eyeing a potential third party unity took it in 2024. we'll bring that toonight at nine eastern on c-span. or watch on c-span now, our free mobile video app. or online at c-span.org. >> healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. where citizens are truly informed. and where the public thrives. get informed straight from the source. on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. it is the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> our first guest of the morning's michael waldman, he is the president and ceo of the center for justice at new york university school of law. he is author also the author of the super majority of the

supreme court divided america. mr. waltman, good morning and thank you for giving us your time. >> great to be with. you will talk about the themes in your book in just a second. but recently wrote about the supreme court and you wrote this. this was on the11th of july, ng that 2023 was a bitmore -- every year came before. are truly the justices have noticed how the courts credibility was only source of power -- and the college cannot ce to squander. it didn't seem to see their job isly sving the republican party or donald trump but seek a bigger goal. a fundamental conservative transformation of the country with lifetime tenure and unelected government officials that they keep their cool and have a chance to do just that. i was wondering about the idea of a fundamental conservative transformation. can you elaborate on that? >> yes. right now we have a 60 vote supermajority. a very conservative justice. wielding enormous power and moving very quickly. he is only bent in place for a year or two years now. it is moving very quickly to

reshape the country. in the first term and in june of last year we saw first the dobbs decision overturning roe v. wade and half a century of protections on the constitution, for women's reproductive rights. we saw by far the most sweeping second amendment ruling in history. in the bruen case. we saw the beginning of a significant push to restrict the power of agencies like the epa. to regulate and protect the environment and climate change in public safety. and then this year of course, we saw the long cherished conservative goal of overturning affirmative action in higher education. and quite clear lane, more to come when it comes to curbing the power of government to protect the environment and public health and safety. and other things like that. this time was a bit more tempered. there was a significant unexpected positive ruling in

the voting rights act case. where they did not finish the job of describing voting rights act. but still, the direction of the court is quite clear. and it aims to change the country by changing the courts interpretation of the constitution. >> you mentioned that redistricting case and the independent legislative cases as well. you called them i think you described them as a time that you can breathe relief from that. but even for the examples you originally cited sometimes the court actually crosses sides and makes decisions on certain things that go against this idea of the 62 majority of the 63 majority. >> well, independent state legislators have a lot of conservatives urging the courts to rule exactly as it did. it is a crack pot idea, and i never taken the case. it would have been judge michael luttig, the deceive conservative judge put it, it was the most important constitutional case on democracy in a long time. it was a rule for what the

north carolina legislature wanted which was to say that the legislatures had untroubled power. without checks and balances in the state constitution or the court of governors. but more broadly, the times when they made a ruling that i thought was a positive one, like i said, the voting rights act, they just kept the law in place. and one of the good things they did was it comes after a decade in which the supreme court has really weakened the voting rights act. but putting aside those two cases, they have been moving aggressively and carefully. both in this term to continue pushing the courts to the right with a theory of how to read the constitution, that, is itself. and it was because pretty radical. they last year in june cramped three days, and three days they crammed in decades of conservative social policy.

they were acting in this respect less like a court and more like a political body. i think that one of the reasons we see is that for the consequence of that, the public trust in the supreme court has collapsed. to the lowest level ever recorded in the polls. and certainly the justice, chief justice john roberts who is candy and thinks about the public banding of the court, they have to be well aware of that. they are continuing but very unmistakably in the direction they are set. >> you mentioned polling. there is quite a bit of polling in june when asked about news of the supreme court. only 29% of those saying they showed approval of the course actions versus 58%. poll saying 68% said that the supreme court is quote, mainly motivated by politics. 25% of those saying it's mainly motivated by the law. >> those are really devastating numbers. for a court like this.

we have an unusual system in our country. the supreme court is a singular institution. we sit and wait every june for these big rulings as you said. they are nine unelected government officials with lifetime tenure. making these big rulings and the court only has the power to do this because we the people give that power. because we see it in some respects as above politics. as being really a court. and when the supreme court as it is now i would argue is extreme or ideological overreaching or even just partisan, there can be a fierce public backlash. and certainly a collapse interest in a withdrawal of that public consent. the part of the constitution and it is dealing with the federal court is only one tenth of the leg. of the part of the constitution dealing with congress on the presidency. which we are soon to be the democratically accountable

branches that are going to be doing most of the governing. again, we have this court in the role it is and now because we broadly, we the people have conferred our trust in that institution. when it's corners out trust, and its corners and ability to act, -- >> our guest waltman. -- he serves as a president and ceo is also the author of the super majority how the supreme court divided america. i want to ask a question? 202748 8000 for democrats, 202748 8001 for republicans. and independents, 202748 8002. you can text -- mr., walnut a bit about the brennan center. remind our viewers what it is about. and how can they financially support you? >> thanks. brennan center is a non partisan line policy institute. we work to strengthen and

reform and what necessary defend the systems of democracy and justice in our country. so they work for everyone. we are affiliated with nyu school of law but we are not part of the university. we are funded entirely by private sources. we cannot get government money. we have 40,000 donors. mostly individuals. some foundations. and businesses and law firms. and we have found that there is a huge amount of interest in protecting american democracy and protecting our constitutions. across the political spectrum. we think that we are in a great fight for the future of american democracy in this country. and there is a think tank and advocacy group we try to be part of that. >> your, book the super majority, was it based only on decisions of reason? no it did take a longer view of this actiyou saw similar dynamie

early 20th century.

