you should have the same privileges or whatever under civil law. host: you're concerned about the supreme court overreaching? caller: correct. host: are there other cases where you think that happened? caller: yes. there are many cases. i have been reading a book about the supreme court and all the decisions they made and a lot of mistakes and overreaching and the way they get permission. the constitution is supposed to be the law of the land, but a lot of them -- they destroy the word marriage as far as i am concerned for equality. they can get the same as heterosexuals. same privileges and whatever. they don't need to destroy things like the word marriage. figurativelyit

like people are married to their work or whatever but they destroy the word. host: anne is waiting in greenville, carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is interesting that to say ishis topic the supreme court becoming too political. when the supreme court made decisions that say the andblicans disagreed with they are very vocal about it, the affordable care act and same-sex marriage and those things, they were not vocal or had any concern when the supreme court took away part of the voting rights act. there was no protest about that or when the supreme court decided that corporations were people and not all of this money could come into the system

without any question. those are two cases that republicans had no concern about and were very happy with the supreme court wri. host: do you think democrats have brought this up? it has become an issue on the campaign trail that bernie sanders has talked about hillary --as talked about that hillary clinton has talked about. caller: we probably do need to speak out more about that. happenedxactly what democrats do need to speak out more about the concerns that they have. host: our last caller in this segment of the "washington journal" as we continue to show you live pictures of the supreme court. we will show you those throughout this morning's show. up next, we will be joined by adam liptak, the supreme court

correspondent for the "new york ."mes we will hear from him about some of the major cases before the supreme court. we will discuss the roberts court and how that term is being used. joined be that will be by the policy director for the judicial crisis network later on today show. we will be right back. ♪ >> as the supreme court starts the new term, c-span debuts its new series, landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions. we take a look at the real story of the marbury versus madison case delving into

the heated political battles between john adams, thomas jefferson, and john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution. the famous decision he wrote in marbury versus madison -- >> is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. decision.of the great landmark cases exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers, and justices in these cases. it premieres live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of landmark cases companion book available for $8.95 was shipping at c-span.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: adam liptak of the new york times joins us on this opening day of the new term of the supreme court. how much is one term influence by the other? in your wrapup of the last supreme court, you said it disciplined liberal wings. can we expect some pendulum swing the other way? do.t: i kind of they happened to decide 70 or so each time and it is artificial artificial where you draw the line. cases inthis year has it that suggest the pendulum will swing the other way. the right side may have a better year. host: politically charged cases await the supreme court is a new

your lead on this will set the scene for today and the supreme court. if you want to continue guppies, you can go to the "new york times." we will preview this next term. guest: i like having my prose written to me -- read to me. host: there is a chart that went with one of your life stories on this talking about martin quinn scores on ideology to get a visual of this. tell me what a martin quinn score is as we show the chart. guest: it is a data analysis.

what you see on the chart is that the liberals are ideologically very close. there is much more of a gap among the conservatives. they often approach faces from a different point of view. one thing the chart shows is the two george w. bush appointees started essentially identically the same place. roberts drifts slightly to the a liberal. is not he is still a conservative justice because he is the chief justice and also influenced by his responsibilities to the institution. that may cause him in some cases to take a more moderate take. host: we will see that some of the big cases coming up this term. be more going to divided and big cases this term? guest: it is a little hard to predict. usually, there are about 20

cases decided by 5-4 votes. i think this term will be no different. maybe 15 or 20 are that closely divided. of those 5-4's, they are not always the same five or four. justice kennedy in the middle swinging one way or the other. host: i imagine one of those close cases will be if the supreme court takes up the issue of abortion. it could become a high-profile issue this term. what are the cases here that issue could involve? guest: the leading case comes out of texas. they have not taken it yet. they have not had an abortion case since 2007. this is a case where texas in acts a law that it says was meant to protect women's health but has the effect of closing 30 of the state's 40 abortion clinics because it cannot comply with rigorous requirements.

whether that law imposes what the supreme court has called an undue burden on the constitutional right to abortion is a live question and one that as you suggest will closely divided this justices --the justices. host: what is the process by which they pick the cases? guest: 7000 times a year, people ask the court to take the case. host: 7000. guest: 7000 times and they take maybe 1% of those, 70 of them. the justices sit down in private and whenever a case against four votes, it goes on the docket. four could take a case, five to win a case. some maneuvering. there is a case you might be interested in what you do not want to put it on the docket unless you are sure to win.

it decides which cases it will take. the texas case has all kinds of reasons i think they will take it in part because they have already intervened after an appeals court allowed the clinics to close. the court stepped in temporarily itan emergency basis and said let us put a freeze on it for now and let the clinics stay open until we decide whether to take the case. it makes it that much more likely the court does take the case. host: what is the name of that case? guest: i think it is whole women's health versus cole, but i could be wrong. host: we preview this term of the supreme court with adam liptak. john is up first from montana on the line for independents. caller: good morning, guys. my question is the supreme

itrt's actions last time -- seems like it is closer to the legislation from the bench. what is the counter to it? is there any kind of judicial review or should we just make them political and elect them every four years? is there a counter where the people feel like legislation is coming from the bench? i would like your comments please. guest: the constitution does make the supreme court independent.it does not make it politically accountable . et gives justices life tenur and it is meant to be a counter majoritarian institution. bear in mind there are two kinds of cases. constitutional cases where the court has the last word and statutory cases where it is just interpreting what congressman. the affordable care act case,

the court said we believe that the congressmen to have nationwide subsidies for of insurance. if congress has a different view, congress is read to pass a different law. they are analyzing with the words of a statute means. it gets it wrong in the congress's view, they can pass a law. as a potentialts politicization of the supreme court. what is the argument for and against that? guest: it is an academic argument because you need a constitutional amendment, and that is not likely to happen. most supreme court's around the world and constitutional courts around the world have term limits. they often have a single 18 year term. i do not know that it makes them any less political, and i am not right that that is the right word that --i am not sure that

is the right word. in the modern era, people stay on the court for a long time. justice stevens was 90 when he retired. in the current court, three of them are pushing 80. one is 78. host: al in chicago, illinois. good morning. caller: you hit on a lot of what i was wanting to say. i wonder why in the private sector a lot of times you have to retire at a certain age and you still might be effective. it seems like when you are making decisions that they are making, i would think you would want a change in terms of age. some of these are out of step with the american public. i just do not know why we are at the point now where we decide that there should be a certain time that you are on the supreme court. guest: you make a very good point. it is a policy that may well be

a good idea to read it does that ronald reagan has appointees on this court who are still to some extent reflecting his views. you may ask the question of in the obama era, why do we have the influence of justices from another cultural and political era entirely decisions? host: affiliate kennedy appointed by ronald reagan. clarence thomas appointed by bush. ginsburg and breyer appointed by bill clinton. appointed bylito george w. bush. mayor and kagan appointed by president obama. i want to give back to our case preview. race-basedlving

entrance to college. guest: it asks the question of whether public universities can take account of race in deciding who to admit. this is an issue where the case has been quite engaged. case is on his second trip to the supreme court. there is some reason to think that affirmative action will emerge from this case bruised and damaged. maybe not destroyed but cut back on. host: what happened the first time? guest: the court kind of punted. it says there is a hybrid plan partly raised in neutral and partly raised conscious. they felt like they did a good enough job to look at whether or not it was constitutional.

the court decides to hear it again, and that is an ominous sign for supporters of affirmative action. i do not think with the appeals court had done if it was adequate would return. host: good morning, rick. caller: the subject is like any there are fiveou states that control all of our media. there are two states on the east and that is where your five media outlets are headquartered. when you look at the daily activity today, you see this o t that the last five words have been started by texans. host: stick to the supreme court. caller: i am if you would let me finish because the supreme court is nothing but a slave to the south.

