house and senate republicans really accelerating the fleeing of donald trump, running away faster than they are to have. host: thank you both for being part of newsmakers. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues impacting you. coming up monday morning, judicial watch's president talks about his organization's role in obtaining e-mails from hillary clinton during her time at the state department. the director of the center for civic learning and engagement will look at millennial voting and which candidate millennials are likely to support. washington journal, beginning 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. >> now a look at the future of

the supreme court and diversity in the judicial system, plus the impact of the presidential election and the balance of power in the u.s. senate. this took place at the annual gathering of progressives, called net roots nation, which happened in st. louis. >> is a pleasure to be here. i am the president of alliance for justice, and coming to net roots is like coming home. it's great to be here every year. i see some old faces, and a lot of new faces, which is wonderful, and i would say, after the events of the past few weeks here in our country, and yesterday in france, it is really good to be among friends today.

so thank you all for being here. we have an amazing group of speakers, so i will get right to it. i also want to thank adam. adam, where are you? he was on the board of net roots. he used to be the chair. booster of this panel, so i'm very grateful to you. bys panel is organized alliance for justice, as well as the center for american progress. and again, we are just privileged to be here with such an amazing group of panelists. with a vacancy on the supreme court, and we all know there is a vacancy on this court, we are really at a tipping point in our yearsy, and the coming

will swing the court dramatically in one direction or another. in fact, during the next justices's term, three will be in their 80's. ginsburg, breyer, kennedy. who wins this election, the, we will not only be going to vote for a president, we will be going to vote for a supreme court, given the number of vacancies we expect to see. not since richard nixon's first term, after the 1968 election, foura president appointed justices in a four-year term, but that could very well be the next president's charge. now, i love what joe biden said after a vacancy appeared on the

court. says he picked up the phone and he called president obama and said, hey, if we really want to change the composition of the court, let's nominate ted cruz. before you know it, we won't have one vacancy, we will have eight vacancies. [laughter] but we have merrick garland, as we all know. and the other thing we know, no matter who is elected, this court will be hearing cases of critical importance to all of us, for years to come, whether it's environmental protection, unions,rights, choice, the court and what the court does affects every aspect of our lives. so, in today's discussion, you will hear more about the fight

over this current vacancy and the future of the court, how the next supreme court will set the nation's course for a generation , and how progressive activists can get involved and take action. i would also encourage you to new micro site on the future of the supreme court, which is scotustippingpoint.org. and to keep the conversation going, try posting on the app, tweeting, and using other social media tools. now for the panelists. i am absolutely delighted to introduce congressman keith allison, who represents the fifth consecutive -- congressional district of united stateshe house of representatives. he has done it since 2007.

congressman alice -- allison's philosophy of generosity and inclusiveness is evident in his top priorities in congress. promoting peace, and prosperity for working families, environmental sustainability, and civil and human rights. keith ellison is one of america's leading progressive voices. we will hear from him now. rep. ellison: thanks a lot, nan. [applause] how are you doing, netroots? i like it. a familyis conversation, so that me be very candid with you. some of us who have been supporting bernie sanders, now we are supporting hillary clinton, but we spent a lot of time and energy working hard for bernie sanders. people might debate, what is the basis of unity with integrity? i'm going to tell you in one word. the issues.

if we can come together around the issues, to a certain extent it really doesn't matter who is carrying the standard. but it's the issues. important is more than the supreme court appointments? that is a top-flight thing. reallyof you guys who believe that people ought to be able to marry who they want to, that the supreme court ought to make the electorate decide who will be president, and i will get into that little more. all of you who believe those things really need to put your organizing and doorknocking shoes on. not because of whose name might be on the ballot, but because of the issues. because of who's going to make the supreme court appointment. it is a core organizing grassroots mobilization issue. it is an issue that makes me get up in the morning and knock on doors until late at night. it is an issue that will make you wear out your knuckles.

it is an issue that ought to make you visit every hair shop and coffee shop in the district you live in, because this is a very big deal, and i'm so pleased we have jeff merkley who is going to be making the decision, voting on this, who is going to be confirmed. and i think it would be better to have him in the majority when that decision is made. what do you all think? [applause] i think it would be better. put jeff in the majority, guys. now look, i want to make this point. from an activist standpoint, the supreme court seems kind of lawyerly and over there. i happen to live the dual life of a lawyer and an activist, so i can relate to both. and i just want to say, it's important for us activists to understand how many everyday bread and butter quality-of-life issues the supreme court really does weigh in on. just think about lily ledbetter, a lady in alabama, busting chops

for 30 years straight, training out, andng in, coming some of them and of supervising her even though she brought them in and got better work reviews than they got. shehe end of 30 years, applied for her pension and found that her pension was light, and that male counterparts who had been there shorter term than her had a bigger pension than she did. she sued. she won, with a jury of men and women and she got her money. the other side appealed saying, we did not discriminate against her. we kind of discriminated against her, but she didn't sue fast enough, and they chopped her a legalhich is not just miscarriage, but a moral failure. they took it all the way to the spring court. that supreme court said she didn't sue fast enough. the fact she didn't know she

was being discriminate against didn't matter to them. the fact she had been discriminated against didn't matter to them. they just wanted to side with the big business that didn't want to pay her. what about harris versus clinton? you want to join a public employee union? i don't want to be part of a union, but when you negotiate an awesome contract, i definitely want part of that money. you want to be a freeloader, not pay anything? that case was working its way towards a decision when justice scalia passed away. unionson't know too many that were not real worried about the outcome of that decision. you know how it is. if somebody tells you some of your bills are optional, you don't have to be antiunion, you will be like, men, i would like to but this month i ain't got it. but if that happens, you and i both know public employee unions will suffer. people will suffer.

