tom daschle and bill frist talk about global health and diplomacy and the impact of the president's emergency plan for aids relief. group hasfit advocacy its annual convention in washington to discuss the state of civil rights in the u.s.. in the evening we take you to the white house where president trump announces his choice to replace retiring supreme court justice anthony kennedy. c-span two, the role of inspectors general and how to enhance and streamline the work they do. then at 3:00 the senate returns to consider the nomination of mark bennett to be a judge on the ninth circuit court of appeals. next on c-span, it is washington journal. eastern chris cadelago and stephen dinan look at the week ahead.

at nine eastern john donnelly looks at what is being done to be safe -- to save our nuclear materials. first we take your phone calls, tweets, and comments. washington journal is next. he♪ >> good morning. all eyes on president trump's announcement, 14 hours from now his choice for replacing retiring supreme court justice anthony kennedy. the list andad speculation continues. it is monday morning july 9. we will have live coverage at 9:00 p.m. eastern time as the president makes it official, his take to replace the outgoing supreme court justice who will retire at the end of the month. tomorrow the president heads to brussels for the nato summit and .hen london congress is back in session.

a busy week ahead. with begin discussing the the supreme court pick, who is your ideal choice to be the next associate justice on the u.s. supreme court? 202 is the area code. for democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002. join in on a conversation at facebook.com/c-span. we want to begin with this photograph. you can see the faces and the joy as the first four from thailand were released from that k. cave. cbs news has the story. the second phase is underway of the rescue for the boys and their coach trapped in the cave in thailand. the rescue operation began around 11:00 a.m. local time, midnight eastern time.

of 11 toeen the ages 16 and their 25-year-old coach were stranded when they were exploring the cave. monsoon flooding blocked off the escape and prevented rescuers from finding them for almost 10 days. the second phase of the operation is now underway in thailand. thailand rejoices as the first for our rescue. -- first four have been rescue. the operation could continue to the next two to four days. we want to begin with the u.s. supreme court and who is your ideal choice to be the replacement to justice anthony kennedy. " the president is coy about the court pick." judgesrious times, kavanaugh, barrett, and cottage have been seen as the leading

candidates. trump likes a showman sense of timing. he boasted last unity cap gorsuch's selection closely held until the announcement. some involved in the process say the situation is more fluid this time. this weekend the president recounted how close he came last year to selecting hardiman who was recommended by the sister and sometimes, not retired federal judge maryanne trump barry. she served with hardiman on the third court of appeals. he drove a taxi during his days as a lobbyist -- law student at georgetown university and that is been cited as a plus inside the white house along with conservative really. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell did not push a choice on the president. he did know that hardiman and judge kaplan's could fair k edge could fare

well in the senate because of their reputations and record run as politically charged." the president says whoever that person is they look at the full support of senate republicans in key democrats. >> i have two words, supreme court and confidence. we have a technical problem. republicans are holding four lottery tickets and all of them are winners. if you are a conservative republican, the four people named, especially thomas hardiman, are all winners that every republican should in place -- embrace. donald trump could nominate george washington or john marshall and they couldn't get through, maybe a handful of democrats will vote for a trump back because they act him politically. i've never seen it this dysfunctional. there is nobody president trump could nominate that would get

many democratic votes. this is a nightmare for red state democrats to pose a highly qualified nominee. all four of these people are highly qualified. the have been on the court and know what they are doing. red state democrats are going to have a hard decision. i hope every republican will rally behind these picks. host: those four on the short list, brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett, thomas hardiman, and raymond kethledge. we are taking your phone calls. who is your ideal supreme court justice? charles from indiana on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i picked the woman by the name of barrett. there should be more women running for office.

congress should have more women. the women should be paid as much as the man when they do the same job. host: we will go to richard on the republican line. florida, your ideal supreme court justice, who is it? caller: which ever one would the right to not be put to death by others. the right to vote, the right to be treated fairly, and everything else. -- the unborn or anyone else, we can all move ahead. without throwing others to the wolves. host: richard, thanks. nancy northrup who heads up the for reproductive rights has an op-ed this morning. "roe is much more than about

abortion." she writes, " the constitutional is about of roe rearing our children without unwarranted government interference, choosing who we want to marry, and siding with who we want to create a home, the right to use the promise of the constitution is there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." that is this morning from the washington post and the opinion of net the -- nancy northrup. john from massachusetts, independents. who is your ideal pick? for everybodyment today is, i don't care which one of those people mr. trump puts they do their job and stick with the constitution, unlike mr. barack obama who which was illegal

and know it was illegal. then we brought it to the d state courts -- deep state courts and they upheld daca. as far as abortion, anyone who thinks abortion is ok should go on youtube. it is vicious. if you don't want a baby put it up for adoption. supposedly we are bringing in millions of illegal immigrants because we need young people. host: a justice with a record. that is a piece this morning, the essay in the opinion page of the wall street journal. legal opinions are a battle test --" legal opinions are a better test for a nominee. ther. trump went beyond three to pick mr. hardiman, he is said to be easy to confirm

because he had a hardscrabble upbringing. that is a trap of putting biography over a legal record. his opinions are not as expressive or extensive as justice kavanaugh or kethledge. rob is joining us next from new york on the independent line. caller: thank you for the show. we need this conversation. we need a constitutional list. we need somebody who is going to do away with the patriot act, ndaa, rain in the surveillance state and police state. we really do live in a martial law situation. we need to find somebody who is going to stick up for the american people and tell this establishment, no, we're going to put brakes on this stuff. host: time magazine with this headline, president trump still deliberating on a supreme court nominee.

you can read the piece at time.com. some conservatives have expressed concerns about kavanaugh, questioning his commitment to social issues like abortion and noting his time serving under president george w. bush as evidence the is a more establishment choice. his supporters site his experience and a wide range of legal opinions. he is a former clerk to kennedy. judge merrick is a long time notre dame law school professor who became a federal judge last fall. she excited social conservatives since she was questioned about her roman catholic faith in her nomination hearing. in her brief time on the bench she has raised questions about her experience." tommy is joining us from massachusetts. good morning. caller: steve, you are the best. i think hardiman would be a great choice. there was talk of jeanine pirro. is the greatest

president in history of the country. have you ever met your father vince scully? host: he is not my father. caller: i hear so many people say you are related. you are as good as c-span as he was. host: who do you think the senate can confirm? caller: i would say anybody because they should get rid of the 60 vote rule. democrats did it for obamacare. it is time to put up or shut up. host: thanks for the call. send us a tweet. damon is next. independent line. caller: how are you this morning? host: fine, how are you? show aboutas on your two or three years ago and i said the next person -- next

president we are going to have is going to be republican. sure enough they finagled it. once scalia hit the floor, plus kennedy had stated a wild back he was asked a wild back -- a while back that he was in poor health and wanted to retire. that the lady, she is in poor health do. she is pretty close to 80. 80 or 90 years old. she is ready to go. they have a chance to make this a 6-3 in the supreme court and this is going to shape the supreme court forever. this is more about white supremacy and maintaining the status quo. that is all this is about. it doesn't matter who gets up there.