a slaveslave for war, for the manipulation of oil, a slave for illegal immigration. when you get to new york and connecticut and this is where you always hang up on me to protect the billionaires in the juice from new york and connecticut. host: i want to ask you about the candidate backgrounds or i'm .orry the justice background in there been any movement the circles that what the supreme court to try to get that to extend beyond just the three institutions? guest: i think the justices themselves are a little weary of what a narrowband of american legal culture they represent. in the last go-round, it seemed one of the candidates who have ,ot to the university of texas

and that seemed to be in her favor. the next time around, presidents will look broadly and not just -- go to you in the the few elite schools. it sends the wrong message. host: what is a school that has a chance the next time around? guest: there are lots of good law schools. columbia by the way barely squeaks in because every single one of the justices went to harvard or yell justice ginsburg followed her husband to new york city and ended up graduating columbia, but she has a serious also.re components there are a great public universities. berkeley, virginia, michigan. i am sure i am leaving things out and i do not want to offend anybody. there are many good law schools in the united states. host: andy is up next from maryland on the line for

democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to make two comments. i find it very funny that people complain about the supreme court often fall right with the definition of the supreme court that they are not elected, that they are interpreting the constitution, which is exactly what the cost to ship --what the constitution says they should do. the number of justices on the supreme court is not set on the constitution and that can change. i was wondering if you could talk about the process for that anything would be likely at all future. guest: that is a good question and it has bounced around a bit but ever since the are trying to pack the court, it seems to have fallen off the political agenda. i find a horribly to believe we will have anything but nine justices for a long time to come. host: how does the process work

in a president or congress in the future wanted to do that? guest: it is set by congress. the president can proposing congress can pass a law grazing or decreasing the number of justices. it has been done quite a few times in our history. host: when you mentioned the pack the court effort by fdr, can you briefly touch on the history? guest: he was unhappy with some of the decisions the court was making on the new deal. he said controversial he that .he court was going to help out every time a justice reached a certain age, he would an additional justice on the court. therefore, we would have a cord of 13 or something like that. host: we are talking with adam liptak of the "new york times." taking your questions on the opening day of the new term of the supreme court.it is officially the 2016 term that starts today, right?

guest: they call it the october term. host: arlington, virginia. ruth on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: thank you c-span. you have a wonderful program i do know how you sit and listen to some of the callers. i am glad you are discussing this and i am glad mr. liptak is giving some of the history of the supreme court because i do nothing people understand why it is not elected and the danger if it were elected by the people. the federalists call popular elections which they were concerned about allowing. i think you can see in the congress what you get sometimes when you have a popular election. even know it might disagree with some of the things that the supreme court has that, i think if the people would look at it with a narrow focus of the decisions, they can see with a

result in the way they do. i appreciate your comments on that. guest: that is an excellent question. many state supreme court are elected. when political scientists look at those courts, they find that they are more politically accountable, but i am not sure you want little accountability. you see justices running for reelection more likely to impose that sentences. you see them more likely to vote along with their political point of view. you have more politically accountable dust with that is a good question about whether that is a good idea. host: going back to some of the cases going before the court this term. case about union fees for nonunion members. guest: it is a big case that could deal a blow to organized labor. the question in the case is whether people who our

members of the public unions whether they can opt out a participating in the union. if the court says yes you can opt out and you don't have to be a member of the teachers union but you have to pay the equivalent of dues for collective bargaining. the court has said that is true. collective bargaining you have to pay for. but if the same union is engaged in political activities like putting up as to somds for that to support a candidate, then you don't have to pay for that. this challenge is that. it violates amendment rights to be paid to force for collective bargaining because it itself is political. collective bargaining involves things like seniority and

class-size and public spending on education. those are political issues. do not make me pay for that. that is an interesting first amendment argument. should the court agree with it, it will mean a lot of people might stop paying the union due equivalents. it might spend with the economic power of unions and change the landscape organized labor. -- for organized labor. the court has twice indicated that it is very unhappy with this old arrangement they came up with in 1977. there are four or maybe five votes to overturn the arrangement. unions have some good reason to be nervous. host: if you have questions about this case or any cases that may come before the court this term, adam liptak is a great man to ask the questions to.

we will go to our lines for republicans, where francis is waiting in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. the people clearly lead the constitution and wholesome power. article one says all legislative powers should be rested in congress. article six says the constitution laws and treaty, not court rulings or decisions, are the supreme law of the land. particular part of the constitution did marshall give himself and the court judicial review? guest: that is a smart question. the question of judicial review is now widely accepted throughout american society legal culture, but it was a creation of the marshall court. judicial review is not in the constitution in so many words. it is not very hard to find it implied that if the court does have the job of protecting the

rights of americans, particularly in the bill of rights, it has to do that by striking down laws that it finds unconstitutional. the caller is right. no particular provision of the constitution calls for judicial review. host: marbury versus madison case, a key case in the concept. guest: i understand c-span will be focusing on that tonight. host: i appreciate that. will be focusing on that in our new series, a 12 part series focusing on the historic supreme decisions starting tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. let us go to leanne in beverly hills, florida, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i call all of the district attorney and u.s. senate and u.s. congress. nobody has an answer. how do we remove the statute of limitations on rape and insist in this country and making a national? catch somebody and

seven years later you catch them again, the other one is moved and we cannot secure them for it.it is hard to prosecute on these things. it would make it feel better having been raped myself and letting the guy go to court and not let him rape somebody else. guest: i am very sorry to hear about your experience. statute of limitations can be changed. it is controversial about whether they can revive a case that has already gone under the statute of limitations. host: covington, georgia, the line for democrats. good morning. caller: morning. i want to thank you for taking my call, c-span. i want to thank the person is speaking today. my comment is on the supreme court. the supreme court is the highest court in the land. i love their values. values are the interpretation of the constitution, but what i is the supreme court is they do not have extremists.

in the country today, congress is doing an excellent job. but the congress has gone from republicans and democrats to now tea parties and other parties and the liberals and the conservatives. that will make an opportunity for there to be so much explanation that you are not getting your job done. the supreme court has stayed pure. i think it is good they have nine people that basically are doing what they are supposed to be doing, interpreting the constitution, which is a good thing. i believe anything that they say and i think it is great that they are taking selected cases. i have no problem with the supreme court. i know that they will evaluate it and see whether you or whoever is posing the question is disputing the laws of the

land because the laws of the land is what will keep things at a normal pace and be for the good of the law. i thank you very much for taking my question. if you could give some comments on that, i would appreciate it. host: we show the martin quinn scores again of the various justices on the supreme court. that is the voting patterns from more conservative at the top to more liberal at the bottom. guest: first of all, it is nice to hear from a satisfied customer of these in court. --of the supreme court. of ideology one the court. the most conservative justice, justice clarence thomas is one of the most if not the most conservative justices to serve on the court since the 1930's.

there is a good array of ideological and judicial philosophy on the court. host: back to some of the cases that may come up. a case about legislative redistricting. andt: back in the 1960's, the constitution said one person one vote meeting districts have to be the same size. you cannot have one with many people and another with 10 people and give them the same power. the court ever decided who we count in those districts. the recount every single person including children and unauthorized immigrants and people who cannot vote because of felony convictions or do we only count eligible voters? this makes a big difference in some border states with lots of immigrants. the court will decide whether we count every single person or only those people eligible to vote. the consequences of this are very important mostly for republicans. if the court were to say will only cap eligible voters, it

would shift political power from areas mostly blue to rural areas mostly red. this is a case that has an interesting constitutional conceptual puzzle of who do you count and real consequences. concept, states or districts that have prisons in them become a key voting block if it is decided one way. currently, everybody counts everybody in the district, which means there are areas of upstate new york thinly populated but with a big prison that get all of a sudden a lot of voting power. that would change that. that might be an area where it would help democrats. all the other categories would help republicans. host: on the line for republicans, all good morning -- paul, good morning. caller: good morning and a pleasant day to you.

i was calling you about the upcoming supreme court that is supposed to be taking hold. my question is, the law of the against been standing agesexuality for many since the start of this country, although it has always existed. it has been on the qt. all of a sudden, we have it completely legalized for marriage in all of the states and the unions. i just don't think that if you were to ask 10 people on any given street in any given state, i do not think you would find the six of them that are going to agree with what the supreme court voted.

