giuliani,luding rudy chris christie, and representative mcmorris rodgers. we'll keep you updated throughout the day. >> follow the transition of government on c-span at donald trump becomes the 45th resident of the united states. republicans maintain control of the u.s. house and senate. events asing your key they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span. c-span.org. at >> welcome. we have a special webpage at c-span.org to help you follow the supreme court. select-span.org, and supreme court. once on our supreme court page,

you will see the most recent oral arguments heard in this term. click on the view link to see what else has been on c-span. and you can also see many appearances by the justices, or see them in their own words, including one-on-one interviews with the past few months with thomas, andan, ginsburg. there is a calendar for this term. as well as many other supreme court videos available on demand. follow the supreme court at c-span.org. next, a look at the future of the supreme court and the impact of the trump presidency. from washington journal, this is just under one hour. >> our roundtable. and --e for justice,

severino. thank you very much for being with us. , would like you to comment justice thomas, this is what he said this past week about what to expect in the supreme court, ahead. >> this practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied as it is today by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the people of the most important liberty they have asserted in the declaration of on inendence, and w revolution of 1776, the freedom to govern themselves. with such unchecked judicial power, we americans are in the tost accountable branch decide how our contract should expand or contract. a decision that so often hinges

upon which particular rights are judicially favored at a time and which are not. with such unchecked judicial power, we leave it for the least accountable branch to decide what newly fundamental rights should be appended to our constitution. of course, as justice scalia , these newly discovered fundamental rights are neither set forth in the constitution nor known to the nine justices of our court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the kansas city telephone directory. and i add, i would rather that on the folks from kansas city. host: so, let's begin with the comments of clarence thomas.

you can see it on our website at c-span.org. we will use as a jumping off point. >> i would say he is offering up a rather leaked view of the supreme court. it is indeed unfortunate. i should also mention that it is a justice of the supreme court, an associate justice which you speak at a fund-raising event of the federal society. if he were a little more -- lower court judge, he would be in violation of the code of conduct. having headlined that fund-raising dinner, with those comments, it is a very grim view of the supreme court and the role of the supreme court. as americansbring all of our hopes and dreams to cases, to bring the cases around

the country, with expectations that our courts, our judiciary, particularly our supreme court, will defend justice in a fair and equal way. people the american still has the expectation for the court. i would hope that the next several years we can continue to put our respect in the court, but, of course, that is all up to donald trump, ourident-elect, to see that hopes and expectations are met. we turn to the judicial crisis network. fort: where advocating nominees that are faithful to the law. guest: the alliance for justice is an association for civil

rights organizations. dedicated to equal justice and fairness. host: your reaction to justice thomas? guest: first of all, i want to point out this was not a fund-raising dinner. that is false. this happens all the time. just like justice ginsburg. justices speak regularly at the american constitutional society. the justices feet regularly at this event every year. that is simply not true. event and itmazing gives us a wonderful note of hope for the supreme court. because as justice thomas, a wonderful justice, i clerked for him, was laying out, the whole purpose of the court is to be interpreting laws according to the way all representatives have -- our representatives have written them. this is how the constitution use

it. -- views it. he views it as a democracy enabling branch, making sure the government stays within what is signed by the president. as long as we have justices doing that come we should not worry about the politics because -- their personal politics are, because ultimately, the decision goes to the representatives. we are free to amended as we choose to, but that is something hew to as well. i'm encouraged, that we are not here to rewrite the laws or the constitution as the supreme court. but simply to give voice to the people, and what they have put in place as laws and we have the opportunity to change those laws, as well. i think it is a great tribute to the system we live in. host: this battle will move front and center this year as donald trump replaces justice scalia.

