>> if you missed any of this event from tucson, we will show it again at 9:35 tonight on c-span. tomorrow democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton speaks to the american israel public affairs committee. that pro-israel group holds their annual policy conference here in washington and our live coverage of her remarks begins at 8 a.m. eastern on c-span two -- on c-span 2. john kasich, donald trump, and ted cruz speak in a pack. we will how that for you also on c-span two. >> during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house, as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org.

>> this week on newsmakers, the president of lions for justice talks about the supreme court taken to spot. here in studio we have with us supreme court correspondent with the wall street journal and the congressional reporter with politico. go ahead with the first question. you if you to ask could first describe your group and what role lions for justice will play in this big fight over getting judge garland confirmed to the supreme court? >> thank you for having me. lions for justice is a national association with over 100 civil rights public interest advocacy groups. 1980's, alliance that reviewedect

andy supreme court nominee helped with the confirmation of hundreds of judges to the federal bench. we intend to be incredibly active this year as we have been the past 30 plus years. hard as of working as we can to secure the confirmation of merrick garland to the supreme court, as well as the confirmation of many lower court nominees who have been waiting for a long time for a confirmation vote. host: we are going into a congressional recess where all the senators are back home and how important will the next two weeks the and tried to sway central republican senator's about having a hearing or moving

forward? ms. aron: two things. it's just been amazing how overwhelming the response has been from across the country, most of who have never gotten in alt in weighing in on judicial nominations who feel so strongly that the senate ought to give the nominee a hearing and a vote. i think what we've already seen as an overwhelmed response. the next two weeks will be critical. when senators are back home, there listening to constituents.

i expect that they will hear democrats and republicans from thousands of their constituents about the critical importance of treating this nominee fairly. advocates will be speaking with their senators, asking them to give merrick garland a hearing, a vote, and treat him fairly throughout the process. i expect these weeks to be very important in terms of constituents communicating with their senators. >> the senate majority leader is known as stubborn. he's made it clear he doesn't see any hearings this year for merrick garland this year at least through the election.

can you lay out what your game plan is? how are you going to move him and their public leadership? how are we going to move the leaders of the senate to your side and give garland a hearing? ms. aron: it's safe to say to begin with, we are entering uncharted waters. we have never had a situation like this even in the last year of a presidential term where one party simply says we are refusing to confirm a nominee to the supreme court. this is really unprecedented in our nations history. in 1988, senate democrats gave a vote to anthony kennedy and confirmed it to a spot on the supreme court. i have learned its difficult to

make predictions. we all know what senator mcconnell has said. he made that statement even before merrick garland's name was announced. i think he made that statement even before the country heard about antonin scalia's death. i'm not surprised senator mcconnell is saying this. it's very much in keeping with the obstructionist leadership he has shown and demonstrated on a number of issues, particularly in the arena of judicial nominations. last year, on 11 judges were confirmed by the senate. i think it's the lowest number of judges in over a century. the fact he's saying he will refuse a hearing and a vote is very much in keeping with what he has done.

however, a number of senators particularly in state where there are elections coming up in close elections, we are beginning to see a break in that blockade. some of the senators are now saying we want to meet with this candidate and some of them are even saying we think it's right to give him a hearing. we are only at the beginning of this process and as it unfolds, i believe we will see more and more senators leaning on senator mcconnell to treat this nominee with a degree of fairness, the kind of fairness democrats have treated republican nominees over the years. say at this point. he's pretty adamant and it's

going to take a lot of work and a lot of pressure to force him to change his mind. mr. bravin: judicial confirmations generally slow down in an election year. chief justice roberts, the nomination was slow walked to death by democrats. the republicans repay that favor. this seems to be the area where groups on both sides really go through constant role reversals depending on who is in power. would you be taking the same position if this were the last year of a john mccain presidency and majority leader reid said we're going to let the next

president the site. >> we certainly did not take the republicans are not taking that anthony kennedy should get confirmed. >> after two reagan nominations failed. he was not reagan's first choice. he was the most conservative guy they thought could get through. ms. aron: anthony kennedy was one of the most conservative judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals. we knew his views on a range of issues. he had a very clear record. yet, it was not the position of alliance for justice that he shouldn't have a vote. i would say that historic speaking, judicial nominations tend to slow down beginning in the summer.

