tv Newsmakers Carrie Severino CSPAN July 8, 2018 10:03am-10:40am EDT
10:03 am
eastern. of a recenta review supreme court case which ruled states can require online retailers to collect sales tax even if they don't have a physical presence in the state. the case was decided 5-4. monday's event is hosted by the congressional internet caucus academy. see it live at 12:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. carrie: joining us on "newsmakers" is carrie severino. thank you for being with us. joining us today is niels lesniewski for cq roll call and greg stohr, bloomberg news supreme court reporter. .et me begin with roe v. wade if that is the litmus test for senators and the majority of democrats, are there any names mentioned that are red flags? carrie: i don't think we know how they would vote.
10:04 am
this issue comes back. it is a scare testing going back to the 1980's. justice o'connor was the vote they were worried would overturn roe v. wade, justice kennedy, justice souter. all three voted to uphold roe v. so speculating what anyone would do is very difficult. is one people think has more out there than others. i was watching a recent video. she said this is not the way to look at a judge at all. judges are not saying here is a case i want to overturn. they are supposed to be looking at the law, the facts of the case, and decide based on the text of the law and text of the constitution. any of these top three we are looking at is going to do that. day, senatorsthe have said it is the number one
10:05 am
thing. yes, they are concerned about , but. wade as a precedent the biggest concern is someone faithful to the law, by by the constitution. steve: we heard from senator collins that roe v. wade will be a decisive factor for her? carrie: that is totally understandable. it is difficult to predict what any of them would do. something the president can or should ask. perhaps they will ask it during the confirmation hearing. in accordance with a long tradition, justice in spread the most storied participant, they can't answer questions about what they would do on a specific case. that is important. it may be one thing to say i have read this decision, but when you look at an individual case and when they are deciding a case, they aren't going based on the reading of that one original case.
10:06 am
ofy will have thousands pages of briefing on both sides going into arguments they may not have considered, precedent might not have considered, historical arguments they might not have been aware of. is improper for them to prejudge what they would do if they were in that position. you don't know the facts of the case. it is also important to remember that after justice kennedy's retirement, the swing vote is chief justice roberts. what ever this next nominee would do, it is premature to decide that would be the deciding vote. chief justice roberts is not someone who wants to move in major steps. he is an incrementalist and would rather avoid the issue altogether. you have to greet over the past four-five years, if there is one legal issue that has tied together legal conservatives, it was wronglyie severin roe v. we
10:07 am
decided. would it be a disappointment if this nominee did not support overturning roe v. wade. carrie: you have people like laurence tribe say there is no law there in this opinion. even people who would like a result weather is widespread abortion access or think there is elsewhere in the constitution you can find it, they are in the ballpark of saying roe v. wade is poorly reasoned. a lot of it goes back to what is your approach and how does one move going forward with the decision with that question? it is something the president has certainly said this is something he is hoping for, but every president has the things they help will be done. at the end of the day, a judge is not a fairy godmother who will give you your wish list. says not santa claus who
10:08 am
there are the top 10 cases and you want this or that down. going to bee applying judicial philosophy to cases, and that may be different from what you predict. there are so many other huge issues that we cannot predict. challenge toclause obamacare was a gigantic supreme court issue. clause commerce something being asked of people or thought about when these chiefes, including justice roberts, was being vetted for the court? we can't predict what the next big question will be. that is why it is important to focus on their philosophy. supposed to be for a specific result. this is something americans across the board would like. they are there to interpret the law as written. that puts the ball in the court
10:09 am
of the legislature and allows the american people to elect them to determine the policy direction of the country, not the courts. following up on that, what did you think of the decision in which was ane, unusual divided senators -- .ustices does that tell us anything about where the chief justice may be going in the future? underlinesin, it that the chief justice frequently was the harder to predict swing vote. maybe some of that is flowing from his traditional philosophy. in his confirmation hearings, he said i'm not an originalist. i don't have a specific philosophy. you don't know what analysis he
10:10 am
would use in a specific case. so it is not surprising that may doesn'tis case he follow along with the traditional line. he is not going with an originalist philosophy exclusively. it is harder to predict him. it is a distraction to focus on one case. we can't predict the case anyway. chief justice roberts, what ever approach he is doing, it is an incrementalist approach and he does not want to make these big, overwhelming decisions. >> conservatives used to talk a lot about judicial restraint. in at least one definition it means letting the people's elected representatives make decisions rather than have others make those decisions.