on september 23, the trump campaign finalized a list of potential justices. have you had a chance to look at the list? not who he will pick, but what kind of fight do you think we will see in the senate? guest: i think it depends on who you -- he picks. unlike what happened to merrick garland, who was confirmed to the d.c. circuit in a bipartisan manner. 32 republicans voted for his confirmation. he was, by all accounts, even , who called for president obama to appoint her, -- merrick garland, he is the embodiment of the kind of nominee we expect donald trump to send forward. however, having lived at that -- look at that list, and there are 21 names, america across the

gas americans across the country and in all walks of life have to be very concerned about the kind of people that he would select. he knows, and noted that the time the list was made public that it was provided to him by two organizations, the heritage foundation, and the federal society. an organization that is devoted -- gets together and is devoted to undoing much of the progress that our country has made. so i would like to see a nominee , in the mold of merrick garland , i'm fearful we will not. we can talk about some of the names on that list, but i would say almost every name on the list poses a threat to our civil rights, our liberties, our freedoms and worker and consumer , protections.

senatort me go back to ted cruz, who said before the election that maybe we could live with just eight justices vowing to block any nominee by , president-elect hillary clinton. now it is donald trump and he said last week we must do everything possible to make sure we can fill that position. so clearly, there is the politics at work back and forth which is understandable. that feeling the seat and filling it with a high quality candidate is it a priority for trump. he pioneered the idea of having a list. i think it is a great idea. nominating supreme court justices is one of the most far-reaching impacts he will have. decades howact for we look at the constitution. i think it was right to allow people to know what kind of judges he would be putting on the supreme court.

i know that that was a very important issue. a fifth of trump voters voted for that reason, and those voters voted decidedly for trump. it is a high priority for the american people. i think what we will see given , that we have a lot of other nominees, i don't know how fast they will approve the democratic senate, just saying it would fall apart with eight justices. they are saying that. senate democrats are trying to put up roadblocks. ultimately, donald trump will choose one of the very highly qualified candidates from his list and that person will be confirmed. severino, as you

pointed out, clerked for justice thomas, a graduate of harvard law school. you want to follow up? guest: we start with a situation we start with a situation where a very respected nominee was denied in an unprecedented fashion a seat on the supreme court. what happened to merrick garland was unprecedented. no hearing, no vote in the committee, no vote on the senate floor. that has never happened in american history before. to any supreme court nominee. this is a stolen seat. and now republicans want to take advantage of their obstructionism and simply put a name out and expect that the country will come together and confirm the nominee.

i would say democrats will not , immediately block any candidate, but, so far a number of senators will take a very close look at whomever is put forward by donald trump. and i would say looking at the , list of 21 that he has provided, we have great reason to be afraid and scared. one nominee, bill pryor, said abortion is the worst abomination in constitutional history. host: let me stop you there. this is what donald trump said on 60 minutes. the issue of roe versus wade. mr. trump: here is what is going to happen. i am pro-life. the judges will be pro-life. they will be -- >> what about overturning the law? mr. trump: they will be, in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the second amendment and everyone is talking about the second amendment and they are trying to

dice it up and change it. they will be very pro-second amendment. having to do with abortion, if it ever were overturned, it will go back to the states. >> but then some women will not be up to get an abortion. mr. trump: it will be by state. >> by state. mr. trump: they would have to go to another state. >> and that is ok? mr. trump: well we will see what , happens. host: you are talking about abortion. your reaction? guest: i think his comments certainly focus on abortion. but i would say they are regrettable. roe versus wade is a settled law in this country. and just a few months ago the supreme court overruled states

, texas which would have blocked , abortion access for women in the state. so the supreme court deals with , issues, including abortion, because is a wide expanse of things that are so important in american society. imitation, environment, worker rights, civil rights lgbt , concerns. and americans are going to be looking at his nominee not just from the standpoint of portion -- abortion but of the complete , record on a whole series of issues. now, william pryor, he has very unfortunate statements he has made on abortion. but others on the list, diane sykes, a judge on the seventh court of appeals, voted to reinstate discriminatory voter laws. in wisconsin.