wonder if this new supreme because there is a lot of ramifications in that overturning, military and over wife. courts new supreme overturns the marriage law. guest: constitutional rights are not a popularity contest. we do not decide them by polling people on the street. when the court decided the bands bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional, most of those a good idea. that is the same thing it said in june in deciding that is a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage. i do not see that ruling being overturned. host: in terms of revisiting a doesg, generally how soon that happen when a court does

decide to do so. -- so? guest: there are examples of a --term or twohere where a court decided they have done something wrong but this is not one of those cases. host: john, good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering if the supreme court will eventually help kathleen came in pennsylvania. she was put in office with over 3 million votes to get to the bottom of the penn state situation. it seems like in pennsylvania they took the incident and made it a culture and we had an archdiocese trial run the same three weeks if you look it up with over 1500 charges. they took the incident and reversed in. joined forcesed with red to get her out.

she has gotten into the old boy network in pennsylvania. will just wondering if it end up here eventually because she needs support out of our state. i will hang up and listen to your comments. host: the legal issue on the supreme court's radar? guest: i am not an expert on the ins and outs of the case. they only decide issues of federal law so it is conceivable that this case will turn entirely on issues of state law and therefore there would be no route to the supreme court. host: a comment on twitter. perhaps if congress could write laws more clearly, there would be less for judicial interpretation. guest: that is a nice point. host: and a follow-up. guest: that is one way to put it. the cases that reaches the

supreme court are the hard cases. they are the cases were good judges in the court below them disagreed. the reason you have divided decisions is not only because there is a political component but because they are authentically hard legal questions. host: 10 or 15 minutes left with adam liptak. if you want to join in on the conversation and have a question about one of the cases before democrats,his term, 748-8002.ndependent noel in florida. caller: good morning. in a recent decision on same-sex marriage, two of the judges officiated at same-sex marriages. i understand they should recuse themselves if they have shown any indication of any bias in a decision that might be coming before the court.

i wish you would comment on that please. thank you. guest: sure. i think that if a justice officiated in a jurisdiction where those perfectly lawful, that is no different from doing all kinds of things that are lawful in one part of the nation and unlawful in a different the nation. host: back to our preview of cases. a case the supreme court justice center last week to take up. guest: this is a case that arises out of terrible terror attacks, including one on the marine barracks in thlebanon in 1983. families of those victims sue and get an enormous judgment against iran. now they have a court judgment that they want to enforce. they take that judgment, and they are trying to get money held by iran's central bank to pay up. congress, thinking this is a

great idea, passes a law making it easier for them to collect. the bank says wait a second. congress can pass general laws. it cannot pass a law that specifically is made to determine the outcome of a particular pending case. the question for the supreme court here is can congress pass it? is this such a law and can congress pass one or does not violate separation of hours when there is a penng case in congress passes a law that seems to be directed at the disposition of the particular case? host: how much is this case expected to be watched by the international community, perhaps more so than a generally watch the cases? international community watches a lot. it is funny because one justice just wrote a book about how the to become more

involved in the world. there is a case about the with a company conspiracy in europe and asia. the very first case of the term arises from a train accident in austria this morning. you have a looking at events that take place abroad. host: how can they get involved in a train accident in austria? guest: a california woman bought a pass on the internet from a company in massachusetts. goese austria, gets hurt -- to austria and gets hurt. the question is is that enough to sue the austrian state railway company in the u.s.? host: steve is waiting on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i am kind of tired of people comparing the mixed marriage

situation with the gay marriage situation when it comes to supreme court rulings. then, thell, back mixed marriage ruling did not change the law that marriage is between a man and a woman.the latest ruling did change it . the other thing is, they are not supposed to make law. all they are supposed to do is rule that something is not right, which redirected to the legislature. there were laws, state laws, that stated what it was, marriage between a man and a woman. it reaffirmed a natural law that has been in existence for thousands of years. it was a huge mistake and justice roberts and others pointed out the problems they will have resulted from it. our verdict there will be tons of problems that will result from this ruling simply because i think they created law. they should have just said you

will take a look at this instead of the way they did it. host: how much did that ruling on interracial marriage factor into the court arguments around the gay marriage case? figure strongly but so did other cases the court has decided about gay rights. it is hardly the first case to establish gay-rights. i am not sure i have a lot more to say except back when the interracial marriage case was being argued and decided, you heard many similar arguments that the very nature of marriage require people of the same race to get married to each other. this argument that there is something intrinsic to the nature of marriage was argued in both cases. host: let's go to another steve. this one on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question. one of the problems it seems that is not really on the

surface is that there are only one or two law firms or lawyers that argues before the supreme court to bring a case to the court. doesn't this make it difficult for an average person or someone other than a vested interest with lots of money to pay these high-end lawyers to get their case heard by the court? guest: that is an excellent question. reuters did a study couple of months ago that looked at how the established supreme court really captured on the business. in business cases, that seems to give business groups a leg up because they get very good lawyers to bring cases to the court. at the same time, there are logical clinics at places like stanford and yale that balance this out a bit. in any case where the lower

courts have divided on a significant legal issue, every good lawyers volunteer -- very good lawyers volunteer those thes for free because chance to argue before a supreme court is a prestigious thing for any lawyer. host: i want to ask you about several cases that can come before the court issue of the death penalty. guest: on the very last day of the term in a case about lethal injections, two members of the more or less announced they want to get out of the business of deciding death cases. they think it is almost certainly unconstitutional and they would like to hear in big major challenge. that has not arrived yet although i think people are afraid of something like that. prosecutorse about in a capital case that excludes

all that jurors from a case or whether that amounts to is discrimination. on the death penalty case, who else might join them in allowing a case to be heard? you mentioned the two justices. who oppose the death penalty are hopefully might also pick up the votes of the other two liberals. then the question mark is justice anthony kennedy, who was in the middle. i do not know he is ready to go that far. host: marie is waiting in oregon on the line for independents. good morning. caller: hi. my question is, why don't we have a common court for the supreme court like the other caller said about being 9-0. if there is a common core and you never hear about it, we are

all able to cannot take my life just like i cannot take your life. like't understand how anyone is talking about the constitution when the cost efficient did not say women had a right to vote. host: what is your question? is what isquestion the common core? the educational issue? caller: common core rights of everyone. guest: the constitution does try to set out those rights we all enjoy and it is the supreme court's job to try and enforce those. host: adam liptak is supreme court correspondent with the new york times. where will you be? guest: i will be in the courtroom. host: how many hours is that going to be? guest: they hear two hours of argument today and the same next

week. some of those will be very interesting and others less so. host: up next, a special monday roundtable. we will discuss the roberts court and how his term is being viewed. we will be joined by nan aron and carrie severino. we will be right back. ♪

>> student cam is c-span's film competition for students grade six through 12. they create a five to seven minute documentary. students tont for get involved because it gives them the opportunity and platform to have their voices heard on issues that are important to them. so they can express those views by creating a documentary. we get a wide range of entries. important aspect for every documentary that we get is going to be the content. we have had winners in the past that created just using a cell phone. we had others created using more high-tech equipment. it is really the content that matters.

the response from students in the past has been great. there have been many different issues they have created videos on. ranging froms education, the economy, and the environment -- showing a wide variety of issues that are important for students. >> having more water in the river would have many positive impacts. humans cannot run without food. prior to the individuals with disabilities education act, children with disabilities were not given the opportunity of an education. is wrote to's theme the white house. what is the most important issue you want the candidates to discuss in the 2016 presidential campaign? there are many different candidates discussing issues. key requirements in creating a documentary is to include some c-span footage. this should really complement

and further their point of view. it is a great way for them to include more information. the first bill i will sign today is the water resources reform and development act. >> we have all heard the jokes about school meals. >> there is a vital role that the federal government played. it is especially vital for students with disabilities. >> students and teachers can go to find moree information about the rules and requirements as well as teacher tips, rubrics, more information , and ways to contact us. the deadline for this year's competition is january 20 2016.