10:11 am
our constitutional system does not say people's representatives make the law. they have limited authority. it is only the authority the constitution gives them. that was one of the questions in the obamacare case. they also have limits on government power. where there is something in the constitution, then the courts need to step in to validate laws that violate that because they exceed the government's authority or violate those limits on government. is it is not for a view to bring his or her of politics into it. we should avoid coming up with judicial tests in general. if the test is not in the law or
10:12 am
constitution, then you have a case where a judge is bringing in his or her own view. how do i think this major question should come out? something power system leads to the people and their a elected representatives. that should leave a wide berth for the legislature, but not an unlimited one. wouldn't liberals say a lot of the same thing? it's just that they look at different limits in the constitution. they would say lawmakers are limited to the extent they violate the due process clause and the equal protection clause, and that is the philosophy behind the marriage decision, roe v. wade, other decisions i suspect you disagree with? carrie: there are different interpretations of where those constitutional boundaries are. that is where the rubber hits the road in many of those cases.
10:13 am
if you look back at the warren not this ideas that we are bound strictly by constitutional limits. it is how can we find an area in the constitution to hang our hook and then we can cast a wide in theor moving things direction we think the constitution should go. try tostion is do you understand those terms as they were understood by the people who ratified them, and that could be the framers. it depends on when it was ratified of course, when that relevant question is. the idea that is what we are looking at, not today will i read this and think -- when i think due process, i think something expansive and broad. that is one interpretation. when we are reading laws, we have to look at the words as they were passed. we have to be careful not to redefine the terms.
10:14 am
that would question ignite debates. i know justice scalia and justice breyer had a debate team going around. theyis one of the things would talk about, how broadly you can look at some of these things. if it gets too broad, then it is just an md vessel that supreme court justices can import their own view of the world. we don't elect them. that is not why they are there. to interpret and bring into effect the laws that are passed by the elected representatives. they are people putting content into the law, it has to be the legislature, not the bench. that is something everyone ought to be able to agree with. i don't think liberals would like justice, to be importing his view of how policies should be done into the court anymore than conservatives might want justice ginsburg putting her views in there.
10:15 am
if we could have everyone agreeing on how to limit the courts that way, i think that is a recipe for taking some of the politics out of the system. unfortunately in a world where that does still happen a lot, if -- if the words are placeholders for whatever content the justices want to import, then we do have a political race. that is not what we ought to have. can you speak to the extent the three finalists we seem to be having right now for filling the kennedy seat come the extent to which they are on a sliding scale of original is him? -- originalism? if there is anyone that is more of a strict constructionist on that final scale and your view. carrie: the great news from my perspective is we have an embarrassment of riches. you have judge amy coney barrett
10:16 am
, while she has not had many opportunities to show how she she happensinalism, to be a leading scholar for originalism. extensively on this and understands at a deep theoretical level what is going on with originalism. but other judges have a real attern -- when you are citing case on appellate courts, you are bound by precedent. supreme court precedent is not a was something the judge might agree with. think this is a test or rule that was a grounded in original understanding. i know particular judge kavanaugh, going back to first principles and discussing here is what the original understanding is. ifisn't able to affect that there is contrary supreme court
10:17 am
precedent, but even remembering to get that out there. precedent is here, so we will apply the precedent we have. would be a difficult decision. i'm glad i don't have to make a choice among these three. it is a good problem to have. >> if democrats remain united thinthe razor republican majority and john mccain is unable to vote, do you think he should resign his senate seat? carrie: that is senator mccain's call. that should be his call to make. there is a big if on if the democrats are united, because as we saw with justice gorsuch, three democrats even last year voted to confirm justice gorsuch. when you have a nominee who is so well qualified, likable, evenhanded, has a history of listening to both sides of the argument and well respected, not necessarily well respected by
10:18 am
democratic senators, but from people he had worked with closely and had argued a case before him. each of these potential nominees hands that. i think it would be hard for the democrats, particularly the three who voted for gorsuch, but many others up for reelection and states who went for trump, to vote against the nominee like that when their ultimate choice is an extreme party line that is something that will not be popular. it might play well in california, massachusetts, new york. i'm not sure how that plays in missouri, west virginia, indiana, florida. i think that will be a more difficult question. it is not like last year where they can say my constituents will forget what happened. it will be difficult to forget a vote in september for the november election. it is a time for choosing, and they have to make that choice. >> is this different because the