that is when you see from both sides -- if you acknowledged, if you say senators taking their time, but it's fair to say that we have seen a blockade, not just this year with merrick garland. as i have previously said, mitch mcconnell has essentially walked a slow walk for the past several years. it was he and his leadership that almost invented three vacancies from being filled. if it hadn't been for some of the senators standing up to mitch mcconnell, we would not have gotten those critically important seats and judges to fill those seats, which is so critical given the fact the d.c. circuit is regarded by most people as second-most important

port in the country. i think to look at this in the context not just of the supreme court nomination but of what republicans have been doing no systematic way obstructing the vote on incredibly well-qualified candidates. mr. bravin: your counterparts on the other side, the conservative groups, gave a two track strategy. if they did hold a hearing, this guy would be someone who would uphold abortion rights and the restrictive on gun rights and be a liberal vote on many key issues there and that is what they are trying to stop. don't you hope they are right?

don't you hope what they hope is a nightmare scenario for the right wing is actually true because that is what aggressive groups wanted to see for a long time? ms. aron: i think president obama chose him because he thought he would be a jurist who inspects the constitution, respects the role agencies play in mill making, the environment. we don't know his views on the merits on the gun case. he is certainly a candidate who would not have been selected by this president if he would turn

the clock back on our civil rights, women's rights, environmental worker protection. i certainly don't think obama would have selected a candidate who would undo so much of the progress we have made but by the same token, president obama it appears picked a nominee not to pick a fight but because he really wanted this nominee to get confirmed. merrick garland, when he went to the d.c. circuit in 1997, he had 32 republicans voting for his confirmation. seven of them are still in the senate today. a few weeks ago, orrin hatch praised him.

it's very difficult to label merrick garland. he is certainly not a fulbright circuit marshall. he has an outstanding record, intellect, and has garnered praise from a broad swath of the american people. i think it will be difficult on the merit for republicans and their counterparts to really challenge him given the fact so many conservative lawyers, interest groups have praised his work on the d.c. circuit. >> if a democrat wins the white house in november, could that person renominate merrick garland? ms. aron: i'm not going there. [laughter]

ms. aron: i think merrick garland is really a stellar nominee. i think he should be confirmed. i think he will be a wonderful addition to the supreme court. i think he should be confirmed this year and then with the upcoming vacancies, which we assume will occur, after all, three of the justices will be in their 80's 2018, which means the next president might have the opportunity to name several more supreme court justices. i think we should confirm merrick garland this year and see what happens in the future. the other names on the shortlist, jane kelly, paul watford, all are stellar nominees and i hope they take

their place on the court one day as well. mr. bravin: bernie sanders says he has a litmus test for nominees. they have to be willing to overrule citizens united. hillary clinton also indicated that the decision has to go. are you at all this comforted by the idea of presidential candidates laying out specific rulings they expect their nominees to make. ms. aron: we have taken issue with the use of litmus tests since the early 1980's when president reagan articulated in his reelection run that he was going to look for judges who met three criteria, were

antiabortion, anti-affirmative action and civil rights, and in favor of prayer in school. as long as we've been involved in the field of judicial selection, it has certainly been my position that litmus tests have no place in the national conversation. having said that, i think it's important for a president -- in fact, critical for presidents to talk about the court and the kinds of justices they would like to see on the court. but i have never supported litmus tests from democratic or republican candidates. basically, when each of us enters a courtroom as a party, we want to make sure that the judge before whom we are

appearing is someone who's fair-minded, open-minded, and hasn't rendered an opinion on any particular issue. i think that is what we all hope for when we walk into a courtroom. i think that is what we deserve to expect from our judges. therefore, pledges of one sort or another i think are very hurtful to the national discourse. ms. kim: senate republican leaders haven't ruled out stopping confirmations of the lower court judges so far this to them but are you concerned that will bleed into the lower court and effectively halt those confirmations for the rest of the year even when we are still early in this election year? ms. aron: i do. i think there's something like 40 nominees on the floor of the senate.