safety will suffer. we has a nation will suffer. or, what about hudson versus michigan? the roberts court held that if police break rules around the fourth amendment, like failing to knock prior to entry, there will be no significant punishments for the violation against our protections against certain seizure -- search and seizure. we live in the era of philando castile, alton sterling. if you in the era where, don't have proper restrictions on police practices, bad things will happen, and they will happen even if you do have some. so we are going to kick the door open even more? this is an invitation to lawlessness. so, i just want to say, and my main message today, thank you for having this, because i do believe that as activists who are online and on the ground, we have got to be very plugged into

what happens on the supreme court, and we have got to absolutely demand, right now, that the senate republicans do their job, so they will either do their job or be exposed for failing to do their job. so you guys ready to go good after them a little bit? [applause] all right. nan: thank you. segue to our panel. let me thank you so much, congressman ellison. you were great. brilliant. [applause] so let me quickly introduce our panelists, and then we will start with senator merkley and talk about this vacancy and senate obstructionism. but first, let me introduce u.s. senator jeff merkley of oregon, who is the son of a mill right in the first in his family to attend college. born in the timber town of myrtle creek, oregon, senator

merkley has spent his career fighting to increase opportunities for working families. and i should also add, at a time when senate republicans were blocking nominees to some of our critically important circuit courts around the country, it was senator merkley who championed rules reform which broke the blockade and allowed some really great judges to go on the circuit courts. so, what a great man we have got here today. amber pinto. [applause] ambar was born in bolivia, and moved to the united states at the age of 12, and is a passionate activist for undocumented youth. ambar is a cofounder of "dreamers of virginia" a former

board member of edu futuro, and a deportation defense leader with united we dream. anee bracey sherman is award-winning reproductive justice activist, committed to the visibility of people who have had abortions, particularly women of color. abortionork on storytelling has been featured on bbc, the guardian, washington post, and many other outlets. we have not least, anisha singh, who helped organize today's panel. is the campaign manager for legal progress at the center for american progress, where she manages grassroots organization efforts to educate americans on the need to fill judicial

vacancies. anisha carries more than nine years of experience in social justice work and a strong grassroots organizing background. now -- [applause] all right. what a team we have got. but i will start with senator merkley. so, senator, i would say that merrick garland has had a difficult time in the senate these days. has the senate republican unprecedented obstructionism had on both the senate and the court as democratic institutions? as you all know, even before the scalia family publicly released the news of his death, mitch mcconnell was on the floor saying he would give no hearing and no vote.

fortunately we have senator merkley here to explain what's happening and what the applications are for the future. sen. merkley: the indication is profound. by the way, how are you all doing? [applause] thank you for coming to this discussion, later in the day here. this is such an important issue, and it plays directly into the challenge we face in the presidential campaign. but think about the situation. our founders wrote a constitution, and they wanted three co-equal branches. they said how do we put checks and balances into place? over here, we have the executive branch, and the have to be appointments for the executive branch. and the judicial branch, and a have to be appointments to that. where should the appointments come from? maybe they come from the assembly, meaning the house and the senate. they thought, if that happens they will be a lot of horsetrading back-and-forth, my friend for your friend, no direct account ability to the public, they will not be transparency to the public, so

we will vest responsibility for nomination in a single person, the president. then they thought, what happens if you have a president who goes off track, a president who appoints folks who are unqualified, either by experience or by character? we have to have some way of making sure that doesn't happen. so, as hamilton related bit, -- it, the senate would be a check on a nominee of unfit character. that was the term. unfit character. is this person qualified, or unqualified? but to do that, you have to have the senate vet the record and vote. that's our job. that has been our job throughout 200 years. and suddenly, we have for the first time ever, a senate leadership which says no, we are not going to do our job. we are not going to that the candidate. -- vet the candidate.

we are not going to vote on the candidate. we are just going to sit on our hands. this is an enormously destructive, this abdication of responsibility. we have seen a lot of this at lower levels, failing to rapidly et and voteibly v for nominees from the executive branch or nominees on the lower courts, but we have never seen it at the supreme court level. it is a whole new phase, at the supreme court. so why wouldn't mcconnell and friends simply hold hearings, vet the candidate, and vote? the answer is best summed up by a comment from senator hatch, who said previously, if only the president, if only the president would nominate someone like merrick garland, than we would have somebody we could support. reason they don't have a in terms of qualifications to vet and vote no.

and they don't want to be accountable for basically personally voting against somebody who is qualified. so they are just going to -- you have to understand, this is court packing. this is an effort to delay the nomination to a republican president who will nominate somebody from the far right to pack the court. and i must say, i don't think the media in america have done their job to portray how destructive this is to the integrity of the court, and how wrong it is, what mitch mcconnell and his folks, who have signed up, pledged themselves to the constitution, to the responsibilities of being a u.s. senator, and are abdicating that responsibility. we need to say to them, in the media needs to say to them, and the grassroots need to say to them, do your job. let's tell them that. let's force them to act. meanwhile, back to your core question, it does a tremendous amount of damage to the senate, because it is failing its responsibility.

is using its advice and consent power to not maintain three coequal branches, but to try to systematically undermined the executive branch, the president, through the nominations, and now to pack the courts. so it is doing damage all the way around, and it's completely unacceptable. nan: thank you. we will come back to you in a few minutes. well said. absolutely. renee.ave a question for we actually had a success here, with the texas abortion case. which to justice kennedy, was surprising, but very welcome news. so, my question to you is, in this case the supreme court basically found that these two texas laws that were enacted by

the state legislature were not enacted in order to protect women's health and safety, but rather were passed in order to to abortions services and to clinics. my question to you is, what is next on the agenda for the anti-choice groups? that must have been a huge loss to them. what do you think we have got to look forward to? renee: it was a huge loss to them, but if anybody who has met anyone who is an anti-choice activist -- they are persistent. just to back up real quick, to make sure everybody knows what the case is about. in 2013, the state of texas passed a law called hb2, and what it did, we call them targeted regulations of abortion

providers. it imposes these rules and restrictions on abortion clinics, and it's a number of things. thing.w was a huge it forced abortion clinics to become and literary surgical centers -- ambulatory surgical centers, which are like many hospitals. and for anyone who has had an abortion, like me, it is maybe a five-minute procedure. it is not an actual surgery. they are saying, for you to have this incredibly safe procedure, you have to be in a surgical room that is like if you are having open-heart surgery. it was absolutely ridiculous. they also required that abortion providers have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, one, because abortion is extremely safe, you don't actually admit people to the hospital, because the competition rate is less than 1%, so hospitals are like, why would we have admitting privileges if you are not bringing us any money?

