned the case on the affordable care act. california v. texas is the case number to watch for that. some of the other cases we talked about this morning, brnovich v. democratic national committee, that case on voting rights. fulton v. philadelphia, that case on religious freedom. ncaa v. austin, antitrust case. our next caller says the balance on the court is about right. mike, go ahead. >> caller: yeah, i wasn't calling to say anything about the court. i kind of have given up on our government as far as right and wrong. they don't seem to know how to pick anything anymore. but i do have -- >> mike, we'll stick with the

court because i've got a lot of callers who want to talk about the court, that's our topic for this hour. matt in bladensburg, maryland, says the court is too conservative. >> caller: hi, how are you doing? >> i'm doing well. >> caller: yeah, you mentioned something earlier about the closure of lafayette park. what was it you were saying? >> an inspector general report that came out yesterday saying that the removal of protesters was a planned removal so contractors could install security fencing. they weren't removed last june 1st to create a photo op for president trump. that was the findings of that inspector general. >> caller: see, i was down there, and it wasn't removed for that day. they weren't removed for that day. it wasn't a process. what they were saying -- what happened was, they removed the people from there so that trump could march in to make his little speech. i was out there. but what i'm saying is, what

they're talking about is over a period of days, okay? so they're either trying to confuse or misinterpret, because trump's little speech out there was only -- you know, that was only for an hour or so. >> matt, why were you there that day, why did you think it was important to be there? >> caller: i protest in front of the white house regularly now as well. and in front of congress. >> you still do it during the biden administration as well? >> caller: yeah. >> what's the latest issue that you've protested on? >> caller: well, most of it was trump, really, throughout the trump administration. but what i was going to say about the supreme court was that i believe that the supreme court, the purpose of the supreme court is misunderstood by our -- by the parties. i think that one thinks that the supreme court is supposed to be

a toy and used for their control. i really -- for me, i think it needs to be and it should be insistent that it's a bipartisan operation that does not favor anyone. and the parties should not be able to play with it. that's all i had to say, thank you. >> that's matt, bladensburg, maryland. a few of your comments from social media and our text messaging service. this is linda from georgia, i wonder how many of the supreme court decisions affect any of us personally. most of them don't affect me at all, it's more ideology than anything else. karen on facebook, the supreme court is constitutional. it's your perception of conservative or liberalism. this is john carter, not conservative enough but justice should not be political, apply the laws on the books and stand by the constitution and the bill of rights. kenneth saying i am unsure as to why the majority of the rulings aren't unanimous, the law is the law, there are way too many 5-4 and 6-3 rulings. one more from lisa saying

they're nothing but conservative activist judges with a mission to impose evangelical views on this country. ralph from texas says the roberts court is too liberal. why do you say that? >> caller: yeah, i think we have to go back to 1976, california, to investigate 2003, texas, lawrence v. the state. >> what do those cases have in common -- >> caller: there's a lot of misinformation. do what? >> what do those cases have in common? >> caller: so in '76 california, i forgot the actual name of the case, but nobody really paid attention to it because it was -- including the supreme

court, but it had to do with the lgbtq rights. it was a pro-sodomy, law, literally sodomy. and, umm, in 2003, it's funny how the court, only justice clarence thomas in 2003 was one of the only justices that stood up and said, now, this is wrong, we can't force this on people. and everybody kind of ignored it, we all kind of went along, went along. and then now people are just losing their jobs if they oppose that kind of lifestyle. so i think there's a lot of hypocrisy in the media and the justice system as well, ignoring that. >> that's ralph in texas. this is rich, trenton, new jersey, he says this court is too conservative. go ahead. >> caller: yes, good morning. i think it's too conservative.

the supreme court is not so supreme. they've let the voting rights act be weakened. they had the -- what do you call it, the -- oh, the -- i forgot. i'm nervous. you've got two people that's sitting on the courts right now that had problems with women before they got on the court. they shouldn't be there right now. and citizens united was the one i was thinking about. the voting rights act and citizens united, very conservative principles pushed by the court. the other thing is the court will not take up gerrymandering. that's a big problem in the united states and for some reason, they don't want to touch it.

so that's my comments. >> that's rich, new jersey. ronald in ascove, minnesota says the court is too liberal. go ahead, sir. >> caller: yes, that's -- i remember back when barack hussein obama made his very first state of the union address and nine justices sat in front of him when -- when, uh, justice roberts said that's not true, and he was -- he was, ed by the media and obama condemned him and from that day forward justice roberts voted every way barack hussein obama wanted him to and now when we had this 2020 election, all this stuff on fraud, all this evidence, sworn statements, video, security cameras, and

justice -- chief justice roberts decides what cases they look at. and he even said, no, i'm not going to take this up. justice thomas said, how can we expect our u.s. citizens to trust our voting system when we won't even look at the evidence. >> that's ronald in minnesota. kathy is in st. martinville, louisiana, says this court is too conservative. go ahead. >> caller: i'm sorry, i must have called in on the wrong line. i don't think it's conservative enough. but it doesn't matter how many conservatives are placed in the supreme court. the conservatives will always be disappointed because they're never going to be activists. they're always going to rule on the side of the law. i mean, conservatives would like them to be more active, but only the liberals will be activists.