when you look at these nominees, every single one of them has been up by their home state senator. there is really no reason in the world what they shouldn't get a vote and shouldn't be seated on the lower courts. you take a state like texas and i know senators ted cruz and corn and have been out there talking about the supreme court. i just wish those senators would turn their attention to something like nine or 10 vacancies that exist in texas. that's a state that has so much litigation, so much of a backlog, you have to be flying in judges from around the country to hear cases in that state. it would be really good for those who in particular start focusing on vacant sees in their

own state before they start talking about the supreme court. mr. bravin: the white house, or at least some people in the white house, have a new group out. how are you quit donating all of these different voices? is the white house calling the shots, are you each doing your own thing? how is the strategy organize? ms. aron: wii at alliance for justice will be preparing a substantive report on merrick garland's record. other groups are engaging in major e-mails, other groups will be lobbying, other groups like moveon are sponsoring days of

action. i would say it's a rather large conglomeration of organizations engaged in negativity's and they do best. there are meetings simply for groups to share information about what each and everyone is doing. but at the end of the day, what we're seeing is such a proliferation of organizations and individuals that care passionately about this that most are often running and particularly in the next two weeks, will be leaning heavily on senate leadership and senators through a variety of different tactics and strategies. ms. kim: if judge garland is confirmed, what do you see his role being? could he be a critical swing

vote? ms. aron: he possibly could be. i think it's hard to say at the moment. i can say this much -- his record, from what we know on his court of appeals, certainly differs very much from antonin scalia's. he is a judge who has been very respectful of the role agencies played. you see that permeating all of his decisions on the d.c. circuit. that's a far cry from antonin scalia, who was very critical of what agencies do and what congress does. i think you will see from merrick garland someone who is a very careful jurist, someone

very thoughtful. most importantly, what he will bring to his decision-making is humility and understanding that at the end of the day, what he and his other colleagues on that court are doing will affect the lives redirect we of every american in this country. i think his humility will be something that will be a breath of fresh air on the supreme court. mr. bravin: one thing he won't bring to that court is diversity. he is another white male, harvard-educated attorney who spent most of his career working in the government or as a federal judge. that seems in some ways different from what the president was talking about when he suggested he wanted more of a salt of the earth figure who

understand the struggles of common people. that's not a judge garland's fault. isn't it true a lot of groups on the left were disappointed that you had another guy who at least if you look at him on paper was just like so many other federal appointees? ms. aron: when you look at president obama's record overall, in terms of his appointment of asian-americans, latinos, african-americans, he has done more than any other president in history to diversify the federal courts. his record is unmatched. i am delighted that he placed sonia sotomayor on the supreme court. equally happy elena kagan is there and i don't want to second-guess the president's thinking on this but i have so much confidence in the first two nominees and justices he appointed that i think merrick garland will be just as good as his previous two picks. we have many, many years of vacancies to fill.

we will undoubtedly have retirement's coming up very soon and i can only think that if it's a democrat who was elected in november, that democrat will take diversity into account. in fact, make diversity a priority, as democratic presidents have done in the past. ms. kim: what do you make of some other comments from senate republicans that they would be willing to take up his nomination in the lame-duck session? ms. aron: i think if senators are going to play games, they

ought to really think twice. they all to ink about two things. one, the constitutional task ahead of them that asks them to give the nominee a fair hearing and fair considerati. two, each of us wakes up every morning. we have a job to do in we get it done. all we're asking is for the republicans to do the same. i think to say we will put this off to lame duck on the condition hillary clinton is

elected, we might consider confirming merrick garland because hillary clinton might send up someone more liberal. that's a ridiculous hypothetical and they ought to stop it. they ought to do their jobs. they ought to stop refusing to give merrick garland the same courtesy democrats have even republicans and confirm him soon. host: thank you for being this week's newsmaker. ms. aron: thank you so much. host: let me turn to our reporters. let's begin with the president making this announcement this past week of his pick to the supreme court.