so they are not giving the doctors admitting privileges. additionally, a lot of hospitals are religiously affiliated, so as hospitals are closing and being merged, this is something we need to be careful of, because abortion providers are not able to get those admitting privileges, and people are not actually able to get abortions at these hospitals because of the religious beliefs of the hospital. again, more supreme court issues. a couple other things. bans abortion after 20 weeks, brought in a mandated soting period, and made it that young people could not access abortions without notifying their parents. it was extremely problematic. you may have seen wendy davis, who did a filibuster, with 10,000 activists from all over texas, including -- i work at the national network, so our thereabortion funds were

and galvanized people to shout the bill down. so they were able to stop it, but rick perry was very determined, so he went into a special session, using taxpayer money, and they passed the bill anyway. long story short, it went to the supreme court via an independent abortion provider called whole women's health. they were trying to make sure that their clinics would stay open. after a lot of amicus briefs were smitty from leading medical organizations, like the american medical organization, saying that this has nothing to do with women's health, lease up in court said, you are right, you can't even .21 case in which this law has actually helped. it has done nothing but harm. my organization submitted an amicus brief, which i wrote, and i interviewed six women who were actually harmed by trying to get to an abortion clinic, because the clinics were shut down. they had to travel hundreds of miles, just to get an abortion.

a lot of people don't realize, the majority of people who have abortions are people of color, they are people living below or just at the poverty line, and they are people who actually already have children. so, when i was talking to these women for the brief, they illustrated how they had to skip meals in order to beale to afford their abortion. they had to stay overnight in their car, just so they could deal with the waiting period. they had to have two appointments. they had to find someone to watch their children. they had to skip work unpaid because they don't have sick leave, just so they could get an abortion several hours away. so, this case is, it's the biggest abortion case that has gone to the supreme court since planned parenthood versus kc. texas is not the only state with laws like this. the fact this was struck down actually has now set a precedent across the nation. we have seen mississippi and louisiana have already had some

of their laws struck down. in the center for reproductive rights is suing the state of thesiana for all of restrictions they enacted in 2016 alone, which is eight or 10, really ridiculous. so, it's actually really huge, and it's giving us a framework to fight back. and it's giving us a framework to fight back. and, we still have a lot of work to do. if you think, if you want to use a medical term, this is kind of like, we have stopped the hemorrhaging, the bleeding, and now we need to go back and repair. we have a lot of policies on the books that keep people from accessing abortion. does anyone know how many abortion clinics are in the state we're in right now? you are right. one. one, just one. there's some loss there -- laws, there trying to shut them down. mississippi also has one.

louisiana, they are trying to shut them all down. texas went from over 42, if the law had passed, it would have been nine. so what we need to do is make sure we can build back up. so this case has kind of given us the ammunition to move forward. but again, what's next on the docket for anti-choice folks? they are still going to try to pass these laws, because they have hardheaded legislatures that really don't care what the supreme court says. they will still move forward. inear that there's a guy, indiana governor who has been in the news in the last 24 hours. i'm not really going to talk about why he's in the news, but i hear that his friend, who he is in the news with, has said he believes there should be some form of punishment for people who have abortions. well, here's the thing. his new friend, mike pence, has actually made it, made that form

of punishment legal in his state. so the next thing they are doing, they are criminalizing pregnancy, they are criminalizing people who self induce their own abortions, which is often happening because people cannot get to an abortion clinic. they are criminalizing miscarriage. a lot of people, if you are suspected, you had a miscarriage but, i don't know, maybe should try to self induce an abortion, there taking those folks to jail. in indiana right now, we have someone sitting in jail because she actually was pregnant and attempted suicide. so they threw her in jail for inducing her abortion. so she spent a lot of time in jail. we have someone who has a 20 year sentence because she induced an abortion, or supposedly, allegedly induced abortion. and the same thing, someone who bought medication, abortion

pills on the internet, and was arrested in the hospital. octor.anti-choice d we need to make sure this is not the end, because hypothetically if some people are allowed to choose the next in court justice, i guarantee you, they will make sure that those laws in indiana and other states, in tennessee, are exported to the rest of the nation, and they are passing these criminalization of pregnancy loss. you will start to see more personhood of the fetus, against people like me, people who have had an abortion, who need an abortion. this is something that's going to continue, and whoever is appointing the next in court justices will get to decide where that goes. so, someone like the governor of indiana, we know where he stands.

peopleput this idea of should be punished for having an abortion, he basically turned to trump and said, i got you, i did it. so we have a huge fight at us. -- ahead of us. [applause] nan: ok. the fight is not over. got some good news from the supreme court on choice, we didn't get good news from the supreme court on immigration, at all, as ambar knows all too well. and as many of you know, the to stopcourt's enjoined the implementation of an executive order which would have prevented 4 million parents of children who were u.s. citizens seeking deportation

relief. it was a very disappointing deadlock on the court. ambar, can you tell us what some of the actions are that are taking place at the local level to protect immigrant families? ambar: the supreme court in this case failed us. the supreme court didn't make a choice. they didn't make a decision. they just said, let's give it a tie and they will figure it out. like you said, it is 4 million people, and those 4 million people right now need relief. they are in danger of deportation. my parents would have been, would have qualified for this relief. i have a nine-year-old brother who is a u.s. citizen, and i remember one day, my mother and