after a notorious case, at that time at time of great industrialization and concentration of wealth and change, the supreme court justices felt their job was to stop government from being able to do anything about it. to protect workers, women and public safety. and striking down those kinds of government actions. this was a fight that lasted from the beginning of the century. it was very political. not realized until researchers at teddy roosevelt in 1912 presidential campaign that's story where he was running to be a successor, and woodrow wilson was the democrat. socialist eugene debs. the big issue was taking on the activism as arrogance of the supreme court of that era. and of course leading up to the fight between his cousin, franklin roosevelt and the supreme court over the new deal. and i would say that a third era when there was certainly a significant backlash came in

the warren court era and actually in its aftermath. now, i think that the warren court played extraordinarily important strides in the justice and freedom of democracy in the country. like brown versus board of education. but by the end, it was so activists on so many fronts that it created a political backlash. a conservative counter revolution. legally. and we have been living through that backlash for decades. i think we are in a moment like that today, where this court is also miss reading the moment and overreaching. and the political backlash has already begun. >> michael walton here for this discussion. tom joins us from nashville and this is on our independence line. you are on with michael waldman, at the brennan center and the author of the book super majority of the supreme court, divided america. top, go ahead. >> mr. walden, that was pretty good what you just said about my favorite president teddy roosevelt. but i called mainly when your foot is on the court for 53 years ago where they partially

destroyed the national public school system. that they destroyed it. it was one of the best public school systems in the country. because they introduced forced busing throughout a metropolitan county. they absolutely put -- made poor people come to where rich people lived. it did not work and it does not work. that's why they had people going to private schools today, more than you've ever seen. when they came up with the thing about this legislation of roe v. wade, that's another big mistake. once again, this court is supreme. and i like what andrew jackson said one time with the supreme court ruled against him. he said, by the, way what kind of army does the supreme court have? with that being said, you had a lot of good points. going all the way from justice warren. enjoy your. day i will get your book for sure. >> thank you. >> the caller makes an interesting point.

a lot of the criticisms of the supreme court have gone on over the decades. of being activists and accountable. democratically unaccountable. all of these criticisms have come from conservatives who are unhappy as the caller expressed with rulings from half a century ago. right now though, the issues on the other foot. in the sense that the supreme court has not really been activist in the way that -- describes on those issues. for half a century. interesting lee, the afterglow from that period both animates a lot of conservative rhetoric about the court at least until recently, but also has given liberals i think something of a false notion of the role the supreme court plays and should place in our system. right now, what people want among other things is for -- and stability. and there could be criticism of the original roe v. wade ruling for example, justice ruth bader ginsburg was one of the people who criticize dates.

but over the years, and especially later cases, written -- by cases, it became part of the fabric of our elections. it became an expectation of american women have the ability to have reproductive freedom. so when the court as they did last june, says oh it was wrong from the beginning, it was a graciously wrong. and the wrap that up. the original reasoning of the case is less important than the impact here and now. and it has been quite convulsive and we have seen it playing out in the politics in many states. >> this is from stephen north carolina. democrats line. >> good morning, gentlemen. >> you are on with the cast, go ahead. >> yes sir, i am sorry.

constitution covers the whole country. when states or state laws are in conflict with the constitution,

the federal constitution prevails. we want to live in one country with one set of rights. but i think the person who called is onto something. when possible, it is the best to secure advances for equality, democracy and justice through the chronically available branches. voting for congress. a lot of what we need the courts to do, ultimately, is get out of the way. not to impose a political philosophy. and this, case a very conservative and i would argue -- political philosophy in the guise of interpreting the constitution. this idea of judicial restraint was something that progressives and liberals actually cherished for much of the country's history. because they saw in other areas the harmful consequence is that it would have from an overly activist judiciary. i'll give you a great set of examples. one of which here was north

carolina. overnight we talk about these issues on democracy and voting in money and politics and finance, what we are really looking at is the laws passed by congress and passed by state legislatures or the people. to protect voting rights. two in advance campaign finance laws that curve against the excesses of big money in politics. the courts have stepped and on done what the people did it. if the courts were just step aside, we would have a much more robust and functioning democracy. i will say that to the cases coming out of north carolina in these terms which would have been catastrophic disasters if they had gone the other way, was a relief. north carolina shows the way these issues can play out. the state as a caller knows is a pretty evenly divided state. democratic governor and republican legislature. voters are kind of split half and half. the legislature passed a very gerrymandered map.

that produced a congressional allegation that was weight disproportionately heavily republican. and the state supreme court said that that violated the north carolina constitution. all these states have their own constitutions, but there are protections. and the states say that violates our constitution. the state legislatures went to the u.s. supreme court and said no, the constitution gives us the legislature the power to set election rules without these checks and balances. by the, way nobody ever notices up until now. that's not how a state is ron. and very encouragingly, in an opinion written by chief justice john roberts, six justices said no, that is wrong. the constitution does not give unchecked power to state legislatures. constitutions among other things still matter and courts matter. there are some complications with the decisions, but it was a pretty decisive projection. of this notion. and it was radical.