it is funny that i said this three years ago and i thought i might see mike nostradamus. here whothis fool up is trying to be presidential and appoint a supreme court justice. like it some big thing. i said that three years ago on this very same show. this is about white supremacy. it is not about being a fair judge. host: thanks for the call. as we look at the u.s. supreme court and the president's choice for his replacement of just ice anthony kennedy. he was sworn in a 1988. he was president reagan's third choice. another nominee withdrew his nomination because of his admitted use of marijuana. on the kennedy has been high court for the last 30 years. he is 82 years old and the caller makes a reference to the

other justices, stephen breyer who is 80, and justice ruth bader ginsburg who is 85 years old. 70,ice clarence thomas is chief justice john roberts is 63. neil gorsuch in his early 50's. the pick selected by president trump and confirmed by the senate last year. this is from lizzie, promises made, promises cap. thank you mr. trump. says a superb collection would the baby coney -- amy coney barrett. ifs is from john, i'm action hillary were going to pick three or more judges. her activist judges ruled from their gut and not the constitution would have felt america. trump could nominate lucifer or a child molesters and the trump retards would rejoice. trust me. joining me from anaheim california this morning.

your ideal pick for the supreme court? i didn't really call in about that. i wanted to fire back up that antiabortion -- fire back at the antiabortion guy. my mother's greatest pleasure in life was beating the craft out of her children. she wanted the rat pack light and was forced to have children. antiabortionists will have children born into a very bad situations. as far as i'm concerned all antiabortionists are child abusers. thank you. host: linda, good morning from texas. democrats line. caller: i think they are all bad choices. we need somebody more like kennedy. i would not choose a woman -- the woman, barrett. she belongs to a call. she has seven kids, i don't think she would have time to serve on the supreme court or

take care of seven kids. they are all biased. i am so sick and tired of abortion mucking up every single election and nominee. they talk about activist judges, and that kind of thing, these conservatives, yet they want to overturn law. it is always activist judges when it is liberals, but when they want to overturn the law it is something new. host: karen of usa today, the trump legal advisor talking up two of four of the high court. brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. the announcement will take place tonight at 90 5 p.m. eastern time. 6:00 for those of you on the east coast. this from the longest-serving republican senator in the u.s. senate, orrin hatch of utah. " the president so deliberating on the supreme court nominee. world the an ideal

process for going to see would be simple, straightforward, and nonpolitical. sadly it will be anything but. in salt lake piece city. democrats dream of packing our courts with activist judges who hacked less as impartial arbiters of the law and more as super legislators. men and women who not only interpret the constitution, but actively work to change its meaning through their opinions. too much is at stake to allow politics to corrupt the supreme court confirmation process. that is what in the coming weeks i will lift heaven and earth to see the president's nominee across the finish line. -- finish line." you can read it online at desert news.com. roger is joining us from virginia on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. surprised he doesn't pick sean hannity or roger ailes, or even mike lee. >> roger ailes is dead.

sean hannity on fox news. >> i didn't know he had passed away. excuse me for my ignorance. obama and democrats had to remove that threshold is because congress would not work with these guys. they would not help. them saying orrin hatch will move heaven and earth. he would not help democrats. now that republicans are in charge they called the democrats destruction nests -- destructionists. they started it with their fake news. i am blown web by the hypocrisy in d.c. right now. host: thank you for the call. two nominees are now trump's friend's focus for the top court. that is from nbc news. " none of the four contenders

being considered as the president's nominee has been excluded but the greatest focus has fallen onto candidates. brett kavanaugh and thomas hardeman. cavanaugh sitting on the d.c. court of appeals. hardeman is the judge in the third circuit court of appeals. amy coney barrett from the seventh circuit court of appeals and raymond caf au lait -- dge.le you can read that online on cnbc.com. davis michigan on the republican line. who is your topic? caller: the lady judges my topic. my top pick. she is a notre dame graduate. that i would like those ivyeone besides leaguers.

whenever i see these ivy leaguers speak it seems like those professors to brainwash them into deserting euclidian-based logic and adopting this politically correct logic that is destroying the world in my opinion. i will never vote for another ivy league lawyer for graduate to represent me. i would pick miss barrett. those folks that are calling what she is a member of a cult, she is part of what i was part of. ourselves a prayer group. andould gather and pray pray for our brothers and sisters and help each other out financially when one of us was in need of help. it was not a cult. i am insulted that it be called a call.

-- cult.lt those people who are calling the names of conservatives better realize they are in the minority. host: amy coney barrett is catholic and 46 years old. if confirmed by the senate would be the youngest on the u.s. .upreme court the new york times with a picture outside the high court and the four top nominees as trump lingers on the pic for the empty court seat. the deadline is nearing. 95 tonight is the announcement. will likely no midafternoon to late afternoon according to the white house. from connecticut, thomas on the phone on the independent line. who is your ideal pick? caller: they are all equally superb. as soon as we can get rid of the rbg, she can go with judge judy. maker money that way. these candidates are wonderful.

i agree with the last caller about the ivy league candidates. we have had enough of yale and harvard. they are toilet candidates. i am a vietnam veteran. i know where i speak. thankfully the united states of america will get back on track. thank you for allowing me to speak. host: a look at the u.s. supreme court directly across from the u.s. capitol where the confirmation hearings will get underway late summer or in early to mid september. the goal of the white house is to have a pic on the court the first monday of october. lastce anthony kennedy's day is the end of this month. fred has this tweet, the best will follow the constitution not from their feelings. the left is always about their feelings, it makes me sick to

follow the rules of the law and the constitution. next, republican line, good morning. caller: i would like to say that in 1973 when roe v. wade was decided the president was that recedent what- p there could be no abortion in the u.s. provided by the government. at the time it was in the first trimester and could go no farther. edent by prec establishing roe v. wade and we have broken roe v. wade. it is nothing like it was. ,oday in the u.s., at any time the day of delivery or the day before delivery babies can be .borted

lord help us all. " brett kavanaugh would be my choice at this time. -- time." " the stolen seat is loyal to trump and not to the u.s. constitution. brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett, thomas hardeman, and thomas catholics. -- kethledge. caller: good morning, gretchen calling from the hamptons. i totally disagree with your previous caller. is, if males used

birth control we would not be having this discussion. thank you. host: yesterday senator chris coons, a democrat from delaware was asked about the president's pick. the republican majority refused to hold a hearing for 10 months on an eminently qualified confirmable moderate judge nominated by president obama. we are just four months away from an election and we should be playing by the same rules. that is the job of the judiciary committee. i will do my job on the judiciary committee and advance to the congressional election this november. i assume president trump will nominate someone from that short by twopaired for him right-wing activist groups, the heritage foundation and the federalist society. i will meet with his nominee and review their record and ask the tough questions to try and get to the core issue, how will this next justice nominated by president trump affect the rights and freedoms of the average american.