>> washington journal continues. of then this opening day new term of supreme court we are joined by nan aron, president of the alliance for justice and carrie severino, counsel and polity -- policy director for the judicial crisis network. with the samegin question we asked our viewers today. do you think the court has become too political? think we want justices that are not going to be political. we want people looking at just the law not inserting political beliefs. but unfortunately that does happen a lot. unfortunately it happens particularly with the liberal wing of the court. a lot of their judicial philosophy actually invites people to bring in their political views to review the case. that would be the obamacare case recently. toef justice robert's vote save obamacare was based on

political reasons rather than a neutral approach to what the law says. anytime you're considering, i really don't want to see this consequence in the case, that is not the real view of the justice. host: under the roberts court in particular? guest: it has been a problem historically as well. the most characteristic court would be the warren court for doing very politicized decision-making. it can happen in any court. all justices should divorce their policy positions from their constitutional position. you want to be voting in cases in ways you might not vote if you are a legislator. upholding laws you might not have voted for. interpreting the constitution is a different job. guest: of course they are political and they always have been.

court and several court systems decide cases that affect every aspect of our lives from the water we drink and the air we predict to whether we have protections in the workplace. particularly modern-day presidents, going back to ronald reagan, made a determined effort to choose justices and judges who would carry out their agendas, their social agendas. right to abortion, school prayer, racial equity. are our courts political, but the way in which we choose judges is political. we choose judges -- we have a president that enjoys the power of sending a name to a senate. then we have the senate, who has

a choice as to whether to confirm that individual or not. so it's not just that our courts are political, but the very process by which we choose and confirm judges is political. host: how much do outside forces contribute to this? we are coming up on a term that is going to be overshadowed by a presidential election. we're in a news era where it is a training -- 24 hour news cycle. how much of it is coming from outside the court versus inside? all thet the moment, noise about the court is coming from the candidates themselves. the republican candidates for president -- every single candidate has talked about the kind of justice they would like to see. and some of them have gone out of their way, particularly ted in blasting john roberts because of one decision last term.

the health care decision. so the noise is really coming from the candidates and that is very intentional. all of that noise from the candidates is designed to pump up the right-wing base of the republican party. i'm sure kerry will have a different video that. it is very intentional and very well-designed to inject the issue of the courts in the election. host: before we get carrie severino's thoughts, here is a clip from that debate last month in which both jeb bush and ted cruz talked about john roberts. >> john roberts has made some really good decisions. but he did not have a proven extensive record that would have made clarity the important thing. and i'm willing to fight for those nominees to make sure that they get past. you can't do it the politically expedient way anymore.

you have to fight hard for these appointments. this is perhaps the most important thing that the next president will do. >> do you like what you just heard? >> i've known john roberts for years. he is an amazingly talented lawyer. but it was a mistake that he was appointed to the supreme court. he changed the statute. he changed the law and order to enforce that failed law on millions of americans for a political out come. we are frustrated as conservatives. we keep winning elections and then we don't get the outcome we wanted. let me focus on two moments in time. 1990, david souter and edith jones. george herbert walker bush appointed david souter. and then in 2005, john roberts utig.ike loo george w. bush appointed john

roberts and these are the consequences of that. if the other judges had been appointed, obamacare would have been struck down and the marriage laws of all 50 states would be on the books. carrie severino, your thoughts on justice roberts? is he a conservative? guest: i think we have a right in talking about this issue for starters -- all of the candidates are talking about this and frankly they should. ands very happy to see bush cruz talking about it. i think roberts has been a focal point because of that recent decision, but that is not a unique decision for him. of decisions he

makes that are very conservative. he also has a tendency of pulling his punches and trying to avoid deciding issues that would be really contentious. sometimes i think doing so in illegitimate ways. there was an abortion clinic hetest case recently -- really reinterpreted the law rather than come to a hard decision. much in the same way he did in the obamacare case. something everyone should take into account. he is conservative in many ways, but he doesn't stand up for it when it counts. host: bloomberg businessweek talks about his credentials in their story this week on the court. , roberts has a resume that would bring tears of joy to barry goldwater and william f buckley.

nominated by george w. bush in the supremerked at court for his predecessor, nixon appointee william rehnquist, came of age professionally in the reagan administration. guest: i think we can all agree that being really smart, wicked as john roberts is, is an important credential. but it's not the beginning and the end of what we look for in a judge. for someonewe look with excellent credentials, but we look for people of impeccable honesty. we also look at one's view and division of the role of the court. do nominees believe that the courts are there to merely serve the 1%, the wealthy?

someone's vision of the courts interpret the constitution as giving access, a hearing, not just to the powerful, but to everyone in america? and when john roberts appeared at his confirmation hearing, there was certainly no question that he was well credentialed. the issue was what was his vision of the constitution? at there were many of us time who said his vision of the constitution was such that the little guy, the everyday american, would really have a hard time getting a hearing before the supreme court. host: you mentioned people's view of the court. how much do you think people's view this term is going to be seen through the prism of a same-sex marriage case and the health care case? guest: i certainly think that those two cases have dominated the debate since june.

but i think going forward, we just heard adam liptak on your so pleased that c-span is going to be having other programs on the court. i think we're going to learn a lot more about this court. it's not just two or three decisions from last term. explainedourt as adam is granted a number of hot button cases. and i do think these cases and the decision the court renders will influence public opinion over the next year. want to learnou more about the historic cases before the supreme court, our landmark cases series begins tonight with marbury versus madison at 9:00 on c-span. it is the kickoff to a 12 part original series here on c-span. we're asking you to join in for the next 45 minutes. we are talking to nan aron of the alliance for justice and carrie severino with the

judicial crisis network. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8002. what are the most important cases? guest: fisher versus university of texas. it is a racial preference case. they say we need to have strict scrutiny if a university wants to bring race into its admissions process. university of texas was not doing so. so now we will see what the court says about that. another one that is really important is fredericks versus california teachers association. that is about the first amendment rights of government

employees. do you have to check your first amendment rights at the door to join a government job? because if you are forced to join a government union, you can be forced to pay for what is effectively political lobbying. host: would you agree that those are the top two cases? guest: i would say fredericks is probably the top case. fisher i don't know. it is the second time it is going up. texas has an amazing program of admissions. 10% of the top class of high school students are automatically admitted to the university of texas. 75% oftudents comprise the schools in texas and then went texas is done it says, for the remaining students, let's use race as just one of several criteria. it seems entirely reasonable.

it was challenged a couple years ago. it went back to the fifth circuit. the supreme court said, get this right. circuitingly, the fifth was a republican judge in the system for texas's admitting students is fine. it's perfectly constitutional and now it is being relitigate d. the fredericks case is very important. it is an effort by corporations to strip unions of public service workers to charge nonunion members dues when those benefit members profit, , work done through collective bargaining agreements. court struck a wonderful accommodation and said, unions represent everyone.

you can join and pay dues. but those people who don't join have to pay their fair share because they benefit just as members do from all the negotiations related, to wages related to promotions, and most importantly, they benefit from training unions offer their workers to provide better services to americans throughout our cities and counties. so it is a critically important issue. has beenn issue that brought by corporations. they are hoping at the thatation of sam alito, they will prevail. i'm hoping and thinking they may not get a majority. host: cases we will be hearing a lot about this term. we want to hear from viewers. what are the cases that are going to be important to you

this term? up first in virginia. for democrats. good morning. thanks for taking my call. we are part of the problem because we are divided. judges can see what is going on out there. is ted cruzi have criticizing judge robert but he's not criticizing tentative. -- kennedy. that if youealize judge like this all the time, then we should have term limits for the judges. can definea judge marriage, i don't know what judge can be. because i have the law that a god tells me that something is

not acceptable. so i'm not denying people their rights. but we do have to respond sometimes for god. you make a decision, you make a decision that you are not going to make one person happy. and you make one person unhappy. and that's not -- going to let carrie severino jump in on the issue of term limits. is an i think term limits interesting idea. it has been proposed for a while. the challenge is how do you start to implement them in a way that is not going to give a ig leg up to one party. there have been discussions of having very long term limits for example. it is a matter of figuring out how to make it happen. ourt: i would just say that caller reminds us of something very important that we often overlook. and that is judges and justices

serve for life. ofle presidents serve terms four years. for 20, 30e there years. i think chief justice william rehnquist was on the court through the terms of six or seven different presidents. so judges and justices have awesome power. and therefore, we have to take this factor into account when we think about who we are electing president. host: one comment on twitter, during the nomination process, the only question should be, would you enforce a clear and unequivocal law even if you personally disagreed with it? lydia is up next in illinois. caller: good morning. thank you so much for this opportunity.