>> what do you want the court to be? >> caller: i want them to enforce the rule of law. it's not liberal, it's not conservative, it's the rule of law, that's all they're supposed to do. you know, we're the only country in the civilized world that will allow abortions up to nine months. and there's no way that that is civilized. and i cannot believe that this country is there. but our supreme court has allowed it to happen, i guess. >> that's kathy in louisiana this morning. just about ten minutes left in this first segment of "washington journal," on this decision day, expecting if decisions do get handed down today, they'll come at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. there are six decision days left on the calendar although more could be added onto the end of the month and into early july if necessary. 22 cases left to decide in this

term of the supreme court. one of those cases we talked about, ncaa v. austin, that antitrust law case having to do with payments and college athletes. the issue of paying college athletes came up paying college athletes came up on capitol hill yesterday. this is a story from today's "washington post" warning of a looming threat to amateur sports. college athletic leaders urged congress to take bipartisan action as states allowed athletes to gain funds. leaving the ncaa potentially on its own as athletes, schools and conferences try to navigate that shifting landscape. and on that issue, this is an exchange yesterday between republican senator ted krurz and ncaa president mark emmert on congress' potential role here on this issue.

>> the states are moving very quickly to establish their own frameworks for name, image, and likeness. you state in your written testimony that, quote, conducting collegiate athletics among a patchwork of state laws is untenable. why do you believe that we need a federal law to address this issue? >> well, thank you for the question, senator. i think, again, this is one of the cruxes of the debate in front of us right now, obviously. there seems to be at least among the members who have spoken a general agreement that a singular, having a singular policy at the federal level will allow all students across the country, whether they have a state law or don't have a state law, to be able to take advantage of these opportunities, starting july 1st there will be a dozen or so depending on what happens in the

next couple of weeks, states where student athletes will be able to go on and monetize their name, image, and likeness, and there will be 35 or so that won't be able to do that. we will have a situation where schools and those other states won't be in the position to be able to recruit as effectively the student athletes in many of these states will have very different standards that they'll have to be operating under. and the only way that we can get a reconciliation of all of that is by having a single national model. >> that exchange part of that hearing yesterday on the ncaa. if you want to watch it in its entirety you can do it on our website c-span.org. do you think this supreme court, the current roberts court is too conservative, too liberal, or just about right? it's 202-748-8000 if you say too conservative. 202-748-8001 if you say too

liberal. and 202-748-8002 if you say about right. your calls for the last ten minutes of this segment, stephen in wyndham, connecticut, says it's about right. >> i think the roberts court has been -- and i don't follow every supreme court issue, but i just want to say that the federal judiciary on this last election, i was really, really proud of. the roberts setting the tone and from the supreme court down, i was actually shocked how unified the judiciary was. and i'm very concerned about the creep of authoritarianism, not only in this country but across the west. >> why did it shock you,

stephen? did you have an opinion otherwise that the court would bend on some of these issues? >> well, i mean, we're all human beings, yeah. i was shocked that the conservatives and the liberals all -- i mean, the judges, whether they lean left or right, all agreed that the arguments were not up to par, you know. the merits of the case weren't there. and if they didn't, i think this whole experiment of democracy would've slid off the edge. and i don't think the court -- i think the court might have to hold the line again. this is just one time. i don't think this is going to stop for a while. so, i'm really, really encouraged by the roberts court that way. i mean, i'm sure there's a lot of supreme court decisions i'm

just not going to agree with. it's just the way life is. but of that one singular thing, the last election and holding the line all the federal judges come from the roberts court down to the lowest court -- i mean, it was very, very impressive. >> stephen, i wonder what you think the supreme court in not this term but the next term will take up a case on the very divisive issue on abortion in this country. whatever the results of that decision will mean for people's faith in the court. >> i think because of stare decisis, it means following the laws of the land that have been in there for many, many years since the early '70s, almost 50 years of that.