a judge on the eighth circuit court of appeals, allowed a major corporation to get away -- wage thefthat of up to $24 million against employees. because they did not file workpapers properly. he disallowed a woman who brought a case involving sexual harassment by her boss, in so he retaliatedugh he against her by firing her. it is not just abortion, which is bad enough, but it plethora of issues that will be considered with the next supreme court justice. host: another point on that. from politico, kellyanne conway saying trump is committed to the list released on september 23. from the article, the list has

not changed, says kellyanne conway. president-elect trump has committed to choose his supreme court justices particularly by justice scalia. i will come back to you for equal time. paul, from indianapolis good , morning. caller: i am very happy mr. trump got in because now we have four justices that believe the constitution is a living document. or basically, whatever they say it means. there is no doubt clinton would have appointed the fifth one, which would have basically torn up the constitution. religious liberty would have disappeared. and we would've had basically ruled by justice. anything that is not in the constitution should be left to the states or the people. that is what the 10th amendment says. liberal justices have completely disregarded it.

host: thank you for the call. guest: i think paul makes some great points. these are some of the issues that i believe drove so many out to vote against hillary clinton and for donald trump. was she threatened to do, particularly in replacing justice scalia, one of the most conservative member of the court, someone who would be likt merrick garland or anyone else. the american people did not want to see that five vote liberal majority to run down a laundry list of items. state secretary of clinton was helpful in giving us that list. the court is not here to achieve policy goals. yours, hers, president trump's. and that is what justice thomas was talking about. that is why the real question is, yes, though i do not like they came down against a plaintiff in this case or that case, the bottom line is to apply the law equally.

so, you know, if they did not file on time, they do not get out of that any more than a corporation would. need is judges who will apply all of those laws faithfully across the board. not looking for, "i like this policy or i don't. that is something about justice scalia. lawicularly in the criminal aspect. he was absolutely defending those two that helps. they may have been a policy that he did not like. i think this person probably did commit the crime here. but fourth amendment protects them. or the sixth amendment. those are the kinds of judges that are on the list. i think that is something we can

be encouraged by. .ost: there is a tweet it says plessy was law before brown v board of education. guest: well, he is wrong. i will say this. clarence thomas was absolutely wrong. he uses very lofty language. to demand his own ideological agenda. if you back in time to what republican presidents looked for in nominees. and what they look for our nominees who are opposed to roe versus wade, opposed to civil rights, prayer in school, they use the ideological prism to choose their judges. they are result oriented.

and whatever they say about the constitution and originalism, they see their work as carrying out a very specific mandate. and whatever they say about the. look at bush v gore. when ronald reagan put those justices on the supreme court, he knew he could count on them one day to do the bidding of the republican party. republicans are very, very strategic about this and get the judges and justices they want. and let's just note and it is , not just the supreme court. but by the time president-elect becomes president trump, there to 100 vacancies in the lower courts. courts of appeal and district courts. that is a huge number of seats. and this president will name people to sit on the seats not

just for four years or eight years, but for the rest of their lives. host: if a democratic senate blocked a repulsive presidential -- republican presidential pick in his final year of office, how would you feel? guest: i would have been disappointed, assuming it was a good pick. i am not willing to endorse every republican, especially the last couple of decades. many of the republicans picked the most liberal justices in the court, think of justice stevens, judge warren. to say that the republicans always get people who will do the bidding of the republican party, hardly. i think the democrats have a much better track record. it is their constitutional right to do so. i may be discouraged and argue with them on merits, and that this person was actually faithful to the constitution, but i will not say they do not have a right to vote for their -- against their nominee. that is what the constitution tells us.

advise and consent. our: if you are following , roundtable focus with carrie severino and nan aron. plymouth, michigan. republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, everyone. all, i was a lifelong democrat and i voted for donald trump specifically because of the supreme court and also to give my one meager vote out of 100 and 20 plus million in this country, to express my dismay at people like nan aron and others in the mainstream media who got on and actually told lies about the republicans.

and it just became so overwhelming. i just thought, this just cannot stand. nan lied twice this morning about the purpose of justice thomas' speech. it was not a fundraiser. also, speaking about the lower courts, back in 2013 when harry reid triggered the nuclear option, the lower courts were packed with obama nominees. host: we will stop you there and give our guest at chance to respond. nan aron. guest: actually, they were not and that was the problem. , from day one, republicans in the senate have engaged in relentless, mindless obstruction. and what is interesting about some of their actions is that some of these republican blocked judges from their states whom they supported.