i am a person who feels that the court is dysfunctional and political is a word that is used to describe that dysfunctionality. represent the not magna carta, which is the cornerstone. and chief justice roberts was when susannet asked him about the citizens united case. he said, what are you going to do, impeach me? while at this point i am pushing for a magna carta charter ship. and that word should be official. honoring the magna carta so that who wasike tom hartman, on c-span yesterday, writing a book on equal protection -- writing and excellent book on equal protection, --

clerk's note was than the preston for the citizens united authority that the supreme court used for their case by corporations are people. this is malpractice and the citizens need to not just react but to act through their local venues. which is what my corporation -- i have represented for 20 years -- is going to do. and push back through a venue that is the ahority given to us which is the magna carta. severino, for people who want to see changes, what is the best process to do that? guest: it is the one the constitution gives us. thatve a president appoints justices and we have senators that are going to confirm them. and making sure that those

people have a clear understanding of the kind of judicial philosophy. it shouldn't be a conservative versus liberal person. it should be there judicial philosophy. their judicial philosophy. you would need a constitutional amendment to change the system. the president is going to make a decision that will affect the court for generations. long outlasting how long they will be in office. this is one of the most important things the next president will do. we have several justices who could easily retire during the next president's term. that could impact the court for generations. in new jersey. line for republicans. caller: good morning. we need this. it is no longer the supreme court. it is now the supreme lawmakers. the gigantic ego of these people that think that they can destroy

our civilization. civilizations are destroyed how? because they fail from within. these people aren't the supreme court. they make up laws. that is not their job. host: what rulings are you specifically talking about? caller: anything. starting with roe versus wade. there is nothing in the constitution that permits a court to make up a law. our representatives should do that. that is to be done in the congress. the supreme court has eliminated the congress and they have -- civilization -- how did they all destroyed? they destroyed from within. there is no way that a man and another man can have a family. if we don't have a family, we don't have a civilization. well i would say, judges

and justices do the best they can with the cases that are brought before them. and we do have a magnificent document that gives us some guidance. it's the constitution. not the magna carta but the constitution. justices do their best not to make law. although i would say some often err in that direction. their job is not to make law. their job is to interpret the law. the roe versus wade in 1970's. justices did their best to figure out a way, interpret the constitution, in order to give women the right to make a decision whether to continue or and a pregnancy. and it was a critically important decision and i would say it all goes back to the

constitution interpreting the constitution. we may not agree with every decision, but that is basically our lone star for making decisions. victor on twitter says, these social issues are driving people in same. we collectively need to step away from them. earl in georgia. line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is a very interesting conversation here. i have three things i would like to say. first of all, if congress would have done their job, the judge wouldn't have to step in and put this law afford. the one that made

the law, but they were sitting on their behind. make no lawwant to that the judge stepped in and made the law. host: are you talking about the health care decision? theer: i'm talking about man versus man law. that law is a padlock -- bad law. we cannot fight the judges for that. we fight congress for that. because congress is the one that makes the law. man is against the word of god. i am a child of god and that is against the word of god.

republicans are so against that obamacare that they want to tear down that obamacare. they want to take that out of there. and this is for people that don't have health insurance. that's a lot of people. they are so against this theident -- this man is most hated i have probably ever seen in my life. and they are the ones that separate this country. host: carrie severino, do you want to pick up on the first part of that? he said congress wasn't doing their job. guest: i think sometimes justices feel that way. that if congress is in passing the laws they would like to, that they will step in. but that is actually not the court's role at all. the court's role is to simply interpret the laws the constitution has -- that the congress has passed. toetimes it means having check those laws against the constitution.

his is the root make laws and that is their job. -- congress has the right to make laws and that is their job. guest: i can think of two instances where congress took meticulous care in crafting laws. one was the voting rights act. there were thousands of pages. of legislative history on the act. timeawesome how much congress spent on that act. what was truly deplorable is the supreme court that disregarded years of congressional authority, congressional work, to strike at the heart of the voting rights act. just simply overlooked it. case, health care congress worked day and night. obama administration worked

diligently to draft the law. that covered almost every aspect of health care. those republicans who were unhappy with the law brought a lawsuit in the supreme court. and what was most surprising was -- there wasourt no conflict in the circuits. there was no major legal issue. for justices on the court decided they were going to take one more try at gutting the health care law and failed in doing so. host: carrie severino is shaking her head. guest: that is exactly the opposite of what was happening. they were being asked to enforce the law as written. the law provided subsidies under plans that were established by the state. we can argue about whether or not that was a good decision.

because -- in part contrary to how you described the law -- everyone knows obamacare wasn't one of those laws that was slowly deliberated. it was actually pushed through. it was jammed through congress very quickly. in fact quicker than they wanted to because of the political things. so congress sometimes isn't doing its job when it passes legislation if it does so when the legislation isn't complete. the court's job is not to go back and try to fix that. that: you know and i know when that law was drafted, no republican objected to that provision. it wasn't until the law was enacted that a couple of republicans got together and scoured that legislation from beginning to end, found a tiny little provision and said, we're going after that. roberts said, no, this is ridiculous. host: this is a topic we want to hear from viewers on.

how much our cases from the last going to influence how you watch this term? the justices arriving on capitol hill this morning to start the new term of the supreme court. 2016 --f will end in this term will end in 2016. joe is in maryland on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i have a quick comment and quick question. i would just like to respond to the liberal commentator guest. what she just said was completely disingenuous about the health care law. the law was passed without the house and senate going to conference as nancy pelosi famously said you had to pass a law before you could read it. so to say that the republicans only objected to a very small part of it, they never had a chance really -- but i'm very interested in fisher versus texas and i have to ask, i can

only call the conservative commentator, i'm in a car and i cannot see anyone names. the other guest mischaracterized that decision. it didn't say it was perfectly -- justice roberts didn't say it was perfectly constitutional. the fifth circuit court didn't do what it was supposed to do which was to examine if university of texas used the least intrusive means to achieve this so-called critical mass of diversity. it is really a hard concept. how much diversity is a critical mass? i think they failed to do that. it's hard to do. my question to the conservative that is what is the chance the supreme court will go further than maybe some people expect and completely overruled the way tond say

stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race? host: carrie severino, that thetion is to you with judicial crisis network, joining us alongside nan aron of the alliance for justice. guest: that's a great point. with the supreme court is acting is for strict scrutiny to be applied. that was the question in the previous case. the problem is race cannot be taken into account by government agencies like the state unless there is a compelling interest in doing so in its narrowly tailored to fit that interest. there is a compelling interest in heaven diversity in the classroom. but it also said this is something that we should be decreasing the use of. even said, over 25 years i expect this to not be necessary. we see even more race of -- more

use of race in the classroom. and the increasing empirical evidence is that it isn't even doing what people think. it could be hurting the minority applicants it is supposed to be helping. students are in universities they are not prepared for and don't do as well. so there are a lot of reasons to be concerned as well. the fifth circuit didn't take that into account. i hope the supreme court will articulate a little clearer this time the standard of how to apply scrutiny. because this happens in universities across the country. host: go ahead. do we i would just add -- really want to be relitigating and relitigating the issue of racial equity and racial diversity? we all know that it has benefited our universities, colleges, i work basis.

every institution. in fact, most every corporation in the country supports a diverse work lace. i would say let's move on. we acknowledge the significant benefits it brings to every institution in american life. let's go on. let's not be bringing these cases back time and time again. let's go forward. let's not go back. host: do we know when this is going to be argued? guest: that one is set for november. but to point out, we are relitigating this, but that is because something people have seen as a characteristic of this court lately. rather than making a very clear decision in an attempt to make the narrowest decision possible, which you can argue whether that is good or bad, but it results in cases like this having to come back ache as they were clear enough.

the weren't clear enough in fifth circuit. these baby to take steps, you have to recognize we will start seeing these issues over and over again. host: let's go to phyllis in boulder. line for independents. caller: good morning. other than citizens united, to behas clearly become regarded as a reckless decision by the roberts court, under, i might add, very politicized bush regime, i want to adamantly disagree with carrie severino with regards to the allegedly .oliticized scotus citizens united was a decision

made by the majority of the conservative a pointed judges. appointedative judges. that remains well to the right of where it was in the warring warren hearsrs -- for years. i am in total agreement with nan aron. thank you for your points. the supreme court decides on matters to interpret the constitution for the public good historically. with regards to women's right to choose -- host: are you saying that each term is influenced by the high-profile decisions of the previous?