10:19 am
seat is different, replacing justice scalia versus justice kennedy? he was a swing vote and 90% of the cases. vote that was a swing was still more conservative than not. this last term, i think he voted almost 100% of the time when he was that swing vote with the conservative members of the justices onf the the court, justice gorsuch was the one with whom he agreed the most, and vice a versa. for someone who everyone thought would be decidedly to the right of kennedy, it did not turn out to be the case. i think people overestimate the distinctions here. there are major issues. any subsequent justice will different. gorsuch is different than scalia and decisions he has taken. the supreme court, 40% of the cases are unanimous. i predicted this next justice like gorsuch would actually vote
10:20 am
similarly to how justice kennedy would have voted. there is always a change anytime there is a new justice. , but the shiftrt has been dramatically overstated. >> i want to ask about judge kavanaugh. during the fight on obamacare, he wrote an opinion that said we should throw out this challenge to obamacare. is that opinion going to be a concern for conservatives? carrie: i don't think it should be. some people have looked at that the same thing we were afraid we saw and chief justice roberts? i don't know the inside story. a lot of people, their conclusion was he looked to have the potential that was legally correct, but he blinked and found a sneaky way out with the tax penalty distinction there. with kavanaugh's opinion, he did clearly right about the problems
10:21 am
underlying the law and the major issues. is question had to do with the anti-injunction act, an argument the supreme court -- i think 9-0 they said the injunction did not apply their, but that is a facedon he has elsewhere and it fits with his understanding of the anti-in injunction act in general. he is not the kind of person who is looking at a case in trying to dodge the important decisions. narrative, i don't think that is what is going on. his decision recently saying the form of the consumer finance protection board was unconstitutional. this is a similar thing. when he sees the legal result is one that even has a major real-world effect saying this whole branch is
10:22 am
unconstitutionally constituent it, he is willing to go there and has done that time and time again. steve: a few minutes remaining, niels lesniewski. eveningssuming monday that president trump does not come out with someone who was not on the list of 25. a realityhere isn't television program surprise whatg at us monday night, are you prepared to do, and what is your group prepared to do in terms of ad spending? reservations? are you ready to back which of the nominee is, assuming it is not, like i say, some out in left field choice that we aren't familiar with monday night? carrie: i am confident he would choose someone from the list. the president has gone back to that and reinforced that. that gives me the confidence to say we will be able to fully support these nominees. it is an amazing group of people
10:23 am
under consideration. when justice gorsuch was confirmed, we were ready with ads on websites. we are in the same position now. it is an embarrassment of riches. i am pleased to have this choice before us. we are ready to defend his or her record. there are attack ads. there will be character assassinations, distortions of the record and outright lies and deception, but that is why i am happy to be where i am. i know that person will be defending and we will be happy to stand up for them. focus on swing states where there are democrats? maine?t more alaska, how do you break down the divide where you focus your efforts? carrie: our focus would be those swing states. threed love to expand the democrat margin we had last time.
10:24 am
when these senators will be accountable to their voters in their state, who mostly supported from, on this issue more than anything else. there is a lot of variety about his immigration policy, trade, but the supreme court will more than a fifth of voters said that was the number one reason for going to the polls. this is an absolute winning issue for president trump. that is a difficult issue for those senators saying this is where i will put down my marker. other issues may be, but we will have to see a lot of democrats who feel they have to vote for someone who will be a nominee. >> how much are you prepared to spend in support, and will you disclose your donors to tell the public who is behind the ads? carrie: we spent $10 million during the gorsuch campaign. we are ready to do that and more if we see the need. i see this heating up. , do not have to legally
10:25 am
disclose our donors. we have an obligation to them. seen, the attacks we have particularly conservative members of the administration, i feel like i have a duty to my donors to give them confidentiality. we have the same thing on the left. same position, they don't disclose their donors either. it is a common position. talk about attacks, doesn't the president bear some of that responsibility? he has been forceful and critical going against senator warren about the issue of her heredity? doesn't he bear some responsibility? ,arrie: the personal harassment there is no place in our political system. we should debate each other on the issues.