i were in the kitchen, and my brother comes and says, if we get someone elected as president , i'm scared that my classmates, and mom and dad, you will be deported. where will i go? what will happen with me? so, having a nine-year-old worry about this, having this conversation, it's not ok, right? one of the doing, things we're doing is making sure our communities know their rights. we are doing massive know your rights training across the country, with this initiative watch, where we are keeping an eye for border patrol and immigration agents around our neighborhood, because we know they are there. they our stocking us, waiting us,folks at -- are stalking

waiting for folks at the school bus stop, which they are not supposed to be doing. raiding homes at 5:00 in the morning, taking people away. they are following folks to work, stopping them right before getting to work, detaining them. this puts a lot of stress on families, and we have a hotline that has provided, run by volunteers, to provide a ssistance to families and individuals who have been victims of a raid or have someone in deportation proceedings. if you want to take this number density you can share it with your network, it is 844-3 63-1423, and we have help in spanish and in english. we have this awesome campaign in houston that is fighting anti-immigrant and racist

programs like 287-g. for those who don't know what that is, that is a program where police officers and immigration agents collaborate, and police officers become ice agents doing immigration work. hey have had this campaign since october of last year, and they have made 287 g a political point in houston and harris county. we are driving to have municipal id's. if the government will not recognize us, we will make sure we have our own id's so are people feel protected and safe. just sad tow, it's know across the country people are in fear. they are not protected from any deportation, and at any moment you are vulnerable to someone coming to your house, someone

pming to a safe palce free -- lace for you and raiding you, so we will continue to seek relief until we don't see anymore deportations. [applause] nan: all right. towe will turn a little to, what we can do, and then we will go back to some substance. here.rings us to anisha with judges, we are not just concerned with supreme court justices, but there's about 850, around 850 judges at the district court level, court of appeals level, and nine on the supreme court. we do way, to tell you, focus groups every two years where we meet with a group of about 30 or 40 the voters,

democrats, republicans, moderates, and i usually go to these focus groups every two years. and, the first question we always ask at a focus group is, how many justices are there on the supreme court? i should tell you, i have never been to a focus group where anyone knew the answer to that question. anisha.eaks to you just hear the talk from the candidate, republicans talk about judges, the courts, the stream court, all the time -- the supreme court, all the time. democrats not so much, with the exception of senator merkley and a few others. so tell us. arenow that republicans

very engaged in who becomes a judge. base ofwe motivate the the democratic party to care as much sen. merkley: -- to care as much? anisha: that is very true. and so excited to be on this panel with everyone here. this is such an important issue. our community, and progressives in general, have never taken this as seriously as conservatives had, and what that has caused, cases are coming out of texas because we don't pay attention to the lower courts. so how come both abortion and daca, and affirmative action, issues we all care about, are coming out of the courts and we are not paying attention until they are at this up in court saying, how did this court even come about? it came about because there are conservative judges in places like texas, appointed by senators who are very

conservative, or a previous president who was very conservative, and we ended up with these situations. only 75 to 100 cases every year are heard by the spring court, that there are -- supreme court, but there are thousands that are heard in the district and circuit courts that nobody pays attention to except for conservatives, and that's the problem. so we are playing the lottery with our rights and our issues, and things we care about, and people we care about, when we are just letting it happen in the supreme court. that is our job. thethe campaign manager for center for american progress, which is meant to raise the issue around the nation, why are the courts important? every issue we care about ends up in the courts, whether it is the lower court or the supreme court. and it is our job to spread the word that there are vacancies needing to be filled, not just with anyone, but with diverse judges who understand our everyday experiences, lived

experiences, and can give fair determination to our issues and cases, and that are progressives, looking forward, making sure we have a system in place that is not taking us back in time. we have 11 so, different states in our campaign right now that we work with, to do everything from petitions to rallies to op-ed's, earned media, twitter storms, name a type of action, anything that can make noise, that's what we are trying to do. and this has been a fight we have been doing for quite some time. today we are marking 100 vacancies in our lower court, today. another monumental moment in this obstruction fight. we have been seeing this before scalia died, before the merrick garland situation came into the news, we have been seeing republican senators blocking judges left and right and nominees left and right.

very qualified judges, in some places that had judicial emergencies, where there's so much of a backlog of cases and there are not enough judges and they declared an emergency. we have 30 of those throughout the country. we only had 12 when this congress came in. so that's the situation we have come to with the current senate, run by mitch mcconnell and senator grassley. still our job is to create as much noise as we can, to really show we are not going to stand for this. we are the constituents, and we want them to do their jobs. and sure some of you have seen our do your job campaign, where we are pushing mostly for the supreme court vacancy, but generally for judges all around. over 60% of americans believe that we should be filling this vacancy, that this is not a nonissue, that it is irresponsible to do so. senators themselves, republicans and democrats alike, have said merrick garland is

well-qualified, and they have also said that about lower court nominees. we have had senators in the lower court fight recommend a judge, then block that judge itself, just because they are trying to keep it bacon for the next president -- vacant for the next president. with 100 vacancies on the lower court, i want you to think about what a trump presidency would mean. i will leave that there. just did you an example of things we have done, that we hope to continue to do for now to november and beyond, are just campaigns that really make noise. in iowa, for example, we had 36,000 copies of the constitution pretty that, and we delivered them to senator grassley's office, just showing him article two section two, which says he advises and consent, turning that into him. they had to do with 36,000 copies of that. hopefully they recycled. in new hampshire next week, july 19 will mark the 125th day of

obstruction, a huge moment as well. the longest it has ever taken for a supreme court nominee to be confirmed has been 125 days. we are reaching that on tuesday, and the senate will be out for recess until september, so we are going to hit over 170 days,, easy by the time they come back, and they have not even held a hearing, so we're definitely not seeing a confirmation. we are seeing an unprecedented number of days. on the 19th, we are having a lot of actions in a lot of states. in new hampshire, we are having a light brigade over the bridge street bridge. very creative name. and they are having a huge "do your job" sign lifting that up. in ohio, they will take i ask into the water, holding "do your job" signs and doing a rally. kayaking is huge, apparently there. in florida, we are holding rallies. in iowa, they are having over