this is a very important decision. it is going to affect the affordable care act and the -- it will of affect individual freedom and reproductive choice for millions of women. it will affect the environment protection and lgbt rights. theice kennedy was at center of many key decisions on these issues. i will do my job on the judiciary committee and we will have a difficult confirmation hearing. i hope folks that are watching will call their senators and express their views. this is a consequence of an election any reason to be more engaged in the vote. from face the nation and senator chris coons from delaware. senate democrats up for reelection this year. joe donnelly of indiana. claire mccaskill is also a key vote and is up for reelection in missouri. we heard from senator suzanne collins of maine who said she will not book for a candidate

that will reverse roe v. wade. senator john mccain has not been in washington since before christmas. he continues to battle cancer. he is in arizona. whether he is able to vote remains a question. i want to follow-up on an earlier caller about ivy league. business insider had a piece a week ago, the president was down to five candidates. we now know he is down to four and potentially too. the president, according to business insider, said he wants somebody who is extraordinarily well-qualified with sterling credentials on their resume. some say that trump has sought to pick someone with a law degree from ivy league schools like harvard or yale. the advisor telling the washington post, president trump what the candidate to have an impressive portfolio of academic writing. the adviser acknowledged that trump has no desire to read the candidate's writing, only to know that it exists.

a follow-up to the earlier caller about ivy league schools and president obama. henry is joining us on the republican line. caller: this is the democrat line. host: go ahead. caller: i just want to say, since most are republicans and evangelicals consider abortion murder, i thought it would be which u.s. to see government would be the first want to execute a young girl for having this operation, abortion, doing this. killing a baby. who will be the first u.s. government to have to deal with this? that will be interesting to see. host: thank you for the call. from foxnews.com, the president teasing the supreme court pick,

bowing and exceptional person will be chosen. you can read it at foxnews.com. joining us from humble texas on the republican line, good morning. in terms ofuestion the rhetoric is, we keep hearing about settled law, the concerns that settled laws will be overturned, what is settled law? every single law we have on the books is either amendable or repeal a bowl. repealable.. -- even the u.s. constitution is amendable. there is no settled law out there. i know that will rock some world but it is the truth. host: thank you for the call. we are asking your choice this morning, who is your pick for the ideal supreme court justice? anti-intellectualism is at a fever pitch on c-span's

washington journal this morning." " the president to unveil a supreme court pick, calling it a selection for the ages." read the essay at cnn.com. joining us is jack from ohio . caller: at the end of the day politics is a legislator thing. if democrats hold the house and senate they appoint who they will. mr. obama sent to supreme court justices on the court, is that correct? host: yes. caller: now that the republicans and conservatives are holding the house and senate, and mr. set two, iing to don't understand why democrats are squawking so much. it is trump's prerogative. i like the lady. i think she would do a great job with her background or her history. i just wish everybody in america would relax.

let america be america. host: based on some earlier callers, part of the anger among democrats is the nomination of merrick garland that was made and blocked by senate republicans. i think that is feeding part of it. caller: you know. if it was outside the bounds of the law, there would have been steps taken. it was in the bounds of the law. we are governed by law. host: you asked a question. i think that is seen as part of the anger or frustration from democrats. caller: i understand they have lost their power base. their voice is gone. like i said, at the end of the day america is great and i'm glad to be an american. host: jack, thanks for the call. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. the question, your ideal supreme court justice pick.

, this is from usa today in europe. the president to meet with european allies and adversaries. the president is departing tomorrow for brussels. he will be at the nato summit and he is off to london. a developing story in great britain involving the british prime minister theresa may. this is a story from the daily mail, the headline " the minister in charge of negotiating brexit has resigned." " prime minister theresa may is on the brink of disaster after david davis quit saying he could not back her weak brexit plan. the prime minister faces the biggest fight of her political life as a massive backlash from skeptics frances fincke are off of downing street. a trade plan was forced through parliament friday night. -- cabinet friday night.

mr. davis said she persistently undermined him and put the u.k. on track to be humbled by brussels for it all eyes are on boris johnson to see if he follows the path of mr. davis. publicly insisting that mrs. may's leadership is over. -- over." here is david davis expanding his position. in cabinet myated opening remarks, i was going to be odd man out on this. >> you supported her? >> the collective responsibility applies. i didn't say anything because i the view at about the time that this was not the best strategy. i thought it would be a risk at least of delivering a poor outcome.

i was very clear on friday and i took two days. this policy has gone -- i suppose it is somebody else's responsibility. front and center in delivering this policy, explaining it to the house, persuading the house, and going out and delivering it with the european union. it was known i had concerns about it. i would none of done a good job. the one who sent the prime minister was saying i hope you are right and i hope i am wrong. the best person to do this is someone who believes in it, not me. int: that developing story great britain. it comes as president trump heads to europe and in london, meeting with the british prime minister on thursday. this is from inside the washington times, trump makes

diplomatic visit to britain amid brexit. the baby trump balloon will be in the air in london. security around when phil house where the president will be heading, then he goes to scotland and helsinki, finland for a meeting with vladimir putin. domingo is joining us from texas, independent line. your ideal pick for the supreme court, who is it? caller: good morning. the country needs a supreme court justice who believes and follows the u.s. constitution and the fifth amendment which says government must justly compensate when private copper to -- property is used. when the government does not pay , the government becomes a communist government. not justly compensate.

then it causes people to be unemployed. they are the ones you brought about the industrial revolution. host: thank you for the call. senator mitch mcconnell violated the constitution when he refused merrick garland", plain and simple -- merrick garland, plain and simple" this one regarding theresa may, " she is a weak leader and the u.k. would be better off without her." " not one should meet with him, what are they good for? four boys from thailand rescued from the cape. this is from yesterday as the first four were released and the associated press confirming a fifth boy has been rescued from that case. they have been inside the cave for more than two weeks.

the operation began at midnight eastern time. it is the second day to try and rescue the ninth of remain along with the coach -- the nine who remain. nat is joining us from baltimore, maryland, republican line. good morning. caller: i'm calling on the republican line because i'm leaning that way, quite independent. i am 92 years old. thank you for c-span. i believe that judge merrick would-- judge barrett provide the necessary balance to the three female judges. all brilliant women, but also an objective that they can almost tive that theybjec can almost mail in their opinion on every case. i believe judge barrett has the wherewithal to provide a counter

to all this nonsense about roe versus wade. i believe in women's rights. that once you pass six months, the baby has a right also. that is absolutely outrageous. -- principal thing is to get a constitutional list justice -- constitutionalist justice like justice kennedy. i think they will find it is very energizing for the court and very enervating for the purists, the leftists. thank you very much. host: we appreciate the call. but go to thomas from daytona beach, florida on the democrats line. caller: good morning. they should pick someone closer to justice kennedy's ideals.

somebody that is going to be in the middle a little more. host: let me throw this out. we heard from the hill newspaper last week that senate democratic --der -- republican leader that he should nominate merrick garland and that would be a unifying pick for democrats. caller: that is the one that should have been picked last year or two years ago. on the our government will of the people and the majority is supposed to be the ruler. the thing that bothers me is, all of these people calling in, especially republicans, they don't seem to understand that the majority spoke in the election, mr. clinton got more votes than mr. trump did -- miss clinton got more votes than mr. trump did.