the republican strategy was to prevent any obama judges from being confirmed. now, you and i would probably agree that certainly many of these judges most of them, , should go forward, i would hope. president obama did not look for liberal icons, the most progressive nominees to be on the federal bench, unlike his predecessor, which we will get to an a minute. but the fact remains that the republican party blocked all three nominees to the d.c. circuit court of appeals. now, what do you expect democrats were our government to do when there is just a blockade of all judges. host: let me stop you at that the issue is a 60 vote majority. point. do you think that will change in the next congress? we have heard talk leader mcconnell that he might get a -- make it a simple majority.

warning democrats, if they block nominees, we may take action in the senate. guest: i have been advocating for getting rid of the filibuster. we have been through the bush administration and the obama administration. i was cheering harry reid on when he did that. right, it was packed. he knew it was the most prestigious court and well-placed to hear the law issues. i think, all these other courts, great for him. i think the supreme court will be the next one to go. if the republicans ever filibuster the nominee, he said when he thought hillary clinton would win, and he said, the nominee of hillary clinton, the filibuster will be gone like that. snapped his fingers. it is very clear there is no way the democrats would have left it in place. realize, weblicans

need consistent rule across the board. democrats get rid of it the , republicans should do the same. everyone gets 51 votes. there nominees from top to bottom and then we can move , forward. the democrats had a 51 vote. there is no filibuster after harry reid hit the nuclear option. maybe he should have moved a little faster. he did, nonetheless end up with , the same impact. he transformed one third of the seats. replaced one third of the seats. we went from having one with 13 quarts of the majority of democratic nominees to 29. let's not pretend president obama to that have a major impact on the court. that is true of every president they're not unique to donald trump. host: good morning. go ahead, beth. we will try again from beth. beth, are you with us? caller: yes, i am.

hello? host: you are on the air. caller: yes. ok. i am frustrated with mitch mcconnell. you know, when president obama, who now currently has a high percentage of approval, he was our president and we elected him when the supreme court needed to be filled with the nominee. he brought forth the nominee. so mcconnell kept saying that we would see in the next election, basically, i know nobody will say this, but the popular vote went to hillary. most americans believe hillary would have made it better -- a better president. but let's go back to what he said, we will see in the next election, we will see who the american people want. they will choose the supreme court justice. i thought that was very wrong. we did vote for obama and he won

and it was still his term. the to needed to be one bring forth a supreme court justice and they needed to bring him in. host: thank you for the call. outside of chicago. nan aron. guest: democrats want to the polls as well with the supreme court in mind. up two points. and the fact that merrick garland was never accorded basic respect by the senate by , republicans, the fact that during the end of the election, senator hatch, senator burr, senator cruz, all made statements to the effect that if hillary clinton is a elected, we will not confirm supreme court nominee, those statements and actions will have major reverberations in the senate. there is no question. but again, if donald trump can

send a name to the senate of a nominee that will adhere to the constitutional values i think the senate will , treat the nominee fairly. oft: you have seen the list 21. guest: there is no one on the list that in my view, of the organization, meeting that incredibly high standard. we're not putting someone on the supreme court for just four years, eight years, but the rest of his or her life. and they have got to be individuals who do not always side with the wealthy and powerful, who understand the courts are therefore all americans, not just one constituency or another. we will be looking very closely. and we will be looking toward democratic senators and republican senators to evaluate those records carefully.