150 i pictures of them holding "do your job" signs printed all around senator grassley's des moines office, all around his lawn. iaring t-shirts that said, gave $5 million and all i got was this stupid t-shirt, and doing rallies at his other offices. these are the only ways we get them to listen. we have seen some movement. when we did rallies in pennsylvania, we did them in four different cities, and the next day senator toomey said he would meet with garland. we saw that in other states as well. but the fact of the matter is, it's not until you guys pick up your phone and call your senators, tweet at them, as much as you can, and really tell them, this matters, especially those of them up for reelection right now. they are pretty vulnerable. tell them to stand up and say, this is their job, and they will stand behind holding a hearing and a vote for merrick garland and the other nominees.

he's one of the good ones. nan: thank you. [laughter] add,ld say, i just would you guys are doing some amazing things. i have watched the senate judiciary committee for more years than i care to admit. what always strikes me about that committee is, there is a senator, dianne feinstein from california, and time after time, on really difficult votes, we were working really hard to get says ist anisha absolutely right. you have got to send those letters, and those e-mails. file we think, you know what -- i always think, you know what, senator feinstein on tough votes always starts to remarks by saying "i got 6000 letters, i

got 12,000 e-mails, i got 10 visits, whatever." so it does really make a difference, to be in touch with our senators. so moving back to senator merkley, i would like to change topics a little, to money in politics, with a little bit of a twist. and, i guess the question is, for should a president look in a supreme court justice? the diversityis of professional background of individual? some of you might remember, this term, the court ruled in favor of former for junior governor mcdonnell in his corruption case -- virginia governor mcdonnell byhis corruption case

narrowly defining what constitutes an official act by a public official. and we all know the infamous united, of citizens where the court defined corruption in such a narrow way that defies reality. might the court take a different view, if its members included justices with previous experience as legislators, who from actualtand experience how corruption might influence the democratic process? senator merkley? sen. merkley: thank you. i thought as you are asking the question, i was thinking about 'douglas, is a cream court justice who had a lot of experience before he went to the court --supreme court

justice who had a lot of expense before he went to the court. he had the experience of riding underneath railroad trains. he had the experience of hanging camps.h hobos at when he died, i decided to hitchhike from new york to d.c. for his funeral. i was working in new york city, and i thought that's the closest i could come to honor him. it was a driving rainstorm, and i hiked about five miles out in new jersey, and i was picked up by a car with three hispanic men had not gone a couple miles before the police pulled us over, and they gave the folks in the car a very hard time, took away the drivers and didof the driver not return it. when he asked for it back, he

was told he already got it back, and he didn't get it back, so now this poor gentleman would have to keep driving without a license. he said, you were illegally hitchhiking, so he puts me in the back of the car and takes the way out to new jersey in this driving rainstorm and dems me out on the highway in the middle of nowhere -- dumps me out on the highway in the middle of nowhere at 1:00 in the morning. i was developing the flu, so at that point i was starting to throw up. i never made it to d.c., but i think about how the experiences glas, the broadub experience he had, taking on corruption and the predatory nation of the stock exchange before he became a justice. that really matters. when you think about the supreme this ishey had a case, the non-technical version of it, they had a case that basically

restrict judges from actually touching campaign cash? that is, could they be restricted from asking for money? is that too corrupting? the supreme court said yes, yes, that would be totally acceptable, to prevent judges from actually asking for donations to their campaign, because that would create an appearance of corruption, and maybe the reality of corruption of the judicial system and its independence is so important, it's integrity is so important. but they had background as judges. they understood the issue, in the context of serving as a judge. but when it came to the question of, what it be corrupting to ave unlimited funds put into legislative race, and even if it is done in the context of a third party?

they said, you know, if the money goes directly to the candidate, you can limit that, but if it goes in directly, its unlimited. so they say, $1 million to a shadow campaign is not corrupting, whereas more than a couple thousand dollars directly is corrupting. it makes no sense. the shadow campaign, you absolutely know where the money is coming from. a set, it's not corrupting -- they said, it's not corrupting even if it's undisclosed. they did not have a requirement that there be any disclosure. so if they had been legislators in some part of their life, they would have seen the enormous impact. last week, we had a bill related to gmo labeling on the floor of the senate, and the definition of what constitutes a genetically modification -- a

genetic modification was written to exclude the three products that monsanto produces from its biggest gm modified crops, and the label doesn't have to say gm or anything on it that indicates. the bill is a complete sham, and it takes away states rights. what is that happen? because monsanto can wield fabulous influence. why is it that all of our environmental republicans have disappeared? simple reasons, the koch brothers invested in the last 2014 campaign, hundreds of millions of dollars in louisiana, arkansas, iowa, north carolina, colorado, alaska, oregon, in my race. and i'm pleased to say i decided to take them on directly. iran a campaign ad saying, these out-of-state coal billionaires

have come to oregon to elect my opponent because they share this agenda. terrible choice for oregon. by calling them out directly, iny left oregon tee october and my opponent's campaign collapsed, all because of the koch brothers leaving. thank you, oregon voters, for kicking the koch brothers out of my state. let's kick them out of other states. [applause] that is where citizens united comes in. fourustices do not, the that are left to not understand how corrupting this is, and how this goes to the very heart of our constitution, our we the people constitution, of, by, for the people. this flow of campaign cash makes it of, by, for the most powerful. the senate is for sale. the house of representatives is for sale. what could be more corrupting

than turning our constitution on its head in changing it from we the people to we the powerful, the very heart of what it was about? the justices don't get it. we need justices who do get it. that's why it's so important that the next president nominate, and the next senate confirm, a justice who truly understands this vision of we the people, so that we can reclaim our republic. nan: ok. amen. [applause] ask three of to you question to be answered very havely, because i want to time left for some of you to ask questions. so, i'm going to start with renee. you are a powerful storyteller.