the same thing happened 16 years ago. this is two times in the last 16 years that the person running for president got more votes and didn't win. you also have a problem with the house of representatives where you have 5 million more people have voted for the entire house of representatives. 5 million people more votes for democrats, but yet you have less representation. we need somebody who is going to get the scales back to equal. that is our problem in this country right now. ruling, the is not minority's ruling. it is getting more friction. chris catalano of politico

chrisphen -- cadelago and stephen dinan will be joining us. congress is back this week and the president is heading to the nato summit. that meeting with british prime minister theresa may. the cover story of a man on mars with it photograph of president trump. is trump boscawen a reached too trump's final frontier a reach too far? once the nominee is announced we will post what we have of the nominee on our website at c-span.org. we hope you tune in. to did tonight. david from texas, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning.

my choice would be amy barrett. i think any of the four would be great. the only reason for not selecting her is the political calculation that is swirling around the idea that she is catholic and belongs to this group. host: the other issue is whether or not she has enough experience? she has been on the circuit court for just about a year. caller: she has been a law professor for 15 years. one more thing. -- mentioned sen. coons: at senator . it is about -- it is not about conservatives or liberals, it is about the constitution. the democrats keep moving the goalposts, senator cowan's and other democrats keep trying to say the republicans held up garland, that proves we should

do the same thing this year. it has never been about an off election year. one of obama's picks was approved during an off election year. it is about the rules the democrats set that upset the pr ecedent for the pr not selecting a judge during a presidential election year. i am in favor of mcconnell getting rid of the filibuster rule altogether. i don't have a doubt in my mind that the next progression in the way democrats are doing this, don't forget it was harry reid that13 that established -- used the nuclear option to open the store in the first place. we are faced with a scenario has the think if trump best set chance of succeeding -- democrats are doing every they can to obstruct. anduld assume they go ahead

get rid of the filibuster rule now. it is going to be the first thing democrats are going to do. they are willing to trash any ecedent and the -- use a version report as if that is the way it is having. 2007 schumer role, 2013 nuclear option, it is very clear what this all has been about. there was nothing unusual about holding up merrick garland's nomination as a result of all that. they made their bed they just don't want to land it in the off years when it works against them. host: david, thanks for the call. " merrick this tweet, garland is like hillary, neither one moves on." " trump that will not balance the court."

" the president is coy about the " president trump said he was close to choosing a supreme court nominee after a weekend at his golf club, evaluating his candidates and mulling the response of key senators and supporters. that according to white house officials and the president's advisors involved in the discussion with rounds of golf with friends, meals and a flurry of phone calls, the president remained coy about his final decision which is inspected the announced monday evening from among the four judges, brett kavanaugh, thomas hardiman, thledge and amy coney barrett. steve is joining us. caller: i would like to see him merrick.derek for -- i would like a strict constitutionalist.

rights butn women's when it comes to late-term abortion when the baby's land on the table a live outside the womb and they have to kill it, that is murder. host: steve, thank you. we will go on to robert in west warwick. caller: good morning. would nominate barrett as well. haveld like to add that we all these democrats that are saying that the supreme court justices are going to rule based on their personal feelings over a certain situation. when donald trump said that the mexican lawyer could not rule on his case, because of his personal feelings about the wall and whatnot, the democrats jumped all over him, saying how dare you say the supreme court

justice would use his personal feelings to rule on something, that is not how it works. the roles are reversed and now the democrats are saying that is exactly what judges do, they use personal feelings to rule on things. that is all i have to say. host: thank you. guessingrom jim " i'm tomorrow's washington journal will focus on slamming whoever president trump's nominates. -- nominates." " the only election that mattered in the scotus pick is november 8, 2016." " the u.s. disrupting the breast-feeding accord. a resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to

be approved quickly and easily by hundreds of government delegates gathering in geneva for the u.n. affiliated world health assembly. based on decades of research the resolution says that mother's milk is healthy is for children and trying to limit the marketing of misleading breastmilk substitutes. u.s. faction of end of the deliberation. seeking to water down the legislation by removing language that called on governments to protect, promote breast-feeding. another passage that called on policymakers to restrict promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children. government officials who took part in this discussion, ecuador with a planned to introduce -- which had plans to introduce the measure -- u.s. opposition to breast-feeding resolution stunning world health officials. you can read online at nytimes.com.

from pennsylvania on the democrats line, your pick, who is it? caller: i would like to see merrick garland. trump would never do that. he has done nothing to try to unify this country. he has done everything to try to --troy this country and turn republicans can't stand to lose. he is going to turn the court into our public and political -- a republican political arm. here in pennsylvania, the pennsylvania supreme court ruled against him on the gerrymander districts they have. they are now trying to pass it, that they would change from statewide elections for the pennsylvania supreme court, to where they could cap gerrymander districts so republicans would be a majority on the state supreme court, because they

can't win statewide elections. have a nice day and thank you. host: front page of the financial times, " tie rescue efforts starting as rain threatens in that area." the u.s. standing firm on north asea and diplomacy phrase the meeting took place with secretary mike pompeo. the north korean government saying they are -- from southlinda carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm glad i made the call. i noticed that every time or most of the time, democrats call in complaining about hillary clinton getting the majority of the vote, i wish every time they do that that he would remind them why we have electoral votes. california went for hillary

,linton but has a lot of votes more votes than many states. if you look at california, look at what is going on out there. at the disarray they have. their financial situation. you can see what we have electoral votes. everybody being a mess. if you look at those large cities governed by democrat mayors, they are in a mess. i wish you would remind them why we do have electoral votes. also the democrats do have the majority in the senate. host: the republicans have the

senate. caller: what they are doing is hurting our country. look at them. they have gone wild in the streets now. i call anarchy. i am really upset about the report that mr. mcconnell mentioned that trump should let merrick garland. someone that will go by the constitution. it should not matter if they are a democrat or republican. host: i have to jump in. mitch mcconnell is not recommending merrick garland and the republicans have the majority in the senate. caller: they need to have the democrats to help pass these laws. they are doing nothing. i think that is a shame. sicily with the vote on the daca situation. -- especially with the vote on

the daca situation. forel a get is time democrats to come to the center and use their brains and not use their emotions when they are going to vote. host: thanks for the call. the brexit negotiator resigns from the position, britain to leave the european union in march. this is likely to be part of the conversation at the nato summit. the president meets with theresa may on thursday and friday. the president traveling to windsor castle to become the 12th u.s. president to meet with queen elizabeth ii. moran from virginia, democrats line, good morning. i would like to associate my comments with the color from pennsylvania. fromlast caller -- caller pennsylvania. that last caller is the reason