what happens next? mr. bravin: formally, he sent a document to the senate and it's up to the senate to schedule a hearing. host: but he did say he would meet with them after the break. mr. bravin: if he can meet with criminals, he might be able to meet with merrick garland also. host: what do you think? we have heard from some republicans who are for reelection who will say "i will meet with him." do you think the pressure on them increases from groups like alliance on justice and others? ms. kim: i think it depends on what we see independent voters do in their home state as a mobilizing issue for basis of both parties. you have liberals saying we have to give him a hearing. a release depends on whether they feel they might lose the election on this issue and new hampshire hasn't felt that yet.

if they do start to feel that pressure, then they might start to see it but i think they're counting on the fact this is an important issue but not when the voters actually vote on. mr. bravin: they can't control was a leadership does. it's up to them for one thing. i'm sure leadership will let them distinguish themselves that way. unusual year, we don't know exactly what will happen but it is difficult to see that pressure, not affecting a handful of five.

also moving their whole caucus, which has a very principled timber on this issue. >> let me ask you about the history, because republicans were saying there is a dividing rule over senator joe biden in 1992 on the senate floor, saying let the american people speak during an election. we heard this is unprecedented. >> history is written by the victors, so we will find out after this plays out. we can say this about joe biden, he was speaking hypothetically. remember where joe biden was in 1992. he just presided over the confirmation of clarence thomas, which was not a great moment in his own record as a senator. he managed to disappoint and frustrate both sides in that. treated thomas was

poorly, he suffered a high-tech lynching. he claimed the alleged sexual harassment, kind of underplayed during that hearing. other evidence not prevented. of ane confirmation extremely conservative justice to succeed one of the most liberal justices in history, thurgood marshall. joe baca and -- joe biden made a -- joe biden may have been under special pressure then. i don't know if he was speaking probably for the democratic caucus. let's lumber where he specifically was at that point. how great they penetrate the biden rule on tv. -- how great they part -- portray the biden rule on tv.

c-span's washington journal is live every day with news that impact you. latinrector of the american economic growth initiative will join us to talk about that the obama's upcoming trip to cuba. steps taken so far to normalize relations between the two countries. james fallows the reporter for the olympic will join us to talk about his cover story how america is putting itself back together. c-span'so watch washington journal beginning live at 7:00 eastern. monday morning. republican presidential candidate ted cruz had a conference at the border to talk about border security.

by local joined law-enforcement -- ted cruz is joined by local law-enforcement. -- this would run for .5 minutes. run for 25 minutes. i just want to say thank you to the glenn family. they are preaching awareness and educating senator cruz and governor harry on what is going on on our border. with that being said, i want to introduce governor quinn -- rick perry from texas and thank him for being here today. perry: thank you, is a great privilege to be here from southern arizona. they are reflective of the

generations of americans that have made this country what it is. want toking souls that get out here in ranch and do what they love to do. unfortunately, over the last has beenving in peace getting harder and harder to accomplish. federal government has failed miserably at securing the border. one of the reasons i am here that this border is not monolithic. it is different from brownsville to el paso to tijuana. it is a very different border. you have to have a lot of different approaches to it. what we heard today from these ranchers that deal with this every day, it is certainly a different approach than what you

hear your federal counterparts talking about. understand that to really address this issue, this is a federal issue. but they have to work with the local individuals and the local legislatures and law enforcement. they understand all of this. thathe person who is here understands it as well as anyone is senator ted cruz. understands toz his soul what the constitutional theonsibility is for federal government to defend and secure its border. he understands what the 10th amendment means. they giving power back to the states, allowing the state to be competitive. these are reasons why support senator ted cruz to be

the next president of the united states. i know he is a consistent, constitutionalist that wakes up and will test the challenges he has with the united states constitution. issuesthose enumerated in our constitution is to secure our border with mexico. i want a president who understands that, who respects it. i want a president who does not give the mouth service to it. that is truly going to secure this border. and do it in a way that brings out the best enough -- the best in us and not the worst in us. ted cruz. [applause] degrees: thank you so much for hosting us thanks for your hospitality.