that they are looked at it individual vacuums? caller: they shouldn't be looked at in individual vacuums. sometimes they are. but that was not my point in the least. inould agree with nan aron that the supreme court, when it comes to environmental issues, health care, the death penalty, racial marriage, same-sex marriage -- those things that are very important, like roe versus wade. the affordable care act this last year. if this conservative court were thatve scrapped the aca, wasn't jammed through congress, because obama gave an entire summer of town halls, the republicans helped write that up ,- regardless, the outcome was

it would have been -- had they scripted it would have been disastrous for those uninsured. and the american medical association who supported it and the public. so there is -- host: that was phyllis. she mentioned you. did you want to respond? guest: i agree we need to have a court that is not behaving in political ways. but i think that also means not trying to bring in our external policy views into these decision. aboutan aron was talking the supreme court doing its best to try and interpret the constitution to allowing them to have a right to choose. the justices should never be interpreting the constitution in order to do anything other than effect what it was originally meaning from its founders. many of thesee on

decisions, i think we can all agree that we hope justices at what theking constitution means and not bring their own political decisions to the bench. guest: the let's be real. presidents look at the justices. reagan and both bushes put on the supreme court. those justices were put on the court in order to implement a social agenda. a republican social agenda. it was very clear. none of those presidents publicly said anything otherwise. so president obama and clinton put moderates on the court. in an effort to bring about some balance on the supreme court. presidents get who they want and what they want on the court and whenst means that in 2016, we go elect a president, we need

to know we are not just electing a president, but that president will appoint a supreme court. there will be four justices in their 80's and that court will be with us the rest of our lives. it is that important. if it's a republican president, we know the kind of justices here she will appoint. democrat, we have an idea of the justices he or she will appoint. it's critically important that we pay attention. host: several callers wanting to chat with both of you. guest: i just have to take issue with calling someone like justice ginsburg a moderate member of the court. she is by far the most liberal member of the court. there are many conservative justices that republican appointed justices who clearly don't vote as conservatives but as constitutionalists. at the death penalty cases

for example where justices scalia and thomas are leading the court in keeping really robust rights to a jury trial for example. that is something that is not about pro or con. if viewers want to look at the voting records of the different justices on the court, here is that score we have been showing you. the higher up a justice is on this court, the more conservative their voting pattern is. johnson has been waiting to chat with us in silver spring, maryland. obviously both sides take issue when it really comes down that they don't like. but the current makeup of the court is so nakedly partisan and a nakedly in favor of

,ro-conservative, pro-corporate anti-worker, and the individual agenda that they have really reshaped through their decisions and potentially further through labor decisions coming up in this term, they have really reshaped the individuals,of corporations, and the government in this country and they have basically elevated corporations above individuals. thank you very much. host: carrie severino. guest: that's simply not the case. i think you are alluding to citizens united. corporationt free-speech rights. because corporations are groups of individuals. also recognized the free-speech rights of unions.

so on the political front, those fall on different sides of the aisle. but you would hope that in the supreme court that the same legal standard would apply. and as they showed in citizens united, it does. the laws apply equally to corporations and individuals. guest: i think sadly, this caller is absolutely right. of the nationsue magazine, which documents the trend of the roberts court, we find time and time again this is a court that rules in favor of the wealthy and a corporations, the expense of everyone else. a court that has made a much more difficult for a plaintiff to even get into court in the first place. this is a court that has drastically limited the ability of people to band together to bring class-action litigation.

this is a court -- even academic courts indicate that this sides with the chamber of commerce almost nearly every time. host: paul is in pennsylvania on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. that last caller is absolutely right and this court is so far right wing. the whole country moves so far to the right that moderates seem liberal. and one thing i would like to explain to people. we don't live in a theocracy. -- ireligious beliefs respect them, but you can't impose them on other people. whether it is gay marriage or abortion. nobody is going to make you get an abortion or make you get marry, but you can't impose your views on other people. it's so simple. host: how would you fix the

court? is there a solution? caller: citizens united has to go. it's horrible. and when they gutted the voting rights act -- oh my god. why aren't people up in arms about that? oh no, they are up in arms because some guy can marry some other guy. host: you're calling me on the line for republicans. caller: i'm sorry. i should be -- i'm a democrat. [laughter] host: we will go to art in washington. caller: good morning. i don't know what these two colors are talking about. if they are right wing, why did they change the wording to fit the president and obamacare. my insurance has gone through the roof since that has happened. in the gay marriage

issue did they say, technically it says this but they think they mean that. let me say something. how many cases in courts at every level every day, cases are thrown out on technicalities. but the supreme court changes it to fit obama's agenda. i was thought that the supreme court -- that was the last stop i would always have a chance. but i don't. because they fit the obama agenda. president obama is a disgrace and has made a disgrace of our country. we are laughed at and now we are told we can't even flight for syria. syria.ver syria gayn they put floodlights in front of the white house. host: what do we learn about how

the supreme court is going to deal with challenges in the wake of the kim davis case? guest: i want to agree with art that this is clearly not a conservative right wing court the way that the previous democratic caller indicated. some of the decisions had been a push back on the really liberal nolicies of the war irrern court. you bring up an interesting issue because this issue of religious freedom is where that is going to be decided and there is a very likely chance that the supreme court will take a religious freedom case. that will be the little sisters of the poor case. they are nuns who take care of an exceptionwant from the hhs mandate requiring them to provide contraceptives

to their employees. can we live and let live is really the question. can we still have room for different religious beliefs or are we going to have the government trying to force everyone to do things one way? host: nan aron? guest: i think that is one important case going up. although i think the mandate was very clear and exempted synagogues, churches. i was really disappointed to see the supreme court open the door to private corporations, closely held corporations in the hobby lobby case. there is another important abortion case going on. it may be coming out of texas. this case has the potential of getting rid of all abortion

clinics in the state of mississippi. and getting rid of almost all clinics in the state of texas, leaving only 10. the state legislature came up with some cockamamie regulations, saying local doctors had to have hospital admitting privilege. to be like needed surgical centers -- ridiculous and expensive and unnecessary procedures all designed to make it impossible for women to make a decision as to whether or not they want to continue a pregnancy. host: and one of the key cases on this issue, -- guest: those are both important cases. i would take issue with the faculty called the sake cockamamie law.

-- i would take issue with the act that you called this cockamamie law. i think it is actually advancing women's health. happens when you have substandard medical conditions. there are many cases when women do have to have follow-up at a hospital. it is important that the doctors have admitting privileges and that standards are kept to the level of the surgical centers. we shouldn't have lower standards for women's health. guest: even legislators who wrote those laws said, these laws are designed to prevent women from getting abortion in our state. they have nothing to do with public health. these clinics are incredibly well run. even the american medical association is opposed to these laws.

only because, under the supreme court's standard, they would place an undue burden on the ability of women to seek reproductive health care, which under the constitution, women have a right to do. certainly a divisive issue in this country as we have seen in the debates over the budget battle just at the end of last month. we are taking your calls. the allianceron of for justice and carrie severino of the judicial crisis network here to discuss the upcoming term of the supreme court. gary is in kentucky. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. sotomayor havend performed same-sex marriages. should they have excused themselves or was it legal for them to vote before hearing all the evidence? i have no knowledge that -- i think they have done that since.

they may have done it before. guest: no i don't think that's any kind of argument for recusal. it certainly suggests that we know where their position was, but i don't think a lot of people were in the dark about how they were going to vote on that case. i don't think that rises to the level of recusal in these cases unless perhaps they had performed a marriage in a state that was at issue in the case. host: what's an example of something that would rise to the level of recusal? guest: the one issue that came up that skirted the line was justice ginsburg's comments on the issue. she has become much more vocal lately. maybe she is enjoying being the senior liberal on the court. she talked about the issue before it was decided. she talked to a about how she thought it was time for this issue to be decided.