trump should not have a vote on the supreme court. they know they are dead and that is why they are trying to solidify things in the court system, to make sure regardless of how small their numbers are, they will maintain a majority in the government. to me, that is un-american. forget the constitution. it is un-american. we are having a discussion about this. all of the stuff this man has done, totally wrong. against the country. it is sad. that is my comment. host: thank you for the call. a couple of tweets, this is from fiscal liberal. " amy barrett would be trump's best choice to antagonize the left, that is what he is about." " i would love to see just a pointed."nell and

the secretary general of nato has this in the opinion section of the wall street journal. america's nato allies are stepping up in advance of the meeting in brussels. running that only three members who spent 2% or more of gdp on defense rate this year we expect it will be it. nato was created in 1949 to ensure that none of us will have to live through another world war. the result of the alliance has been an unprecedented period of peace and security for the citizens of north america and europe. the u.s. has close allies with members of nineveh no other country can map that -- no other alliance can match. -- otherworld power can match. -- match." al is joining us on the independent line, who is your pick? caller: i don't have a pic. i have no confidence in the supreme court. i believe they are partisan. donald trump a dictator and

that's all i will say. host: we will go to roger in san antonio, texas. that morning, roger. -- good morning, roger. caller: just a couple of things. when it comes to donald trump choosing a new judge, i think personally it is more to image withitical things that are going on. things going on south of texas have a lot to do with it. when it came to him choosing one, he had to literally see could have at they lot of papers. he is not going to read the papers. that says a lot. i believe he is going to go for a my diverse and point, the

woman. -- for a more diverse standpoint, the woman. host: rachelle is joining us from texas on the democrats line, who is your pick? i don't have ay certain pick. i just hope they are broad-minded. and will uphold states rights. in everything. instead of more government control on everything. host: this is from richard who says" the supreme court should not be used to pass legislation to take votes away from the people." we're asking for your ideal pick . thomas from virginia beach, good morning. been listening to your colors.

-- callers. it is perfectly legal what they do. there is a remedy to it. you just move. you move from republican areas. it is perfectly legal to move and vote and get a new drivers license. you go to a republican area, get a drivers license there, go down it'llange or voting thing don't have to make any laws. you'll have to spend money on advertising to get the people to come and vote for your campaign. those people when they move, they don't need to hear a message. you can use that money to help

.hem at 9:00 p.m. eastern time, the president will officially make his announcement. coming up, our monday roundtable with two different aspect is on what is going to happen. what we can expect from the white house and capitol hill. segment,r "your money" looking at how much the money nuclearo safeguard materials. you are watching and listening to c-span's "washington journal ," this monday morning, the ninth day of july. ♪ >> president donald trump will

announce his nominee for the supreme court, filling the spot retiringe justice -- justice anthony kennedy. tonight on "the communicators," stanford professor jamie -- jeremybook, virtual reality, ans potential. >> when you do v.r., the front of your brain says this not real. but the back of your brain is terrified. whether it is children or the ceo of a company, we want to establish that v.r. is real. to step offlling

the plane, one will do into the idea that v.r. is so real that you cannot even step off a plank, then we can have a conversation. can v.r. change specters on racism, the environment, about these things are hard to understand. >> watch "the communicators" on c-span 2. >> c-span. where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's public -- by america's comedic asian companies. he continued to bring you coverage of the white house, of public policy event in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. our monday roundtable with stephen dinan. he covers politics in congress

for the "washington times." and chris cadelago, who covers the white house for politico. regardless of who the president nominates tonight, the white house will hit the ground running. how so? guest: the white house has been preparing for this for quite some time. there was obviously talk of justice kennedy potentially retiring at the end of the term. i think we have seen them really withit into gear, starting this list they have of 25 potential justices. now, they have -- they are modey moving in to the pr of this, distributing bios of potential nominees. to the audience that really matters, the folks on capitol hill. and then all of the outside activist groups that they will be activating. really scores of groups across

the country that will be spending big money on tv to really push this across the finish line. host: your piece is titled "the super bowl of politics." the neil gorsuch playbook that you write about in your piece, how is the unfolding today? guest: i think they really liked how he performed in the hearings . they thought that was key. thatd a great biography the president could turn to and rollout. he had the pedigree to serve. that is what they're looking for, not only in the nominee but in the process. we will have to see if it goes as smoothly. there are folks saying you are not guaranteed to get a gorsuch there. there are folks trying to sell their potential nominees as a gorsuch 2.0. part of it is because donald trump sees this as a hype point

-- a high point of his presidency. about a couplek of key senators. first, senator lisa murkowski. how critical will she be? guest: there are two senators that this decision essentially comes down to. let's talk about the math. senator john mccain has been absent from the senate this year. if we assume he will be absent again for the rest of the year or at least up until this supreme court vote, you are talking about a difference of flipping one republican senator from "yes" on the nominee to "no" on the nominee. it will be enough to defeat that nominee. so lisa murkowski and senator susan collins of maine, those are the two republicans were most of the attention is being focused now. if either of them were to the fact from the nominee -- defect from the nominee, that would be enough to kill it. they are confident they can also

put pressure on several of the red state democrats out there. even if they do have the defection, they are hopeful they can make that out. the key thing is if they have all republicans, it is likely they get one or two or more democrats. if they lose one or two republicans, that creates the political cover for several democrats -- a big battle over those democrats as much as republicans. is an extensive piece from yesterday of the "new york times" that talks about the dilemma for three red state democrats. they could either alienate democrats or alienate republicans. and either give republicans a greater majority in the senate or give democrats a chance to retake it in 2019. guest: you have a vote -- maybe

we will talk about scheduling later. but the vote is probably, if the trajectory goes and the first nominee the president makes goes -- the way to the vote likely into september or possibly october. essentially six weeks before those voters in those states go ack to the polls to give referendum on those senators. you have a president who, in those estates you listed, one for each of those states i at byst 20 percentage points -- at least one percentage points. and remains a popular president in those states, can those senators really be seen to have voted against the president for whom this is the super bowl for him. he continues to talk about his success with neil gorsuch. he values this immensely. he had been told by those around him how important the supreme court nominee is. some of the senators have already tasted the president's wrath on the campaign trail.

are they really going to want to be seen voting against him this late in this season. the other part is if they get the wrath of liberal groups in their state. but they can take that back to the voter. i am independent but i can support the president when i need to. host: the white house counsel is helping the president lead this effort. can you let us know what is happening behind the scenes, the role of the heritage foundation? guest: those two groups were important early on in crafting those lists. this is someone who is in contact with the president. and told by folks inside outside, constantly, they are talking about these nominees. answering the president's questions. it is hard to overstate with his role with these outside groups in helping craft the universe of

in shapingdates and how the president sees them, what sort of material on their background and rulings is coming through the white house counsel's office, being vetted, and then being put in front of the president. you cannot overstate mcgann's role in this. going back to the red state democrats, the one thing i would say about them is their role has been to thread the needle. saying we may be voting against donald trump and wrote in -- and voting with the leadership and democrats with all of things, but we let him have his nominee. this is just another example. this is what higher profile -- what higher profile nominee is there than for the supreme court? that heightens the tension even more. election, they

will be put on the spot. host: there are a couple of things i want to get your reaction -- first, by the numbers. you can get this online at politico.com. the ages of the supreme court justices. ginsburg is 85. breyer is 79. thomas is 70. alito, 68. sotomayor is 64. roberts is 63. isan is 50 8 p.m. gorsuch 50. other possible nominees, kavanaugh is 53. -- guest: there are interesting parallels in the age -- the folks on the left of the court and the democratic leadership in congress as well. it sort of feels like democrats are bumping up against things in both congress and on the supreme court.