thanks for an amazing arizona meal that we just had. and the opportunity to tour the border and visit with ranchers down here.ners share for daniels thank you for being here. they give for your leadership, your quick service, risking your life with you and your men and women keeping us safe. thank you for the law enforcement that face the day-to-day threat of drug cartels coming across of transnational criminal organizations that are terrorizing communities. speaker, thank you for being here, thank you for your leadership. i know it's important and significant in arizona to have the first speaker of the house from arizona in decades and thank you for giving a strong voice to the men and women here in the state legislature. and governor perry, thank you so much for your friendship, for your incredible leadership, for your service.

thank you for the border governor dealing with these problems every day as 14 years as governor of texas and when the federal government failed to do its job, thank you for your leadership in texas deploying forces on the border to help address this problem. you know, today we just finished having lunch and i had the opportunity to visit with ranchers from down here in southern arizona. and i told you the bulk of the lunch, i spoke very little. i spent most of the time listening, just hearing their stories, hearing the volume of traffic every day. of drug cartels smuggling across , groups coming across with backpacks filled with drugs, groups that are heavily armed. i heard one rancher tell the story of the cartel that at least one of the smugglers

apparently monitoring her, finding where she keeps the key. and then this drug smuggler would with some regularity use her key, unlock the front door, take a shower, make a meal, wash the dishes, go to bed, sleep, get up and leave and lock the door behind her. i want you to think for folks in other parts of the country how you would feel having a drug smuggler monitoring and entering and leaving your home with impunity. every rancher described break-ins is just a routine matter of living near the border. you know, president obama tells us the border is secure. well, i invite him to move the white house down to the southern border. let's see how secure it is. the ranchers here deal every day with the threats, the threats that tragically took the life of

a well-respected rancher not too far from here, threats that challenge our basic safety and security. the o heard from ranchers, experience of encountering the bodies of dead people left coyotes smuggling illegal aliens into america. they are not good hearted social workers with beards and birkenstock. they are fearless, violent criminals and far too often they abandon women and children. those who are sick, they abandon them in the desert to die. this is a national security crisis. and it's a crisis that the federal government is refusing to do its job and solve.

i'll tell you one individual who is here with me today who has experienced firsthand the onsequences of that is steve rothbach. steve's son grant was murdered here in arizona. grant was 19 years old. had a promising future in front of him. was working at a convenience when an illegal alien came in, put a handful of change on the counter and demanded some cigarettes. and grant began counting off the change when this illegal alien pulled out a gun and put it to his face. grant quickly grabbed the cigarettes and just gave it to hip but for no reason whatsoever other than hatred and malice and evil, this illegal immigrant hot and murdered grant rothbach. this illegal immigrant was a

known criminal. he shouldn't have been in america. he should have been deported. she should have been incarcerated. she shouldn't have been in a osition where 19-year-old boys face the barrel of a gun and are murdered because the federal government refuses to do its job. steve, thank you for being here. we mourn the loss of your son. and unfortunately, steve's story is far too common. and every state in the union, there are people who have lost their lives to criminal illegal aliens whether the steinly family up in san francisco or they're in my home state of texas, the eric mann and pena