justicesomething shouldn't comment on until the case is decided. let the record reflect, we agree on something. but i would just add one thing. to note thatnt supreme court justices, unlike lower court justices, do not have to abide by a judicial code of conduct. we won't go into that. maybe for another program. host: certainly time for upcoming debates on this issue. shirley is in new orleans. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say that the court became activist when they elected george bush to president. democrat christian. i don't believe in abortion. but i also don't leave that i

have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body. or to tell a gay person that they shouldn't be married. what about older people to get married? they have no chance of producing babies and they are a man and a woman. lady that is sitting there, ms. carrie severino, that the koch brothers have gotten their return on her interpretation of the law. very well. thank you. host: i will let you explain what the judicial crisis network is. guest: i wish i was getting money from the cook others. -- koch brothers. we don't talk about our donors. all of those issues -- the court actually shouldn't the telling states how to run their abortion

laws or how to run their marriage laws. i think we probably are in agreement about that. my concern is that the court in both of those cases stepped out and overturned a bunch of state laws on the issue. thee are both issues that constitution doesn't comment on. and when it doesn't comment on something that leaves it to the state. there's a lot of diversity of opinion in america on those issues and that is why we saw a diversity of state laws on those issues. that's the way the court should have left it. that would have helped us on the divisiveness. ann you constitutionalize issue, we fight at the court level rather than being able to have a democratically elected laws that address it in a more nuanced way. do you want to play what you do with the judicial crisis network? focus on judicial nominations at the state and federal level as well as major supreme court cases. we are hoping to see more judges

who are going to be faithful interpreting the laws as written. host: do you want to talk about the alliance for justice? you have a project coming out tonight on this fredericks versus california case. guest: yes, we have a film. it has been seen as law schools and public universities around the country. it involves the friedrichs case involving the issue of public sector workers and whether they will be able to continue to unite and organize and provide incredibly important services for our community. it is on our website. it 17 minutes. i hope people will look at it. instructs guide that

people about the details of the case. ,ts goal is to do two things one, let people know just how important unions are in this country today and how we are all benefited from them, and two, go vote. i want to thank you both for your time to morning on the "washington journal." that is it for this segment of the washington journal. we will be back to open up phones for viewer questions. when that has been brought up this morning, would you be in favor for term limits for supreme court justices? the phone numbers are there on your screen. we will be right back. ♪

>> tonight on the communicators, chip pickering, ceo of content discusses broadband issues and other topics. as a legacy telephone company transitions from coffer -- copper and something called tdm, an old technology, circuit-switched, to new networks and new technology, how do we make sure that 911, and how do we make sure that competition that has taken place -- taken root in the marketplace continues and thrives? and how do we make sure our critical institutions, schools, libraries, hospitals, first theynders, the services depend on, those networks, how do they go into the next

technology? this transition with everything being sustained and improved. i.t. is what we all want. it is more efficient and gives better service and lower suppresses. >> tonight at 8 p.m. eastern and pacific on the communicators on c-span2. >> as the supreme court starts the new term, c-span debuts its new series, landmark cases, historic decisions. we take a look at the real mori -- the real story between the famous marlborough versus madison case. -- marbury versus madison case. established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in his famous decision that he wrote in marbury versus madison. marbury versus madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> join the discussion, yale law

author offessor, and the -- and author clips own. -- cliff sloan. it premieres live tonight at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. each caseckground on while you watch, order your copy of landmark cases companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping at www.c-span.org /landmarkcases. "washington journal" continues. we are showing live pictures from outside the court where people are waiting to check out proceedings on its october 2015 opening-day term.

we are taking calls to answer this question, would you favor term limits for supreme court justices? it was from a poll that was prepared for c-span earlier this summer, the question about whether justices should serve lifetime appointments. 40% of those polled said they agreed that justices should serve lifetime appointments. 60% saying they disagreed. the pole layerut -- the poll there. men, 43 to 57. 47 to 63. we be taking your comments on that topic. line for democrats, ellie, good morning. caller: good morning and take --

thank you for taking my call. i am opposed to lifetime terms. i think everyone needs to move along. i realize the president has whatever, republican or democrat, can certainly choose who they want, but it should be with a 10 year term, or as long as they are term, eight years. theirthey are term -- term, eight years. we should also look at our constitution. it was drafted 250 years ago and i will say confidently that life has changed and we must move on and we must get religion out of politics. thank you very much. host: before you go, do you think that if we put term limits on justices that it puts more power in the hands of the president and there will be more appointed by president if we are cycling through justices on the bench? caller: well, i really don't

know. i mean, we have justices on there now 20 years, 30 years. there has to be something different. into haven't really gone the thought process of that. a lot of things are not working. states, likeis 50 little countries. we have to have uniformity. we have to come together, and yet i don't disagree -- i'm a democrat. i'm not pro-abortion. but i have no right to tell someone else what to do. abortion, you are not for it, don't have one. gay marriage, don't marry a gay. it is as simple as that. entrench in the last 10 years religion so much where there is no law for religion,

and then religious freedom -- what are they doing? they're marching around, freedom, freedom, but taking away everything they possibly can. ellie in syracuse, new york this morning. the justice that has served the longest at this point, anthony .calia coming up on 30 years appointed in 2010, by obama. we have asked if you would support 18 year term limits as a possible term limit set for justices on the supreme court. with an 18y agree year term limit. 50% somewhat agree. 15% somewhat prefer a lifetime appointment. responded strongly prefer a lifetime appointment. we will track through some of

the polling the verse from the july, 2015 poll. we will also show you live shots from outside the supreme court this morning on the opening day of the new term. ourblicans -- you can join lines as well. the numbers are on the screen. rick is up next in arlington, texas, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning to you, sir. one of the things that our founders left us with is a constitution that is extremely amend when we think about a document that is well over 200 years old that has only been amended less than 30 times, that is an incredible document. the other thing they left us, which is extremely important to democracy, our three independent branches of government. term were to institute

limits for supreme court justices, that would limit the independence of the court and make the executive and the legislature who has to approve the appointment to the court more powerful, because they would be able to politic on the fact that a particular justice may be coming up to the end of their term limits and it would politicize the entire situation. while i agree that life has changed since 1787 when the document was approved, the brilliance of the document is something that we've got to seriously consider before we amend it. that is why they made it so difficult. far as the justices themselves are concerned, we know that over time some of them tend to change their views as they get on the court. justice souter, who was 41,inted by president bush

everyone thought he was going to be a conservative and he turned out to be just as moderate as the days long and changed his views when he got on the court. some don't like justice scalia, but others do. and that is good. i think it's very important to maintain the independence of the supreme court and any other thing that we do would politicize double situation -- the whole situation and make our government much different than it is today. host: you talk about politics seeping into the court. one of the things we've been very interested in has been cameras in this report. do you think it would make it more or less lyrical? caller: it -- more or less political? caller: it would make it more clinical because we could not just see and hear the words that we do now, but we could see the body language and the kind of that people do when they get in the courtrooms.