10:26 am
a political candidate, we can address them. in this case, we are talking about her own honesty, and that is a reasonable campaign topic. it is the ability to go home and have a dinner with your family without having to suffer harassment. to a one thing saying reporter i don't think you are doing your job well. he is saying reporters should be hounded out of polite society, and those are some of the attacks we have seen. steve: what about his rallies? people are shouting things about various news networks and so-called fake news. he is clearly encouraging that, right? carrie: the president's view of the news media is to some extent certainly understandable. there is a lot of lies there. i have children at home. if one kid hits the other, they start escalating. , i do think it is a
10:27 am
different situation that we see when you are actually encouraging personal attacks on him one. that aside, this is one of those points. there are people who agree or disagree with the president's approach to how do we talk about and be concerned about liberal bias in the media. it is something many more are concerned about than those who agree with the president's approach to it. the supreme court is something that is not a controversial thing. it unites people across the board. many who consider themselves never trop grudgingly have to admit, while, judge gorsuch, what an amazing pic. you can be personally opposed to the president, but in this case he has done a great job for america. steve: final question. >> you mention the group on the liberal side of this fence. ofwhat you think in terms
10:28 am
what they're doing, organizing, and the democrats and progressive interest were later to this game than your site was? i don't feel necessarily in past years that there was as much fervor on the liberal side over the supreme court as there was on the conservative side, and if that will be different this time and you expect that to be different. carrie: certainly. our position was founded to defend nominees because we saw what was happening to judge bork, judge thomas. in 1980, it took people by surprise because typically there had been much more civil campaigns around the nominee. it was much more let's ask some questions and they all get unanimously confirmed. i think it took several cycles to recognize what was going on. the left was affected doing it
10:29 am
first within the senate. you had ads being run against robert bork. theorganization was one of first ones that was out there defending them and has ofntained that as our focus supreme court nominations. to that extent, we are playing catch-up by trying to replicate the efforts we have done, so we will see how they do. it will be an exciting nomination process either way. should diversity, female or minority come if you were to advise the president, should that be a factor in his decision? carrie: the factor he should be looking at is their judicial philosophy and the way they approach the law. we have an extremely wide range of different backgrounds. we have people like amy coney of seven, tooher adopted from haiti, one with special needs. she lives diversity in her life. we also have a a judge on the
10:30 am
sixth circuit, people coming from a wide range of backgrounds, a judge who grew up in a trailer park. there is a huge range ofthere'se who this resident is looking at. at the end of the day, they won't be chosen to fill a specific quote a spot. they could stand on their own with their own resumes and that's something we should all be celebrating. , thank youe severino for joining us here on the "newsmakers closed the program. guest: great to be with you. host: we continue the conversation with neil and greg. on thego with you opening round of abortion questions, is this going to be the driving issue moving ahead? guest: it will be, certainly if amy barrett is the nominee.