families who lost their little girls in a horrific crime. for far too long we've had a president. we've had a federal government that does not do its job. and i'll tell you it's striking whether you're in arizona or texas when you visit with landowners, when you visit with ranchers, when you visit with those on the border, the answers you hear are the same. , e uncertainty, the threats people crossing your land regularly with impunity, the unwillingness to go up and confront them because if you confront them, you're taking your life in your hand. and also the question that i ask every conversation i have particularly with those on the border is how do we solve this problem? far too many in the media suggest we cannot solve the problem. that sa lie. we know how to solve this problem. what's missing is the political will. what's missing is we have a

president to that has the illegal upport immigration. morale in the border patrol could not be lower than it is right now. when you have a president, when you have political operatives that oppose your mission who punish you when you enforce the law. it becomes very difficult to do your job and do it effectively. we know how to solve this problem. what is missing is the political will to get it done. the most important tool for solving and securing the border is boots on the ground. that's the answer every rancher here said when i asked that question is the answer people say in texas, they say all across the country on the border that nothing is more important than having boots on the ground when you encourage and be able to direct those boots on the ground and be there quickly. not be there in six hours but be

there quickly. rapid response. and rapid response not 30 or 50 miles in but on the border, a focus on prevention at the bored turning people around, a visible uniform presence, boots on the ground. and the federal government should not be treating state and local law enforcement as their adversary. we're blessed here to have state and local law enforcement who are risk their lives every day. they don't have the resources to handle this problem. but the federal government should be working hand in hand and close partnership with state and local law enforcement to solve this problem. we've had a president for seven years that doesn't want to solve this problem. well, i'll tell you this, if i'm elected president in january 2017, that is going to end. we will solve this problem. we will secure the border and we

will end illegal immigration. [applause] allie? i've got to ask you, are those rattlesnake shoes? >> i want to ask you about mitt romney planning to vote for you not endorsing you fully. he suggested that some party leaders decided who they don't want to be the nominee but they haven't fully decided who they want it to be the nominee. why hasn't mitt romney fully endorsed you in a full hearted way? >> i very much appreciated governor romney's tweet today. he encouraged others to do the same. in my book when someone says i'm voting you and encourage everybody to vote for you you, that's pretty darn good. >> it is an endorsement though. what does it tell you? >> we're seeing republicans come

together. we're seeing republicans unite all across this country. you know, this -- this campaign, this primary started out with 17 candidates. started out with a fantastic, diverse, young, talented field. and the field has now narrowed dramatically. and as a practical matter there are only two companies that have applauseable path, either donald trump or me. what we're seing is the 60%, of 5% of republicans that feel that donald trump would be a disaster. if we nominate donald trump, hillary clinton wins. if hillary clinton becomes president, this bored doesn't get secured. if hillary clinton becomes president we lose the supreme court for a generation. we lose the bill of rights. we lose the second eam. if hillary clinton becomes president our kids are buried in debt.d -- a mountain of

what we are seeing is republicans uniting behind our campaign as mitt romney observed today. if you want to beat donald trump, cruz is the only campaign to do it. that's why he's voting for me in utah. and he observed that a vote for john kasich only helps donald trump. that dynamic, that unifying that we're seeing all across the country to be standing here with governor rick perry, to be standing later today with carly fiorina, to see republicans all across the country coming together and uniting is tremendously encouraging and i'll say both arizona and utah when you vote on tuesday are going to have a powerhouse, national voice for this country. >> there's been no secret that the washington establishment is not a huge fan of yours. do you worry that those

relationships are preventing both in washington from backing you? >> well, listen, i'm very grateful to see the unity that we're seeing, to see so many republicans coming together and standing together behind our campaign. now, there's no doubt that every day i've been in washington i've been standing up to washington. it's part of the reason why so energyized by are our campaign because we've seen the washington cartel, career politicians in both partys that get in bed with the lobbyists and special interest and grow and grow government. and it's why people are frustrated and angry. we're betrayed. we're tired of being lied to. and what i have done every day in the senate is stand up to washington, not just the democrats but leaders of my own party and honor the promises and commitments i made to 27 million texas sans that elected me. when i ran for the senate. i said if you elect me i will