having myself served on a number of juries and even a grand jury, i know that i was very happy there were no cameras in the court when i was on the grand jury, for example. for the supreme court to have cameras, that might be an experiment we might try because every other branch of government is very open. and a lot of cases even in the lower courts, as you know, are televised, especially when they are high-profile cases. it might be an experiment that they might try for some time frame to see what would actually happen. i likeerally speaking, the way the court operates now. i can hear what they say and read what they say, but i like their independence. it is extremely important that they be independent. host: thank you for the call from arlington, texas. in clearwater, texas, line for republicans. what do you think? caller: i think there should be

more of an age limit then just a specified term limit. the reason for that, i think you get to a certain age and you're thinking actually changes, and the supreme court itself has ruled for airline pilots the very same thing. they once upheld an faa ruling that pilots had to retire at age 60 if they were an airline commercial pilot. that has since been raised to 65, but i think that would be a good consideration, to consider the possibility of senility and other things, other factors that can come in as they age. also, federal government agencies rarely hire anybody past the age of 35. why not this? host: we will keep taking your favoron whether you would term limits for supreme court justices. as you are diving in, i want to note that the campaign 2016 -- as you are dialing in, i want to

the campaign 2016 bus continues to chicago this week. at the comcast x kennedy store located at 901 west we've street in chicago's clyburn corridor. those there will be able to step aboard the bus to learn about 2016 campaign coverage, including interactive online resources to allow you to watch candidate speeches and event. -- events. visitors will also have a chance to stop by the comcast dexterity store, a store that allows -- --finity store. stop by for a visit. for toursll be open until 8:00 p.m. andse visit www.c-span.org find community at the bottom of the home page for the tour

dates. you can also follow the bus on instagram and twitter. back to the phones, jim is waiting in claremore, oklahoma, line for republicans. would you be in favor of term limits for supreme court justices? caller: hello question mark host: hi, jim, you are on the washington journal. caller: definitely term limits and it should be as soon as the president's term ends. equal branches of government should be sufficient enough. and when the woman talked about abortion being a woman's body right, that is completely against everything america is supposed to stand up for. it violates religious freedom. it is not the woman's body that is being ripped to shreds through abortion. it is the child. and it is wrong to rob money from christians or anyone against abortion to facilitate

abortions. and other things like gay marriage, if someone wants to do that, fine. but that should not be a government issue. that should be a state issue and a community issue, not forced upon us all one-size-fits-all. host: access to abortion certainly an issue that is expected to be taken up by the supreme court this term. -- of the key cases, whole women full health versus coal. next on the line from michigan -- excuse me, ava. caller: i do not favor term limits from -- on the supreme court. the issues they face are so deep and complex that the nation could really not function so ripped from itre from term to term about these very complicated issues of american life.

the court should have an opportunity to rule in a way that is balanced and fits the whole nation, not an ideological perspective. i agree with the gentleman from texas who called earlier, that favoring the supreme court changing very often would not be good for the country. thank you. host: eva, let me ask you before you go, where do you get your information question mark what news -- where do you get your information? what news sources do you follow? i think we lost her. bill on the line for independents, good morning. caller: you know, just listening this morning, i think there have been a lot of attorneys that called in, because they are pretty hit and up to date on some of this. one thing i would like to point out, and i cannot cite any specific cases, but if you notice the supreme court over the years, it switches. it changes.

it has a way of -- there are a court of times where the would reverse itself, but i believe the pendulum swings both ways. i think the court someday kick back this citizens united, because that thing no matter which side of the political spectrum you live on, i mean, that thing is just wrong from the go. i think it's going to be an interesting go. -- an interesting term. i am watching the fisher case. it is an interesting case. and by the way, i'm looking forward to the c-span shows where you guys are going to talk about the different cases. i thought your program director talking about it and i'm looking for to seeing it. they got for c-span. host: it is called "landmark cases" and it begins tonight at 9:00 p.m. and it will be a

series showing on mondays. i do hope you tune into that. up next, charlotte, north carolina, line for independence. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe they should have term limits for the supreme court, they represent each political party. on exceptional cases they might be impartial, but otherwise if we have the term limit for the supreme court justices, i think things will change and eventually will have a more independent judiciary in different states, actually. that is my opinion. says on twitter, rick

strict constitutionalists are calling for term limits only because they oppose recent rulings since obama. they are ok with the voting rights act and united stop -- and citizens united. and h robert bresson, no term limits for the spring court justices of the most brilliant idea written into the constitution. line is up next on the from texas, democrat. this is not live, is it question mark host: it is, craig. caller: i'm watching it right now and i don't see it. host: go ahead and turn your television down. term limits for supreme court justices question mark caller: i want to comment, but i want to make sure it is live on the air. host: it is, craig. caller: ok --

[no audio] host: ok, we will go to bury in hagerstown. caller: two comments, one would be i think the appropriate would be 65 to retire. also, since our courts are so backlogged with cases and it takes years and years to get through the system, having a supreme court in every time zone . we have federal courts all over the country. why not have that in every time zone and take some pressure off mark -- thestion dc-9? host: what if those courts disagree with each other in their rulings? yeah, that's a thought. i didn't think of that. but i think h the divide is a good time to -- age 65 is a good time to get off the bench.

ever, toke years, if reverse something. host: we will take more called on this question. would you favor term limits for supreme court justices? but it also want to show you some of the news going on around the country, including the flooding in south carolina. the post and courier out of , a complete disaster for flooding victims, many of equity from homes, some damage severe. homes, evacuated from some damage severe. midlands in ravaged south carolina. the new york times in its coverage of the flood in south carolina, noting that officials have treated at least five -- have attributed at least five deaths to the flooding in south carolina. other states including new

jersey had trouble and emergency declarations in effect for at least part of the day. none of their problems rivaled what unfolded in south carolina. the governor said it stemmed from a weather event that might happen only everyone thousand years. weekend, many cities and states recorded more than a foot of rain and higher totals. more news on the strikes at a hospital in afghanistan. the bombing of that hospital that was staffed by doctors without borders, doctors without borders closed its only hospital in northern afghanistan after it was hit by u.s. airstrikes that the aid organization called a war crime, while officials launched multiple investigations into the attack.

certainly more news coming out of that, probably throughout the week as the investigation of that bombing continues. if you more minutes to -- a few more minutes to take your calls on this question, would you favor term limits for supreme court justices? patrick, what do you think? caller: i'm not in favor of term limits. i think some works the way it is -- the system works the waited, but i think we should be able to vote for our supreme court justices instead of them just being appointed. we need to bring court justices who are able to separate church and state, instead of regular ideology on the parties they

belong to. host: do you think if we voted for supreme court justices there would be more trust in the system, or do you think it would inject more politics into the system if they had to "run for office" essentially? caller: i think there will be made -- there would be more trust into the court justices if we did it that way. host: with a have to be reelected under the system you just described, patrick? yes, well, no, they would not have to be reelected because it would be a majority vote of the people in the country. you could keep the life term, but have them be elected by the people of the nation instead of just appointed by the president at the time. cynthia will go to waiting out rookie, new mexico. line for democrats, since -- waiting in albuquerque, and mexico. you are onmocrats,

the washington journal. termr: i don't favor the limits or having to be elected. the one term limit is currently fine. -- bring awould be lot of conversations if it were changed. it would change every term for every judge in different situations. and a lot of people, i think they get too much involved in women's issues. the right that women have, not been particularly, but women. menust -- not then particularly, but women. i just think it is wrong to get involved with just christian views. knowot a christian, but i people that are. i just feel that people are doing it because they don't like

the way things are going. albuquerque, in new mexico. peg on twitter agrees with you. she says term limits will not fix anything. we would just get less knowledgeable, inexperienced people, and more decisions we don't like. dislike coming over the supreme court's decision, disapproval of the united states supreme court reached a new high withe gallup pole recently half of americans saying they don't approve of how the supreme court is handling its job. historically, this record is largely insulated from the politics of washington. in a poll in july, the majority of americans approve of his actions, but republicans show more disapproval. nine justices in the middle of

battles of the affordable care act and immigration. democrats approved of the court recently compared to only 18% of republicans. that is from u.s. news and world report, recently reporting on thegallup numbers about supreme court. next, line for independent, from florida. caller: i been listening to all of the proposals and opinions. if we are going to put age limits, then we should put age limits on congress and the presidential office, because they could be subject to dementia as much as the supreme court justices. it would be equality to to put term limits on all three branches.

the polarization over the supreme court justices is due to the polarization of the rulings coming down. republicans want to cry about the rulings that are not in the favor. when they stole the election from kerry, they didn't make no fuss about term limits then. they just want to talk about the rulings coming down lately that are not in their favor. i think they need to sit back and examine it before they start tinkering with the constitution that the republicans so profess to uphold. that is my comment. have a good day. page of the usa today has this preview of the supreme court. several major papers around the country with their previews of the supreme court. listeadline is the to do chock-full of repeats, talking about some of the issues that

have come before the court before and are likely to come up again. that story is in usa today. that is going to do it on today's show for the "washington journal," but you can join us 7:00 a.m.orning at eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. we will take you live to a discussion on russian national security policy going on now. event grew out of a project that cliff and i undertook, which was trying to get at the question of what russia's long-term security choices would be, and in some sense, how our policy would impact russia in making his choice.