so tell us a little bit about your work in storytelling, and how that relates to your issue, and why you think it is such an effective mean to -- means to convince people? renee: it's really frustrating to me, the fact that when i say i have had an abortion, that is still a radical act one in three -- radical act. one in three women will have an abortion by the time they are 45. everyone of you loves somebody who has had an abortion. you may not know it yet. so the fact we need to create a culture in which people can speak openly about their experiences and they are heard. you know, stories play a huge the whole women's health decision. i'm one of the people who cemented my abortion story in a brief through an organization

called advocates for youth and their one in three campaign. i wanted to make sure the justices knew, i am someone who had an abortion. i am a biracial black woman who has had an abortion, and you will listen to me. you need to be accountable to me. i wanted to make sure, as i wrote my organization's brief, that they were accountable to the women who were having abortions in texas. they need to know, their decision is actually impacting those people. they are real lives. we often think about these court decisions as kind of, its just out there, they decided this thing. but it actually impacts real people. we, by sharing our stories, we are illustrating that. one of the next big fights for the reproductive health rights and justice movement is to get rid of the hyde and the helms amendment, and abortion stories

are going to be key to that. s being onmy remarks at the board of naral pro-choice. but the democratic party has put a repeal of those movements in their platform. ne hasis assuring, everyo that choice. notght is not a right if everyone has access. can't say we're pro-choice and then have people who are on medicaid, on indian health services, incarcerated, federal employees, do not have access to that. how many of you, family members, young people in your lives, have $500 just sitting around you can do something with? not a lot of people. imagine you find yourself pregnant, and that's what you

need. you need that $500. what do you do? your health insurance denies you. and then you have to deal with finding your way to an abortion clinic, and on the wayfinding in immigration checkpoint. on the way, you might get pulled over perhaps for driving while black, and that's before you even get to the antiabortion protesters calling you all sorts of names, which the supreme court says they are allowed to do. that's not ok. so we need people to be able to share their stories, to speak up, but also we need all of you, those of you who support people who have abortions, who love people who have abortions, two stand up and remind us that we are loved and that we are in a space where we can share our stories, because you can't expect us to stand up and speak out with the antiabortion rhetoric that permeates our

country. one thing i will ask you to do today. talk about your values and your beliefs around how much you love people who have abortions, and say the word abortion. not reproductive rights. not choice. talk about abortion. remind us, we are loved, we deserve health care, and that we matter. [applause] nan: so ambar, i don't think you are expecting this one. but now that we moved off the courts a little, i know you are cofounder of dreamers of virginia. and as an activist in this arena, it strikes me that activists who have promoted reform of immigration laws, particularly young people, have made such tremendous strides.

tell us a little, what drew you into this movement, why you think you have been able to make the progress you have made, and kind of, what keeps you thank you for asking me that question. the program was cofounded in early 2012 are. , from the moment i crossed the border, i knew i was undocumented. i was very mature for a 12-year-old. i knew things were going to be hard, right? but i was not aware of how hard they were actually going to be. toas given the opportunity intern with one of my mentors at irm and reading the petitions writes for their

statements to get a credible interview for asylum. and having to translate those from spanish to english was really, was really emotionally draining, to see that these people were here because they fear to lose their lives back at home. they were assaulted. they were, you know, harassed by gang members. and to see that these people would not get asylum, that made there is something wrong with the system. why are these people that i believe deserve to stay here deported because if they get back home they will be murdered and they will die. it made me want to do more. that is why i joined. we found that this program in virginia.

with my involvement and my affiliation with united dream, i learned that besides the system not acknowledging this process of why people are migrating, the refugee crisis of central america children, and yet we do not call them refugees, we just call them the central american kids that cross the border and need to go back to their parents. we do not understand this is what people are migrating. and on top of that, we do not understand that the immigrants are double criminalized. if you are a person that is u.s. citizen and have a conviction, any some sort of type, you get convicted and you go to jail and then eventually you get out, right? and then even though the system is broken, it also affects immigrants in a double way because after they get

convicted into their time, they are not prosecuted by the machine that goes and raids their homes and puts them in a detention center again and then deports them to places that they are not even familiar with. so seeing the double criminalization and how someone who has had a conviction of 20 years ago, a dui or just guiltyng that they were because they cannot afford an attorney or did not know better, they did not have a money to pay ed and,are now being raid you know, in detention just because the system and the corporations, they are just one number. they do not matter, right? and then hearing politicians and elected officials say, "yes, let's support felons, let's

support children, criminals, not children, that is something that infuriates me because sometimes felons our family. sometimes they are parents, sisters, brothers and people who they call criminals are also families. so, when we say "let's keep that meansgether" people who have also been convicted and victims of this criminal justice system that is broken and is meant to affect people of color and poor people and immigrants who are doubly criminalized by that. that is what qc motivated every morning to continue working until everybody can live a life with dignity and respect everybody else. [applause] so, anisha, bring us back home again. you described all of the amazing

you are doing in the legal progress groups are doing at the state level. what is going to happen with merrick garland? is he going to get confirmed this year? anisha: i cannot answer that, do you have any other insights that i do not know. we are hearing they are waiting for the next president to make that decision. the hope is if we make enough noise and we lift up these stories, our personal stories and show why the courts are so important in the coming people that are suffering because of the kind of impact, this is just not politics. this is not about their little games. this is affecting everyday people. if we lift them up enough, i still have hope that we might see some movement. right now, while they are on recess until labor day weekend, i think it is our time in your

home state when you go back to make as much noise as you can, to rally, to write, to do calls and everything. get in touch with me, and i will give you the contact information for the groups that are on the ground every day. also lifting of stories of people in finding a story. we always need stories of people like that who are hurt, struggling everyday or even just people who have been convicted. you brought that up and that sparked something for me, who are pleading guilty. they have to wait, they would wait longer to wait for the trial because there are not enough judges than to just a guilty or to just be able to get out. they will get out sooner if they served their time than even have their case heard. that is crazy and there are plenty of people doing that in our system. the lifting up these voices and these stories i think is the best way to really talk about this and hope for some sort of solution in the future.