fight with every breath in my body to stop the disaster that is obamacare, to stop amnesty and to stop the debt, to defend eligious lobity in the bill of rights. the american people. we welcome everyone with open arms. part of the process of a primary is uniting everyone. but i would note that they are uniting behind a strong conservative, optimistic message for this country. we're going change the direction this country is going. we're going to turn away from the manifest failures of the obama clinton economy. we're going to bring back millions of high paying jobs. we're going to repeal every word of obamacare. we're going to abolish the i.r.s. and we're going to pull back the federal regulators that are killing small businesses. and that's going to end up raising wages all across the

country. that's going to end up giving young people coming out of school, two, three, four, job opportunities. and i welcome -- i am glad to see republicans uniting behind a strong, positive, optimistic, constitutional conservative agenda, an agenda that defends the hard working taxpayers. >> you know, on the border today it was striking just how unsecure the border is, where we tour the border, the fencing was minimal. indeed, as we stopped and stood on the border, several of the folks here in the media, takes pictures, decided they would get a better picture from the other side offense. so they crossed illegally into the nation of mexico. took all of 10 seconds to get a better shot from another nation. i'm not sure if the mexican authoritys will be arresting any of our members of the media. but it says something that this was not a complicated endeavor.

it was just oh, the cram shot is better from mexico. let's get a better angle. if you're a drug coyote. if you're bringing hundreds of pounds of heroin and marijuana -- and i would know the drug especial dem nick the country is devstathe. 50,000 people dying every year from drug overdoses. heroin is destroying the lives of our young penal "people" and that unsecured border is a part of the reason when it's so easy hat you can hop the fence my 5-year-old daughter could have hopped over in 20 seconds. that's indicative of a federal government that's not doing its job, that's not even trying to do its job. and one of the important things to remember, we don't actually have to change the laws to solve this will problem. we have plenty of laws on the books.

the problem is we have a federal government, we have a president that doesn't enforce the laws. what is missing is the political will -- just a cup of years ago the obama administration illegal over 104,000 aliens with homicide convictions, roughly 400 with sexual assault convictions. i've got to say, i wonder how president obama would look in the eyes of someone like steve ronabach. how do you defend a federal government that is releasing murderers? how do you confront the family? on the senate we had the hearing with the head of ice. when i asked her what she would say to the families of those murdered by criminal illegal aliens released by her administration, she had no answer to that. well, the answer starting in 2017, is we're going to use the full force of the federal government to secure these

borders, working in close coordination with state and local law enforcement. we will solve this border and this problem will be secured. >> donald trump called you a liar and said that mormons shouldn't vote -- >> donald trumps toing out insults is nothing new that has been every day of the campaign. i'm sure it will continue. you can follow a direct measurement of just how worried -- just how upset donald is by how many insults and how much he's cursing that given day. i will say it is an interesting experience to run for office against donald j. trump because you wake up in the morning and you look at twitter and you look at your e-mail to say what's the latest insalt he's tossed my direction. well, look, i have no intention of responding like a junior high child. this election should not be about insults and attacks.

now, i'm sure the l.d.s. community appreciates donald trump's advice on how to practice their faith. i somehow suspect that advice is of study d in years of the faith. >> tomorrow, presidential candidate hillary clinton speaks to the american-israel public affairs committee known as aipac. they hold their annual policy conference in washington. a live coverage of her remarks on c-span2. later beginning at 5:00 p.m., john kasich, donald trump and cruz speak announcer: next, "q&a" with a gabe roth and changes he would see on the supreme court.

and then british prime minister david cameron takes questions from the house of commons. after that, former president bill clinton had a red -- had a rally for hillary clinton. announcer: this week on "q&a," fix the court executive director gabe roth. he talks about changes you would like to see in the supreme court, including opening up oral arguments to cameras, and requiring justices to follow the same code of ethics other federal judges do. brian: gabe roth, when you first get the idea to start an organization called fix the court? gabe roth: thanks for having me on.