i think all of this is by design, at least when it comes to potential nominees. yesterday atpotted lunch, rudy giuliani, andrew giuliani, sean hannity, eating lunch with the president in new jersey. guest: this is the one caveat of all the vetting and things that go through the white house counsel's office. obviously, the president has a zone outside kitchen cabinet folks. those are the people harder to engage. he is hearing it from a multitude of folks, including folks with big cable news platforms. his attorney, rudy giuliani. he asks everybody about the big decisions that are coming up before him, a special es like the spirit we have heard some things about who these folks are leaning

towards and have some suspicions about who they may be potentially lobbying for. host: what about the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell? what is his role in this? guest:'s role is to do exactly what he did with neil gorsuch, which is make sure there is a confirmation vote and that that confirmation vote is successful. democrats probably hurt their ability to the rail -- derail this nominee by the way they forced mcconnell to trigger the nuclear option for that nominee who replaced justice scalia. essentially, a conservative for a conservative, by going to on that nominee, they have are ready paved the way to be able to confirm this nominee without having to clear a 60 vote threshold for a filibuster this time around. it is probable that if democrats originalted that

nominee, gorsuch, without forcing mcconnell to go nuclear, they would have a better argument this time around. if they had allowed trump to go through and then said because this person is going to replace kennedy and said -- instead of the skill yet seat -- scalia seat, there would have a better argument. would mcconnell still go nuclear on this? it is possible, but the arguments would need different. beonnell has said there will a vote on this nominee on the floor and confirmation this fall. host: we are talking with stephen dinan and chris cadelago. stephen dinan, i want to get your reaction to what senator orrin hatch growth over the weekend -- what to expect when the president nominates a new supreme court justice.

in an ideal world, the process for filling this seat would the simple and nonpolitical. sadly, it will be anything but. dream of packing our courts with activist judges who act less as impartial arbiters of the law and more as super legislators. onlynd women who not interpret the constitution but actively work to change its meaning through their opinions. too much is at stake to allow politics to corrupt the confirmation process to that is why i will lift have been an earth to see the president's nominee across the finish line. guest: he captures what a supreme court judge has become. a super legislator. the reason why everyone is so invested in this seat is because if you look at the last 12 years since the retirement of justice sandra day o'connor, justice kennedy has been the deciding

voice on so many of the major issues we have argued over as americans. everything from same-sex marriage to first amendment campaign free speech rights. when he retired, saying for the last 12 years, it has been justice kennedy's world, and we have been living in it because of those momentous decisions. whoever will take the seat will presumably move the court to the right. but how far to the right and at point -- that depends on this nominee. if democrats can derail this next year, they hope to take this issue directly to voters and win more seats in midterm elections and have a bigger say and where sales -- whoever fills that seat. host: the name of merrick garland came up again yesterday on "face the nation." [video clip] >> the republican majority

refused to hear that hold hearing for 10 months about a nominated by president obama. we are for monthly from an election now, it and we should follow that same rule. i will do my job on the judiciary committee in advance of congressional elections this november. i assume the president will nominate someone from that short list prepared to him by the federal society and the heritage foundation, two right-wing groups. i will review the record and ask them tough questions to get to the core issue -- how will this next justice nominated by the president affect the rights and freedoms of the average american? this is a very important decision. it will affect the affordable care act. it will affect reproductive choice and individual freedom for millions of women. incrementalct

protection, lgbt rights. justice kennedy was at the center of many key decisions. i will do my job on the judiciary committee. i hope folks who are watching will also speak up. call their senators. express their views. see this as what it is -- the consequence of an election and a reason to be more engaged in the vote. host: senator chris coons, on "face the nation," one of the five programs we air on c-span radio. one of 20ons is members on the senate judiciary committee. guest: we heard minority leader chuck schumer was in the ear of the president, invoking merrick garland again. this is something you will hear consistently from the democrats. i think we need to lay out why we are here. when you talk to conservatives and to folks around the president, there are a lot of

people who feel like these past republican presidents, who have nominated justices to the supreme court, have not necessarily gotten what folks wanted. i think they look at the nominees that democrats have seated and say these folks are coming down in their rulings the way that that president intended. that is what is leading to a lot of pressure on the right. they do not want to miss with this pick. as well. realize that this could be something that changes the balance, obviously because of justice kennedy, for 20 to 40 years. the stakes could not be higher. host: we will get to your phone calls in a moment. you can begin dialing at (202) 748-8000 -- that is your line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. chris cadelago of politico.

stephen dinan of the "washington times." i want to go back to the role that justice kennedy has played. is chief justice john roberts the new swing vote? guest: he seems to be the leading candidate to be the swing vote because of a few decisions, most notably the original affordable care act decision, where he broke with the four other republican appointed justices to uphold the core of the affordable care act. you could also go back to a situation where you have different coalitions emerging. we will have to wait and see. a lot of this depends on the specific cases that emerge before the court. and whoever the president's pick is, whether that person takes the role of pivot. there are some justices who have surprised their presidents who picked them by how they turned

out. the one that always comes to mind for conservatives is justice souter, who president george h w bush -- preisident george h.w. bush picked. hearingsterday, we were three names. and then the name of thomas hardiman came up again. all the connection between the president's sister, thomas hardiman, where he was in the neil gorsuch decision. stronglye comes supported by the president's sister. interesting biography. he drove a taxi cab for a while. hears, similar to what you from the folks who support raymond kethledge, he has a little more of a middle america appeal.