nan: thank you. i think the last one will be for senator merkley. what do you think will happen with the senate and merrick garland? senator merkley: before the election in november, i predict with great confidence they will be no serious confirmation debate on the floor. interesting question was what happens after the election, during the lame-duck. the senators, the majority senators have taken the position that this should be decided by the next president. the next president should be able to nominate because there is no foundation in the constitution for that. why are they not willing to address merrick garland? i mentioned the sum reasons, but the heart of it goes to the koch brothers. they do not want the possibility of a 5-4 reversal of citizens united. that is where they have the controlling influence of the

majority in the u.s. senate in a way that is hard to envision any other special interest has such control of this institution. but they will be very worried the next president, if the next president is hillary clinton, that she may nominate somebody who would be, as described by senator hatch, as the only, someone who is more progressive on citing or environmental and social and human justice. and so there is a real possibility that right after the election, they will abdicate their argument and immediately moved to try to confirm merrick garland. nan: thank you. all right, we know what we need to do here. we have a few minutes remaining, and i am wondering if any of you have some questions.

yes. >> we had a hand in the back. nan: maybe say who you are and where you are from. and i think that gentleman first and then you. yes. take it away. >> i do not think it is on. >> it is. it is for the recording. >> i am also with united dreams. i am an ambassador. i wanted to ask about judicial diversity. yes, i was rigged disappointed that the president did not nominate a person of color, but i was also disappointed in the limited legal background of the justices that we have. all of them have gone to harvard, gail except for justice ginsburg and went to columbia. none of them have immigration law background. as i understand in law school, it is an elective. none of them have background and criminal defense, legal issues that most people are going to face in this country.

i guess i wanted to hear your perspective on why is that, because during the oral arguments, i was infuriated that even some of the progressive justices at zero clue about immigration laws and most people were not even using the right terminology. nan: that is an excellent question. >> >> what should the next four justices have in their legal experience, and how do we get that? nan: that is great. >> i hope they have a jv in inner sexuality. >> there is some good news and bad news here. the vendors, you are right. you are exactly right. our current judicial system is just so white, male, corporate law. that is exactly what it is. judge, it seems like there is some secret track that requires you to work at law terms. that is the way i am an attorney but i do not think i could ever

be a judge because i'm a woman come i am of color and i working with interest. that is just the fate. we do need to change that. i would love to think i can be a judge one day. currently with the way it is, it is always corporate learners, very rarely public-interest lawyers that can actually make it. i think the system starts again, going back to what i said before, it starts with the district and circuit courts because that is what we take a supreme court justices from. we need to take more attention to our lower courts and make sure we are speaking of lawyers that we know and are pushing them towards commission interstate. every state has her own commission system where the vet lawyers to be judges and making sure we are getting access in the conversation, which is something as a society we think, we will leave that to the lawyers to figure it out, but that is not true. just like our state courts of judicial elections, we have a way of getting involved, of

suggesting to our senators, hey, what about this where? what about this later? this is a great, diverse lawyer with a great coming to the ground and really having a conversation to make sure they are in the commission as well. nan: anyone else want to comment? [laughter] >> i will just note that since the republicans took control of the u.s. senate majority, so we are talking about about 19 months, they have confirmed only 17 judges. in the year before that, they confirmed, we confirmed 96 judges. speaking at the supreme court level, it is a strategy to completely minimize the number of judges that are confirmed under president obama, again, and hope that they will be a r by his orth an her name to proceed to fill the courts up with right wing folks.

progress in some november 2013, i and others advocated for a change in interpretation of the role that put in place a simple majority to confirm judges on the force of a cannot be robust or at the district level. that led to the 96 judges being confirmed the following year. now it is being stopped at the committee level from ever getting to the floor. and is a terrible situation. hopefully we will soon have a senate and a president will rectify that. >> i like. i do have something. i think we need to support progressive organizations that actually do the advocacy to educate lawyers in training. there is an organization called if, when, how. it used to be called lawyers for reproductive justice. what they do is they have captured on law school campuses

to ensure law students understand the fight for intersection knowledge. the fight for reproductive rights is deeply intertwined with the fight for immigration rights and economic justice and ueer liberation. it is all in racial justice, bodily autonomy. even if those lawyers don't go into public interest and go into corporate law, there is still an analysis to understand what their organization and company might be doing, how that, they put a plant in a certain area, how that is an environmental injustice and will affect the reproductive rights and reproductive autonomy and health of the people living in that community and really start to have that analysis. if we support organizations like that, they can still go the corporate route, but they have a progressive and intersectional analysis, and then get on the supreme court.

nan: the only thing i would add, this is an issue that is of great concern for us at alliance for justice. we looked at every judge appointed by president obama. we found or new or revealed, i should say, that overwhelmingly the judges were either corporate lawyers as anisha said or prosecutors. almost no criminal defense lawyers, no public defenders, no legal services. no public interest lawyers, environmental lawyers. since that study has been out, there have been some changes that have been made. that is a huge priority for us, and i am so happy that you raised it because it should be a priority for all of us. you are absolutely right. >> that was a great question.

way, itmerkley: by the is in the president obama was not open to appointing a wider diversity, but the challenge was the senators from states can block the judges and up until we get that reform in november of 2013, we had to get 60 votes to pass the judges, so the only judges that were getting through were ones that made the republican corporate world happy. systematic, really corruption of the balance of the court system. we have got to rectify this. we have to have a broad diversity on the court to have anything close to a true justice system. nan: we have got time for one more question. and i think it is you, who you have been here before previous years. glad to see you again. >> i am from above the law.