host: eight sweep that says, thank god the senate stopped putting additional liberal judges on the bench. and this statement from senator dianne feinstein who will become the ranking senate democrat in that role. a moderate judge who should have een confirmed, guest: you know what, i hear a lot of complaints from democrats now but the policy was by stated by senator biden,

even in the earlier bush's term, saying if there is a supreme court opening, i do think we should move forward on it. he did it in literally dozens of appellate nominees that never got hearings, never that votes. so it is ridiculous to claim this is something, where democrats weaponize the process. i think democrats are discouraged that they are being forced to play by the same rules. no one knew what would happen. it could easily have been hillary clinton up there making the nomination, but the american people did have a voice. i think that is exceptional. i'm sorry to hear the slandering. a long list of highly qualified judicial nominees for many state supreme court's. these are not people who look at a pocketbook of the plaintiff and defendant and decided who

they want to vote for. that is incredibly unfair. all of them are highly qualified , and i am sure i look forward to the confirmation hearings for whomever gets picked. i think we will see someone very articulate and very committed to the constitution explaining their commitment. host: north carolina, democrats line. good morning. caller: hello, good morning. i am calling as a lifetime democrat who just voted for donald trump. i want to talk about why i did that. so, the courts, only one of two other, the three coequal branches of government. the founders set it up that way because they were concerned about the government being representative. and out of all three branches of

government, the judiciary is the least accountable to the voters. nine judges who serve lifetime appointments. because of how accountable they -- unaccountable they are, the judiciary was very strictly the purpose of the constitution. that is how the democratic party has used the courts. it is the least democratic way to move our society forward and to represent the will of the people and consent of the governed. host: your response? nan aron. guest: i would say to you and others, when you like what the supreme court does, you are usually the first out-of-the-box to cheer them on. i'm sure that happened with bush v gore and citizens united. what we all want or should want is the judiciary with judges who are open-minded

, fair-minded and believe in , equal justice, not just for wealthy and powerful, but for all americans. that is what we want. host: is there a potential conservative judge you would support? guest: let's say this. if i were to tell you, they would not get nominated. [laughter] guest: i will keep my views to myself at the moment. host: some love for both of you from meg. she says i love the work of you from nan aron. and -- she says thank you. this was an ad put together. they said it would be too hard. a risky gamble. they said he would have to give in and approve obama's liberal nominee. liberals attacked him over and over. but senator grassley stood

strong, protected the supreme court during a heated presidential campaign. senator grassley has been fighting for i was conservative -- iowa was conservative values. this year, he led the fight. tell senator grassley thank you. guest: i do not think senator grassley made any of us proud. it is interesting that some of the republican senators who stood in the way of merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court, have said to some of their democratic counterparts they are embarrassed by what mitch mcconnell did and by what senator grassley did. the fact is, they know 17 supreme court justices were confirmed during the last years of presidential terms. they are quite aware of what they did. senator grassley is quite aware of what he did. and, again, it is regrettable

and will not be forgotten. let's go to hell and -- helen in colorado. the line for independents. go ahead with the question. caller: my question is why aren't we the people being represented. the republicans seem to be going down corporatism, which does not represent the people and is not a healthy way for the country to be run. you do not run the country like a corporation. that is purely for profit and not for people. the democrats just do not seem to be making a clear argument about what they are doing. they're just not clear enough. we, the people, need to be represented. the republicans are acting like fascists.

i'm in fear of what our country is coming to. host: thank you for the call. carrie severino, your reaction? guest: unfortunately, there has been a lot of fear mongering from the left in this campaign. we will not see the fears people have articulated. realize, the only violence we have seen are from the left with these protests and thinks we are seeing. but i agree we need to have the people represented. our system, our constitution is set up for that to happen. our congress passes laws and the president signs them here we need to enforce those laws -- the court to enforce those laws evenhandedly. like them or not. my former boss, justice thomas did not agree with the , underlying law, for example when he voted to uphold the medical marijuana law in california. it is not something he would have voted for if he were a legislator, but that was

certainly something he felt they had the constitutional right to do. defendant cases in terms of jury trials. they have really been the lead reviving meaningful jury trials. when we have sentencing rules that allow judges to decide factors that bump people's sentences way up. that is not how the system is supposed to be designed. it is supposed to be that the jury decides this fact. they are not acting conservative politically. there are thing as conservatives constitutionally. that means let's stick with what the constitution said. and let's give it real teeth. then if you want to change our laws or our constitution, they have the democratic process to do that.