he attended notre dame university and, of course, went to law school, at georgetown. this is someone who folks have pointed out has the strong rapport with the president. someone said they really hit it off. you cannot really -- it is hard to know how much that will play in. someonelipside, this is who was floated out there the last time around. and so would hate to be earned -- burned twice. but you have to look at what happened last time around. host: which goes to today's "wall street journal" editorial. a justice with a record. the biggest gamble would be if the president went beyond those three we talked about to choose thomas hardiman of the third circuit court of appeals. hardiman is said to be easier to

confirm because he had a hard scramble of bringing. that is the souter trap of putting biography over record. our reading of judge hardiman's opinions as impressive or extensive as those of either judge kavanaugh or judge kethledge. guest: you can read the tween the lines of impressive eyes not as conservative of an opinion. that is certainly what those groups who have been pushing the president -- they are not ready to defend whoever the president's nominee is -- are looking for someone with a demonstrated conservative record. earlier withtion the senators -- so much of his confirmation battle will come down to how people perceive the nominee's views on the roe v. w ade decision that established

the national right to abortion. conservatives are looking for someone who is confirmable with the most, the clearest opposition to roe v. wade in that record. they do not necessarily have to have said that. in order to meet that confirmability standard, they have to have not said they did not think that -- they did not think roe v. wade should have been decided that when. stephen dinan, a graduate of the university of virginia, covering politics for the "washington times." and chris cadelago, whose resume includes "the l.a. times." he covers the white house for politico. walter is joining us from indiana, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to paint a scenario and on the endgame,

what is going to happen. i believe within four years, mr. trump is going to have changed this country dramatically for the next 30 to 40 years by these three simple facts. to ruth ever listen bader ginsburg, when you hear her speak and look at her age, it is obvious she is holding on for political reasons. here is my scenario. donald trump will appoint three conservative reading of the decoration of the independence and constitution and its original form, not changing it, and abortion will be banned in the united states, and gay marriage will be banned. when you heard one of the democrats talking, he said "women's reproductive rights." what that is is killing babies. it is quite interesting that the people on the left that are

worrying about separation of women and their children at the border are all for slaughtering babies. mi that far off that he will go down as one of the most influential presidents dash cam i that far off that he will go down as one of the most -- am iial presidents that far off that he will go down as one of the most influential presidents and push the country to the far right? guest: let's go back to that issue of what these justices are likely to do and why republicans have been burned by expectations versus the reality of these nominees. legal world has this conflict that does not exist as much on the liberal legal world. that is they both have conservative political goals and ideologies. and at the same time, the precedent. it will be interesting to see what justices do with decisions

that are now precedent. roe v. wade is a now 45 year precedent. the gay marriage rulings have less of a pedigree but are a precedent. any justice is going to have to aspple with those precedents they find new cases that arise before them. to assume that the court will overturn both of those rulings -- i am not ready to assume that yet. host: let's go to barbara joining us from massachusetts, democrats line. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. i am calling to talk about c-span's "washington journal" program and the role it plays in our news universe. long-time listener and caller -- over 30 years or however it has been on cave two there are new callers and people in the middle. i want to explain to all those who do not yet know what that c-span is a mirror of our country. they are unique in this

brilliant model. and all they do is hold up the mirror so we can see ourselves. so now, in this crucial moment of what has been described as a stress test for our system, meaning the trump presidency, we are now going to see before us this amazing process in which we try to govern ourselves honestly. so if you watch the process unfold, please listen to "washington journal" every morning and listen to guests as brilliant and fantastic as these two are this morning. and i am asking for your programming department -- we have the analogy of the super bowl a few minutes ago. there will be a post into the super bowl. if you're programming people can look ahead to the aftermath -- if your programming people can look ahead to the aftermath and how did the stress test work? those two guys -- i cannot remember names -- who wrote how

bad can it get? host: i know. can you say their names? i will pull it up, but go ahead with your point. thomas mann. guest: if you can interweave those people who have seen the process like i have an you have. thank you. god bless. and eric cut, keep -- america, keep listening. host: thank you for that call. in that spent 20 years building behind you, covering it. i cannot do that job without c-span. for your viewers, it is someone who spends, watching this stuff, they are seeing it exactly as we are seeing it inside that building. it is an amazing resource. host: this is a picture from the "washington times." security fence is being set up -- in london.

the president is departing tomorrow for the nato summit and for london this week. what can he expect? think i would assume -- i folks around him -- but there will be some fireworks this time around. there are some interesting parallels to the president's trip to the g7 in canada and his meeting with kim jong-un. and now, this week, the nato summit and then his upcoming meeting with vladimir putin. i think if you look of the things he has been saying very consistently, both during his campaign and on the trail, you look at the emerging trade war going on out there. you have the president talking about how we have been stiffed for decades.

it is hard to imagine he would leave there without reiterating some of those same points. i think europe is certainly on edge. we will just have to see what comes of it. or -- whatbluster sort of reaction do we see from europe? what sorts of commitments or lack of commitments does he make with vladimir putin, which will have reverberations on nato? host: the backdrop is what may or may not have happened in pyongyang with the secretary of state indicating that discussions will continue, which is the traumatic speak for things -- which is diplomatic speak for things which may not have gone as expected. from bloomberg -- this trip reflecting the difficulty for the secretary of state of dealing with one of the world's most reclusive regime's.

guest: a couple of insults being tossed back and forth as well. the high from the initial meeting has worn off. as the president was jetting back from that original meeting, the story line was we had the handshake. how do you put those goals into specific action points? it is not easy. host: the headline from bloomberg news. inside pompeo's frought north korea -- fraught north korea trip. we go to our independent line. caller: hi. a number of questions. i wonder the vision of the framers of the constitution, if they ever thought of encountering the phenomenon of trump. and his inclination to destroy democracy and negate all of the fundamental consoles of the nation. i wonder if the framers had any

conception of the distant future which we are now in and what is likely to happen and the things going on. to --his intel anybody impel anybody to do something destructive like change the constitution? guest: part of it could just be the way democrats operate. the onus is as much on the party that is out of power as it is the party that is in power. there is the framers envisioned all kinds of checks, including the other branches of government. congress and the court. we will have to see what they do. bet the senate rules will interesting. chuck schumer has considerable more power than nancy pelosi does. we will just have to see what

happens in the midterms is what i would say. it is a two-year period. if democrats take the house, we will see a different dynamic in washington. original point of the parties and the role, the constitution does not envision a role for parties at all. in fact, george president -- george washington's presidency was trying to prevent factions. they feared the rise of factions and spread out power to prevent entrenched political parties. what did the founders envisioned unique personalities and perhaps caustic personalities taking power? absolutely they did. whatever folks think of the folksresident -- whatever think of the president, we have been through an era where the vice president and the secretary

of the treasury dueled each other and killed each other. we went through a civil war. the founders did envision this be a left open the possibility that the constitution needed amending. it has happened 27 times. the tools are there for the country to change what it wants to change. host: the house and senate are back at what else will drive the week the on the supreme court? guest: you will get an early taste of another nominee fight here they have a vote on a circuit court nominee. and then a couple of other -- an attorney and assistant attorney general pick. a defense department lawyer up for confirmation. over the course of this month of july, what they are likely to do is a couple more appropriations bills. they managed to get an early start, clearing four of the

bills in the house. maybe three of the bills have cleared in the senate, which is fairly early for congress to do. most interestingly, they have a bunch of bills in conference. if you follow congress, conference is where the house and senate get together and work out the differences in their bills to there have not been a lot of bills that have gone to a conference in the last decade or so. there are some big bills now in conference, including appropriations bills. we will see hashing out of anti-opioid legislation. the other thing likely to, pop is we will return to the immigration issue and see if congress want -- the other thing likely to come up is we will return to the immigration issue. our c-span radio audience, we are joined here by chris cadelago of politico.