i was also going to ask about her study that was covered in the last question, so i will quickly follow up a thought. there is a whole issue of trying to get the white house to select judges who have these different backgrounds. do you also find it is hard to recruit people to want to go into the process? rich corporate lawyers, they are fine financially and it is ok for them to be a judge. do you have trouble recruiting people or do you try to go and recruit people to put their names in the hat to be a judge? i am going to be quoting someone else, but i was talking to the co-author of the notorious "rpg." nan: boy, is she notorious, this one. [laughter] >> yes. actually said there are a lot of systemic things in place,

just like it is really hard to get women, people of color, to run for office. you have to ask them multiple times and the system is not set up that way, it is the same thing. they have to be asked over and over again. and also, it was around the clerk system. and so, if you look at when the justices are deciding who they want to clerk, they are actually doing this, they are picking people who look just like them. menf the justices are white were older, they will go, little tommy looks just like me,, on up and be my clerk. -- come on up and be my clerk. it is one of those things that we really have to impact people when they are in law school and we have to check the system of who can even get into law school to even be there, right? because it is so expensive, and how is it of people and communities of color are even

going to be but to get there? i went to public school my whole life and a thanks to a scholarship, did my masters at cornell. it was a culture shock and it was definitely an economic shock. i grew up middle-class. it is a whole system that we actually need to amend and flip over because it is designed to keep people like me and people with low incomes out. [applause] nan: ok. so, that brings us to a close of this wonderful, amazing panel. thank you all. anisha, renee, ambar, and senator merkley. what a treat to have you all. i would just end with this. thank you for coming as well. we just did a poll. i know we have talked about good news, bad news, but the good news is that compared to previous election years, more

people are paying attention to the supreme court this year than in 20 or 30 years. that is great news. say, just kind of building on what everyone else has said, the more we can reach out to our friends, colleagues, activists, parents, grandparents who say, this is the most important election in our life because we are not just voting for a president, we are voting for the court, for the supreme court. so, we have a lot of work to do. we are going to roll up our sleeves and we are going to do it. thank you all. i know this crowd will do it. you always come through for us. thank you and thank you to our panel. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: at c-span.org, you

can watch a public affairs and political programming any time at your convenience on your desktop, laptop or mobile device. c-span.orgome page, and click on the video library search box. you can type in the name of the speaker, sponsor of the bill or even the event topic. review the list of search results and then click on the program you would like to watch or refine our search with many of our tools. if you are looking for current programs and you do not want to search the video library, our homepage has many current programming ready for your immediate view such as today's "washington journal" for the events we covered that they. see spin up organization is of your public cable provider. check it out at c-span.org. debatest presidential just over a month away. we heard about the candidates' preparation for those debates on the sunday shows. new campaigns

manager in hillary clinton's. >> we are trying to get an assessment of where we are state-by-state. i will be talking to all of our data operators and find out where we are and what they think we need. going to start deploying people that are talented in different states and bring them to the seven or eight swing states that we plan on spending 10 or 11. i also have to announce we are working very closely with the rnc with the political data fundraising. we have a great relationship with the chairman, talking to him daily and we at the campaign are going to speak to the director of communications and spending a lot more time. >> is he going to be joining the campaign? >> he will be spending more time. >> one more question. mr. trump told me he did not like the date and he was not sure about the moderators. is he not prepared to accept the moderators and date chosen by the commission? >> we are talking about all of the particular logistics about

the debate dates but we are also doing debate prep and we are doing that in many different ways to keep him engaged. he is a natural communicator, connected with people in the debates are fabulous opportunity to force a conversation on to substance. again, what i learned this week, having a great week, the best week but another thing i learned is donald trump is back in hillary clinton's head. that is where he needs to be occupying real estate. >> not yet ready to accept the dates? >> we are discussing that. >> you are looking for somebody to play donald trump in motivates were hillary clinton. somebody who is going to bring up some topics that your candidate probably would rather forget. have you settled on that person? >> we have not yet. it is really hard to find someone to mimic the reckless temperament and the hateful instincts and divisive instincts of donald trump.

preparing for a debate with him is a challenging task but secretary clinton is looking forward to the debate. i think you will see a real difference between this study we best leadership -- steady leadership. >> is it that or is it someone who knows hillary clinton well looking to say tough things to hurt? >> she has been in this game for a long time in his have a lot of tough things said to her. the challenge is finding someone that can re-create the kind of reckless temperament, the kind of hateful language and divisive language that has become donald trump's hallmark. we will get it done. we are looking forward to the debate. announcer: another guest was green party candidate jill stein who talked about how her campaign is doing nationally. ms. stein: the curtain has only begun to come up on our campaign. we are encouraging other stations to hold town halls

because the american people deserve not only a right to vote, they deserve to know who they can vote for. presidentng for without any national coverage. this is trickling up from below, largely in millennial iteration that is locked of the future. i am in the running not only as a medical doctor practicing political medicine because we have to heal our political system, but i'm in this is a mother. concerned about the future that i gunned her generation does not s mostly payingi attention. if early doctors do not have a future, we do not have a future. they are locked in debt and they are looking at a climate that is unraveling on their watch, just looking at the news of the last week, unheard-of flooding now in louisiana and unprecedented fires in california. this is what the future looks like. because i am not captured by the usual suspects, i have the

liberty to stand up and call for importantly our main platform, which is an emergency jobs program to address the emergency of climate change, calling for a green new deal that will create an emergency transition to 100% clean, but noble energy. c-span's "washington journal" live every day with policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, judicial watch talks about his organization's role with hillary clinton's e-mail during her time at the state department. ginsburg, the director of the circle, the center for information and research on civic learning and engagement will look at millennial voting in which presidential candidate millennials will likely support. the "washington journal" live beginning 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. announcer: next "q&a" with a

story and author nancy isenberg. wrappers --rappers and how they use their music to address racism in politics. ♪ announcer: this week on "q&a" louisiana state university professor in historian nancy isenberg. she talks about her book "white trash" before hundred year untold history of class in america. ♪ nancy isenberg, author of "white trash." you talk about a professor in realpreface, your doctor dissertation advisor.