that way the people do have voices. host: nan aron do you want to follow up? guest: i can only agree how important representatives are , and in particular, the senators, who represent all of us, will have a very early opportunity to demonstrate their readiness to do the job and read records and hear the american people out. and that will concern the nomination of jeff sessions as attorney general. i know we have not talked about his nomination, but it is certainly is a very foreboding and bad sign for justice in america. he has a record that is offensive not just on civil rights, and that would be bad enough, but on a range of issues. and what happened in 1986 is

that the senators on the senate judiciary committee took the time to hear testimony, review the facts, read the record, hear from mr. sessions, and make the decision. at the end of that hearing, two republicans came across the political aisle and voted with democrats to reject his bid in alabama. a moderate, conservative democrat on that committee from his own home state of alabama, voted against sessions. we are going to be looking to our elected representatives as well at his upcoming hearings, that they take the time to review the entire set of facts, not just direct it in 1986, but

-- not just the record in 1986, but his voting record, his statements, his speeches, and calling on them to come together and collectively reject him for attorney general. host: that is what we're talking about, with the supreme court and other pending nominees. the judicial crisis network and the alliance for justice at the table. adam is joining us on the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you to your guests. i just want to say to nan aron, i find your commentary a little interesting, because she is talking about how she disagrees with the possible nominees of president-elect donald trump based on ideologies and agenda and politics. and yet, i mean, she just, i

-- she has never been a judge, and everyone knows that reasonre is no real other than ideology and politics why she got nominated by president obama. i'm not saying that to be mean, but it is pretty obvious. now you are complaining about president-elect. i think it is a little disingenuous. i think donald trump will make some reasonable choices and i just want to say a lot of republicans did not support him in the primary, but supported him in the general because of the supreme court. i think we have got to give him a chance and i think he will do a good job choosing the right people. thank you. guest: i think that is exactly right. we often see hillary clinton did

, not talk about the constitution. she gave a laundry list of items she wanted the justices to accomplish. that is not how our justice system should not -- should work all stop it is not, i want to achieve this goal, find in favor of unions and corporations. no one should be making those lists. it should be about the constitutional principles. i feel like i have to response -- respond to her slander against senator sessions. to try to dredge up decades-old allegations against somebody who has served so well is shameful. it is particularly striking in the context of, we saw the president at the funeral today, a previous recruiter for the ku klux klan, and a prosecutor was prosecuting members of the klan. they do not have a strong record on civil rights. it is slanderous and false.

you can talk to anyone he served with in the u.s. senate. this is a man who is absolutely an upstanding representative and i am confident that he will be confirmed to ag, but it is discouraging to see people trying to drag his name through the mud. if you are opposed to him on the issues, let's talk about those issues. let's not do ad hominem's and drag out decades old ad hominem's. that is unfortunate. guest: i would invite you to look at his votes against immigration. got a 7% from the voters on -- from the league of conversation -- conservation voters on environmental issues, environmental groups have given him a zero rating. this is post 1986. i would invite carrie but more importantly senators to look at the record. let's step back. we heard two statements by donald trump during the election.

he blasted a judge from san diego who was hearing a case against trump university. we heard donald trump falsely say he was mexican and should recuse himself and called him a hater. the other thing we heard from donald trump that was equally upsetting, was calling on second amendment americans to commit unnamed crimes against hillary clinton. maybe trump was talking to a particular constituency and maybe he was trying to get a lot of attention. but he has a lot to do and a journey to make to convince us that he is the president for all americans and not just one constituency or another. we will look very closely at him

and in particular at his , choices. we know who he wants for attorney general and we will be examining who he wants for the supreme court because we want to see a different president, one who understands at the heart of democracy, is a respect for constitutional rights. host: one of those justices is appointed by barack obama. this past week, the washington times has the headline, we cannot afford to despair. she spoke to bill press about what the election will mean for the supreme court. we go to lisa from louisville, kentucky, good morning and welcome to the program. caller good morning and thank : you for c-span. donald trump mentioned that lgbt rights are over and decided. he would not say the same thing about roe versus wade.