i think ultimately if we have space and democracy to encourage our courts to step aside and stop writing doctrines for their own political views pretending they're just making constitutional rulings, then we will have a stronger country. >> mr. waltman, recently the senate minority leader mitch mcconnell had an op-ed for the washington post written about the supreme court and some of those recent decisions. a headline says neither party can count on the supreme court to be its ally. any similar thoughts on that? being on the senate floor? i want to play a little bit of what he has to say to get your thoughts on it. >> the exceptionally qualified justice spent years vilifying and proving their strength and independents jurisprudence. justice barrett was just as likely the storm to vote with justice pagan as with justice thomas. let me say that again. justice barrett was just as likely this term to vote with

justice kagan as with justice thomas. justice kavanaugh was more likely to vote with justice kavanaugh and the courts to most conservative justices, thomas and alito, voted together less frequently than liberal justices sotomayor and -- the supreme court is not in crisis. when they refuses to reliably and predictably advance democrats priorities. the court is not in crisis when it puts the text of our law above politics. >> mr. waltman, that is the assessment of the senate minority leader. what do you think? >> not really a surprise. he put them all there. and it is true that many of the cases in front of him, in front of the supreme court or any supreme court, are not being publicly -- they are on technical issues. so the statistics can show there will be agreements with justices among various issues. saponi look at the big ruling

that change society in the last year and a half, ending affirmative action and overturning roe v. wade radically expanding the second amendments protections of -- and against gun safety laws, and cutting back on government agencies ability to protect the environment, those if you, as abortion driving affirmative action and the interest of the fossil fuel industry, that does not sound like the court that sounds like a political caucus. there are very few people have done more to politicize the supreme court then senator mitch mcconnell. let's not forget what he did it and the other republican senators. when president obama nominated merrick garland, a moderate and well respected judge, for the supreme court after justice anthony scalia died, in a complete upending of all the practices traditionally going back well over a century, mcconnell his colleagues would not even allow a hearing of the nomination. it was a very political

process. so it is a bit ironic at the very latest for him to be bemoaning the criticism of the court as a politicized institution. >> charlie is next, our guest michael waldman. from the brennan center for justice new york university school of law. the author of the supermajority, how the supreme court divided america. charlie, in massachusetts, good morning. >> good morning, pedro. good morning, westminster waldman. it's funny. bring out merrick garland. you should be ashamed or he'd be ashamed to -- he is such a fool. but the reason i called is your all this radicalism with the supreme court, our latest nominee could not identify what a woman is, in all seriousness i want you to defend that argument, please. >> well, justice ketanji brown jackson who the color is

referring to was an extraordinarily impressive nominee. actually was the most -- in the, polls north of that to be the, judge the most popular supreme court nominee in many years. it has been extraordinarily impressive on the bench. she got pelted with got your questions from senators who were doing its they would have something to tweet. then as a matter of serious jurisprudence, someone asked her whether -- what is a woman and she said i'm not a biologist. i think that you knew quite well that the question was not a serious question. the question is just an attempt to get on fox news or something like that. for five seconds of video. justice jackson is an impressive figure. she has been especially good in her first year on the bench. the questions that she asks from the bench, we saw the impact of some of her efforts in the assault of its decisions on affirmative action. justice jackson asked this question during the arguments. it was really compelling.

she said look, there are two essays for somebody -- people applying university of north carolina. one was from somebody who said i want to go to this university because my grandfather went here, and this tradition means a lot to me. the other essay, from a different person, said i want to go to usc because my grandfather could not go here. because he was black. and so therefore it would be a lot to me to go here. she said, are you really saying that we cannot consider the second say? but you cannot consider the first issue which is in fact a form of a foreign of action for white people? that was a pretty compelling argument. and you saw justice roberts, very sweeping decisions undoing affirmative action in all the universities of the united states. saying, well people can still write essays. now, we don't have exactly going to play out. in the real world. but she politic

ization of the court. i don't know if you were around for those decisions, but there was no basis for roe v. wade in the court. it references the quote unquote number of rights that were somehow hidden within the constitution without basis, so that even if you don't take a political stance, if you work pro constitution you would have problems with those. i would like you to comment. guest: if you read him quite critical of the use of fuzzy language like numbers and cases because there is actually a case before roe v. wade. like i said earlier, for all these criticisms that people might have over the specific way roe v. wade was ruled, and in a way justice ginsburg called it a breathtaking decision. over many decades. there was more than half a century ago. over many decades it has become a subtle unexpected part of american life. >> we will leave this at this

point but you can finish watching if you go to our website c-span dot org. we take you live now to an investigation into money laundering through banks and switzerland. hosted by the commission on security and cooperation in europe. live coverage on c-span 3.

>> calling this hearing to order. a series of votes on the house floor, we will start to the

hearin