10:31 am
regardless, this boat could well be the one that overturns roe v. wade, or at least scales it back significantly. she talks about the robert court nomination. had he been confirmed to the supreme court, roe v. wade what have been overturned, or at least that -- at least that's what he said. liberals remember that they know how important it is, they may not have the power to stop it that it will be front and center. will the nomination of amy barrett make it more difficult for democrats? because of her life story? sense it will be, in some . the fact that she is a will and probably help. younger, had less experience, can be gone after that way, and some of the things she has said as an academic make it clear that she is morally opposed to the -- to abortion and strongly suggest that she views roe v. wade is wrongly decided erie the other potential --inee is judge kavanagh,
10:32 am
decided. the other potential nominee, judge kavanagh, has evidence similar but there is less. host: we talked about the republican senators from maine and alaska. on the democratic hide, who are you keeping an eye on? guest: the ones that voted for judge gorsuch. all of whom have already met with president trump. joe manchin, west virginia areas heidi heitkamp, north dakota. joe donnelly, indiana. donnelly may be the most interesting, particularly if barrett is the nominee, because she is from indiana. you have an additional wrinkle their with a home state selection. the other thing we need to look at on the opposite side is there may be some complications with kavanagh if he is the nominee from his work in the bush theyistration white house
10:33 am
could raise the ire of some civil libertarians. i think that these are the balancing act questions and if i'm guessing what will be going on in bedminster, new jersey, some of this will be trying to sort that out. host: in terms of the timeline with the senate in session to much of august, what are we looking at in terms of earrings and a final vote? >> we are probably looking at hearings soon as what is -- as soon as the end of the august or early september. the confirmation vote to move ahead, i would imagine, late in september, early october. the question would really be whether or not this gets complicated by the government funding deadline at the end of september and if they try to get , or if they have
10:34 am
to wait through and deal with spending bills first. host: final question, what did you learn from carrie severino? guest: i got her answer about judge kavanagh was interesting, that she's not certain about him on obamacare the way she has been a goal of chief justice roberts for his vote to uphold obamacare. judge kavanagh can be attacked from the right. he might disappoint conservatives in some respects, but they are not enough that she and probably some others are willing to say it's an actual problem. host: greg story, covering the supreme court for bloomberg news, neil kaczynski for cq roll call, thank you to both of you for being here on "newsmakers." [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] >> today on 4 p.m. -- at 4 p.m. a," the on "reel americ
10:35 am
president, june of 1968 through the camera lens of the white house naval photographic unit, covering the activities of president lyndon b. johnson. >> the president was awakened with the news that senator robert kennedy, in the midst of victory in the california presidential primary, had been shot and critically wounded by an assassin. the senator's death, president johnson sent letters to the speaker of the house and head of the senate, urgently imploring congress to enact a meaningful and effective gun-control law. in june, much of the president's attention was centered on the paris peace talks. early in the month, u.s. negotiator cyrus vance returned to washington. instead of a slowdown in hostilities rather than peace negotiations, the communist
10:36 am
launched a massive wave of assaults across the south to a road resolve on the home front and grasp tightened the leverage in the diplomatic struggle. at a news conference on june 20, the president announced chief justice earl moran was retiring. in making his third and north appointments to the high court, the president knew that his choices would affect the destiny of the nation long after he himself had left office. watch this --? weekend --? watch this weekend on c-span3 tv. >> watch this weekend on c-span3 tv. escapediling how he death threats after social media, he is interviewed by religion reporter julie's house and are.
10:37 am
zausner.s >> there are people whose names that you mentioned because you saw them one time years ago in bosnia and you may never talk to them again. you are so aware of the strangers place in each other's lives. do you have advice for us on being good strangers, to the people around us? >> at one time i found 100 emails from people i never thought about and they said he will pay for you, try to help you out. i was using hope every time because when you read the book, you can see i was in a very hard situation. a in me.at people have at one time i was in of work waiting for the fishing boats and i thought -- should i go back to the hotel or just stay faith inat? i had these people.
10:38 am
the strangers, like so many who reached out, help in many different ways. i wanted to say something that, without them, and without having faith in humanity, there's no hope. they really helped me. i asked the people, why did you help me, he told me something, saying that it was because of the holocaust and they wanted anyone to say yes. watch "afterwards," on book tv on c-span 2. president donald trump will announce his nominee for these court, filling the vacancy left by retiring justice anthony kennedy. watch the announcement live, monday night at 9 a.m. eastern these spam and c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. next, remarks from attorney
10:39 am
general jeff sessions on religious freedom, illegal immigration, and the opioid epidemic. his comments were followed by a speech from actor kirk cameron. held at the annual western conservative summit in denver, this is an hour. >> please welcome our speaker. >> good afternoon. it is a great privilege to be able to introduce kirk cameron. many of you will know him from a long time back. if there was a single individual who embrace is the theme of this conference, it would be
111 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on