this is the right-wing agenda to overturn roe versus wade. you do that, and it only starts there. next you will have the 10 , commandments on public theerty, and as far about attacks and the protest i have , just seen this morning on fox, msnbc, and cnn, there are hitler's swastika signs everywhere and hate written about donald trump and president obama. it is terrible. host: let me stop you at that and go back to you, carrie point severino. to her final point about division in the country, can you touch on that? guest: it is very discouraging. we do need people to try to find a way to restore our commitment

to working together. both sides need to stop and consider. side,of people on each within both parties that have not fully stopped, listen to each other and understand the concerns and that a vote against immigration bill does not mean you hate people will who are -- hate people who are from other countries. it may mean you are concerned about how to do things in a legal and orderly way and it may have to do with the fact we do not have enough money in our own social security currently. we need to make a way to find ourselves more fiscally viable. it may be concerns about jobs. there are a lot of reasons people vote against things. we need to be listening to each other and hopefully, we will be able to work with the administration. to achieve these goals, something that will help all americans. host: what do you think about senator mike lee, the only

senator on the list of 21. why? guest: i think he is excellent, but i think it would be best to have someone with legal experience as a judge, first, before a senator. i think it speaks well to donald trump to include him on the list. another person on the original list spoke repeat the against donald trump. a texas supreme court judge. has not been a supporter of donald trump, even after he got the nomination. he is not simply just putting on people in his camp. these people are widely regarded as solid constitutionalist and that is probably the reason he is on there. he certainly is that. host: last word from ohio, republican line. caller: when it comes to the supreme court, they are supposed to be blind and uphold the

constitution. they are not supposed to be democrat, republican, and they are supposed to keep their personal opinion to themselves and follow the laws and regulations set forth by the constitution. thank you. host: an appropriate way to conclude our conversation. nan aron. guest: i agree with my buddy over here that consensus is a good aspiration. but i would also say if president-elect trump is looking for ways to build consensus, and also build respect among all americans for what he is doing, his first action of putting forth a man like jeff sessions

for attorney general, was an incendiary one. it is not a nominee a move that , will bring people together but in fact do the very opposite. i want president-elect trump to think long and hard about this because what he has invited is a firestorm of opposition. jeff sessions is a lightning rod for people around the country to speak out, speak up, and let their senators know how inappropriate and unfit he is for attorney general. i would like for him to go back to the drawing work and come up with someone that we can all support. guest: i do not think it is consensus building to reach across an attack. but i think steve could not have put it better.

i hope we will have judges who will put the constitution and the law first. whether they agree with their own personal policy choices or not. i am optimistic we will see that justice scalia, whose whole career was dedicated to the principle of putting the constitution first. i am optimistic that we will see those shoes filled with someone worthy of the legacy. host: two experts on the supreme court. judicialnetwork.com. if people want to follow you on twitter? and nan aron, president for alliance of justice. her work is available online. afj.org. guest: if people want to know more about the names on the trump list, it is on our website. host: thank you both very much for being with us. we appreciate it. come back again.

journal,'s washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. monday morning, national cannabis association industry will talk about the future of the marijuana legislation effort and advocates hope for regulation. freedom works president and ceo will discuss the goals congressional republicans would like to achieve within the next year. is to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern on monday morning. -- be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern on monday morning. wasresident-elect trump seen arriving in new jersey where he will hold a series of meetings with several people throughout the day to discuss the transition process. before entering the building, he spoke briefly to the media.

mr. trump: a great day, great people coming. you will see. thank you. not too cold out there, i hope. >> while the transition process takes place, here in washington, d.c., several newly elected members of congress getting acquainted on capitol hill. we met up with some of them during their visit. >> we are with congressman john sasso, a republican who won a swing state -- a swing seat. what is it like representing a swing seat? is it different for you that some of the other freshmen members you'll be joining? undoubtedly, i think your

approach is different than if you are in a one-party district. this fits my political belief, that not all the wisdom resides on the republican or democratic side. there are good points that each brings in one of the reasons that motivated my candidacy is i am frustrated at washington's inability to get things done. the left is because on msnbc and the right is on fox and they talk past each other. we are all americans and we have serious problems we have to solve and there is no one democratic or republican solution. i am more of a limited government, conservative person, but in order to get things done, we have to work together and across partisan lines. i am hopeful we can do that to the extent possible. i want to see us grow this economy. we have to get more economic growth, and that would respond