i think if they throw away stare decisis, it's going to create a lack of faith in the process. i mean, whether they say, hey, they want to change this or not, i think there are certain tenets and rulings that should be, they should go along with what has been established and not try to overturn it. >> that's stephen in connecticut. this is nicholas out of phoenix, arizona, says this court is too conservative. tell me why. >> yes, good morning. >> good morning. >> i just feel because of the last two appointed judges, it was kind of a sham how they rushed amy and especially when we were trying to deal with, like, the covid issues because

it was -- when the virus was nice and big in the whole country. and we were trying to deal with that issue. it was a sham, i mean, how they rushed her. and the end of obama's presidency, the courts or the congress was a republican congress, right? >> so -- >> and so they, like, held -- >> so you are concerned about those states. but why not -- why are you less concerned about neil gorsuch then? >> um, well, i really don't know much about him actually. [ laughter ] >> that's nicholas in phoenix, arizona. tony, santa fe, new mexico, you're next. good morning. >> good morning. are you there? >> yes, sir.

>> okay. yeah. too conservative. way too far right. too unconstitutional. i believe that there are some treason and traitoring going on up there under citizens united. they usurped the constitution. these anti-constitutionalists, they basically legalized corporate suicide. but yet for the individual all their anti-abortionists. and then we got amy coney barrett who would take history back 400 years. how about another 600 years or back to martin luther for freedom of religion. and their institutional racist doctrine of discovery. that's where our root of institutional racism comes from. >> that's tony in new mexico. a few more comments from social media and our text messaging service. this is john in michigan saying

that the court should look and act like the country. we are now diverse and progressive. we aren't conservative anymore is what john says. sorry, but forcing the citizens to fight against right-wing believes and conspiracy theories wastes time. this from ray in colorado. it really varies from case to case. garland v. ming dai and sanchez v. mayorkas were unanimous opinions. other rulings get brought up. barrett, gorsuch, and thomas ruled in favor of some of these rulings going through a few of the cases. this from william in middletown, connecticut. the supreme court will do what is right for america. no need to pack the bench from either side. and one more in skippers, virginia. i view the current supreme court as being about right. the conservative majority respects the constitution and will make decisions on following the constitution. i worry democrats want to load the court with leftists who want to make laws versus interpret the law. taking your phone calls.

time for a few more this morning if you have them. it's 202-748-8000 if you think this court is too conservative. it's 202-748-8001 if you think it's too liberal. and it's 202-748-8002 if you think the court is just about right. just a couple minutes left in this segment. a couple other stories that we've been tracing over the course of their lifetime. this one several years that we've been following. but news about it yesterday. the developer of the keystone xcel pipeline announced yesterday that it had pulled the plug on that project, citing president biden's decision to rescind the cross-border permit, bringing the 13-year battle over that major infrastructure project to an end. tc energy said that it decided to abandon the 1,700 mile extension, which would have carried crude oil from alberta to steel city, nebraska, after a comprehensive review of its options and consultation with its partner, the alberta

government. republicans reacted by renewing their criticism of mr. biden for pulling the permit, which president trump had approved. that's the story on the front page of "the washington times" today. and then this story from "the washington post" focusing on the trip, the biden administration trip overseas, the story focusing on boris johnson and his role. johnson aims to smooth the g-7 tensions as he hosts the g-7 summit over there in great britain. if you want to read that story it's in today's "washington post." just a few of the other headlines that we're watching today and that we'll be talking more about later today. one more call. this is ken in south carolina. ken thinks the supreme court too conservative. why do you say too conservative? >> i mean, it's too conservative for the most part. with that tweaking of the voting act decision a few years ago, you know, that was incorrect.

every now and then they get it right. every now and then you see unanimous decisions. i was very impressed with the supreme court during 2020 when they correctly did not want to take up all of those election challenges cases. because, you know, they didn't have to. so, for the most part, they do get things just right, but every now and then when they really screw it up, it's because of being too conservative and not being too liberal. >> that's ken in south carolina. our last caller in this segment of the washington journal. plenty more to discuss this morning up next we'll be joined by brian stelter, host of cnn's "reliable sources." we'll discuss the new reporting in his book "hoax: donald trump, fox news, and the dangerous distortion of truth." and later rich noyes from the

watchdog group research center will join us to discuss the media's coverage of the biden administration. stick around. we'll be right back. ♪♪ coming up today, fbi director christopher wray is before the house judiciary committee for an oversight hearing. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. in the afternoon our live coverage continues with president biden holding a news conference in cornwall, england, ahead of the g-7 summit being held this weekend. on c-span 2, the senate returns at 10:30 a.m. to consider judicial nominations for the district of new jersey and the d.c. circuit court of appeals. on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m. defense secretary lloyd austin testifies on the president's 2022 budget request for the pentagon in front of the senate armed services committee. a house homeland subcommittee examines the federal response