to the economically -- economic anxiety. >> people say they want to get people to talk more and stop talking past each other. youris your suggestion to colleagues as you are getting ready to know each other during orientation? >> i think we need to get to know each other and show a willingness to work across party lines. there are a lot of issues where you will have a democratic position or a republican position, there are issues where tax reform, corporate tax reform makes no sense for our corporations or doing business abroad. i think most democrats and republicans would agree with that. double taxation is not an incentive to bring those dollars home. we want those dollars to come home so they can be reinvested here. know that obamacare is blowing apart by its own weight, so we have to come up with a consensus on what comes next. these are areas were i want to

work across party lines and get things done. >> the 19th district contest was watched nationally. bernie sanders got involved in your race. what should be the lesson for party leaders as they reflect on what happened a week ago? >> the lesson in my district is the most important thing is local. i responded and i talked about issues that were local, oriented. >> some examples? >> in terms of job growth, different areas of the district. we have a large part of our district in the watershed, but the bluestone mining industry is being regulated to death by new york city department of environmental protection. environmentct the but still encourage a vital industry in our area. i focused on local issues in the different areas of the district, whether it was lyme disease, bluestone mining, hospital reimbursement rates.

people want a representative to come down here and work on the national issues, but they also want someone who is responsive to the local issues and there is real contrast in our campaign in that regard. >> you started in local government in the 1970's. >> i actually started in the state legislature in the 80's. >> what do you bring from state government to the federal government? what lessons? >> not every problem is a federal problem and not every problem has a federal solution. common core is a perfect example. that was an issue in the way it was handled because of these -- the state was attracted by the federal money in the obama stimulus and they rushed into this thing and had no way of knowing what to do and how to do it. they basically wasted about $800 billion. some issues are a state and local issue. >> thank you so much for your time. congressman elect paul mitchell

joins us, a republican. filling the shoes of congresswoman candice miller, who is running orientation. give you some extra insight into the orientation process? >> it is certainly big shoes to fill. she has been here 14 years. high expectations, that is for certain. >> what did you do before you came to congress? >> i spent 30 years in workforce development. the last 27 years of the company, retired in 2011, i decided it was time to do something more. feel about being the ceo of a company where you can make decisions and run things, to now being a part of this legislative body? workselieve a good ceo for the people around them in developing consensus. you can issue orders all you

want, but you get everyone committed to moving forward and you can make a path. i think the same approach works in congress. you get a consensus that will move the ball forward. there are very few perfect alutions, but no decision is decision, you should make one. >> as you go through the process, what sticks out to you, so far? ,> listening to the speaker kevin mccarthy talking about responsibility. recognizing that, serving in congress is a rare opportunity and eight huge responsibility. very few people get to do this and treat that with respect and honor. >> there is debate about how long congress members should stay in d.c. during the week and should they sleep in their office or should they get a house in the city? how are you dealing with that,

with the d.c. aspect? >> i have family, two children still in school. i will be back and forth. home is in michigan and i will be back there. i can't just say i will move to washington. that does not represent the district, well. thatere a longtime members believe the washington experience is how you build consensus and move legislation. >> i think we can do both. i will be here. dinners will be with those members. it is not about neglecting those, it is remembering that homebase is homebase and that the people who elected me are from there. it can be overwhelming, here. the demand is pretty high.

>> which committees will you serve on? >> i am hopeful i can serve on transportation infrastructure. the other is education and workforce. helping adults develop skills and the challenges to that that relate to the current labor market. that is what i hope to do. >> thank you so much. we are with congress woman elect , am florida's 10th district former florida police department chief. how did that job or kerry for this job? yearserved as a 24 -- 27 law enforcement officer, and i have dealt with people in just about every facet of their lives. i have seen the results of good government and i have seen the results of that government. i am excited about this opportunity to serve in this special and different way. >>