he covers the white house. stephen dinan covers politics for the "washington times." next is our republican line. caller: good morning. trump has the opportunity to appoint a woman to the supreme court. particularly with his challenged image with women, i think he will appoint barrett. this is the most significant supreme court appointee ever -- it reminds me of every politician at every election -- saying this is the most important election in your lifetime to the truth is, as a previous caller said, justice ginsburg is really on the way out. replaced likely to be by trump. if trump decides not to elect -- a point there it was time -- appoint barrett this time

around, he will do it for the replacement nominee for justice ginsburg. host: most of the callers this morning seem to be leaning towards amy barrett. the optics of her selection -- what would that mean? guest: selecting a woman would be important for this president. you saw the importance of roe v. wade in this decision-making and the debate we are about to see on capitol hill. having a woman be one of those justices could be -- if roe v. wade is overturned -- having a woman being one of those justices and that opinion would be very important for a lot of different things. for republicans who confirmed her for -- for republicans who the president for who nominated her. so very important in having a third woman on a nine-member -- and having a third

woman on a nine-member bench is probably important as well. reporting ons is congressman jim jordan knowing about allegations of sexual assault and activities that went -- aside the sauna half-dozen other wrestling team members saying jim jordan had to know about this. he denies the allegation. what this is me for the ohio republican? guest: it is tough to know -- what does this mean for the ohio republican? guest: it is tough to know. it seems that he is under siege more and more as these rustlers have come forward. some of their critics have pointed out some of them may have an ax to grind. some may not have the most stellar background. but when the numbers start to rise and you start to see 6, 7, coming out and saying, giving

specific details about conversations with him or things he may or may not have known, it starts to get into the semantics game. certainly, this is troubling for him. we have seen the comments he has made so far. he has strongly pushed back. but it does not appear to be going away. we will see if these people start going on tv interviews and putting their face out there. this becomes more and more difficult for the congressman. host: we go to maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i joined your desk with one of the prior college in extolling the virtues of c-span. i am a moderate democrat. i have been photographed with for the five justices i have

met. i just want to say -- and i think republican and democrat nominees alike are fine people. great jurists. one ofanted to disabuse your guests of the notion that conservatives have more frailty to president -- precedent. there is a professor who has tilted the supreme court for things like striking down laws, and the justice who leads that tally is justice thomas, a noted not feelive but does any special fealty to the president. aimed i assume that was at me. i am not saying they have more fealty to precedent. my point is they have a conflict between their field to -- fealty to precedent and

ideological goals. the caller was pointed to was exactly why i think the republican nominees, republican presidents, are sometimes disappointed by their picks, because they have this conflict that exists. in a lot of interest in amy coney barrett. the four names that have been mentioned have all appear before senate committees for their own confirmation hearings. you can go to c-span.org and watch the hearings, watch their questioning. this is what it looks like on our website. simply type in the keyword of the individual involved and learn more about the top four candidates through the c-span video library. others will be watching those hearings in preparation for the , whereveron hearings the president chooses. he still does not know, right? guest: we will see.

there are some next feelings about whether he does know or not p what we do know is -- whether he does know or not. he really wants the surprise element there. if you knows or does not know, theimpetus is on him and folks around him to keep this secret. this unveil means a lot to him. host: like "the apprentice"? guest: a little bit. thank you for taking my call. i am an old lady. 75 years old. i am not happy with either side. it i look at the big picture. i am comparing what is going on with trump and his regime compared to everybody else. i really think we are headed for totalitarian dictatorship. the news media -- they are

trying to squelch that you they are making accusations. all the name-calling, the sidetracking, and things like that, that is just not good. it is extremism. either extreme right or extreme left. and neither is very safe were very good. -- or very good. the thing that gets me about the roe v. wade thing -- and no offense to you gentlemen -- these men are calling in and saying 60,000 babies are getting killed. are these 60,000 immaculate conceptions or is there a male involved in this? , when you hear this a lot out of his is going second year into his third year. there is a midterm coming up. certainly some of the same things we hear about trump we

have heard in the past. the abortion issue, i think, will be big in terms of rallying folks on both sides of this pick. tos is how it will be framed the public by both opponents of the nominee and the supporters, depending on who it is. to go back to bear it -- barrett, who brings out the most fervent support from the right and has the potential to really whip up the most opposition on the left, it will be interesting to see if she is the pick. we will be hearing so much more about roe v. wade and the abortion issue that the caller is talking about. i do not know if the country is ready for that debate, but certainly, it is coming. host: i want to go beyond the post-midterm elections and put a

hypothetical on the table. if republicans keep the majority in 2020 and, for some reason, there is a vacancy in the supreme court, would mitch mcconnell not put a hearing up for 2020? guest: i cannot imagine that he would not follow that rule, given what he said. i guess i can imagine that. i would suspect the pressure would be so intense that he would have to follow his own rule, given what he already earned with that. but who knows? the thing about judiciary nominees -- every single nominee we deal with, particularly for the supreme court, but also circuit courts, are basically in theg whoever sinned last nomination. the reason we trigger the nuclear option for neil gorsuch in the senate is tracing it back to democrats filibustering

george w. bush's circuit court nominee, the first judicial nominee to face a partisan filibuster. democrats filibustered him. republicans started talking about going nuclear in 2005 in order to end this string of people who followed in filibustered. they did not go nuclear. what harry reid went nuclear, paving the way for mitch mcconnell to go nuclear again on the supreme court. every time, we are fighting over whoever sinned in the last one. does mitch mcconnell tried to rearrange that precedent he said? who knows. host: we go to pat from detroit. caller: i wanted to say i do not understand why people are still discussing abortion when, in the 21st century, we have plenty of ways of birth control, which women should be looking at more.

they should advertise that more than abortion. host: thank you. we go on to mary in ohio, independent line. caller: yes. i would like the gentlemen to speak to the strong catholic connection to amy coney barrett and certain french catholic groups like the people of praise . and to the last lady, amy coney barrett would go after birth control also. i would like you to speak to that. host: thank you p this is turning into a debate over birth control and abortion, roe v. wade. yout: it is interesting -- have a handful of catholics who are potentially going to get the nomination, including two notre dame related folks. a professor and graduate. barrett seems to be the one getting the most attention.

a lot of the reason for that is this testimony recently, a hearing in which senator dianne feinstein of california had a famous line where she said the faith lives her deeply within her, and she may not be able to separate her faith from her rulings. that moment, obviously, captured the public's attention and has isen folks a sense that she the top catholic of the potential nominees. dinan, on the front page of your newspaper -- zero-tolerance policy failing to stop the surge of illegal immigrant families. guest: the administration released its june border crossing numbers late last week. it is complicated but fascinating. the point of zero-tolerance was

to encourage families, the surge of families arriving through the u.s.-mexico border to come through the legal points of entry. zero-tolerance is if you jump our border between the ports, we will arrest you, and parents will be jailed. you are likely to be separated from your children. ports of entry and present yourself. if that had worked, you would see a lot more families streaming through the ports of entry and not trying to jump between the ports of entry. instead, we saw the opposite. the number of them is coming through -- between the ports of entry is around 900 or so, consistent through the last few months. while the families coming through the ports of entry off -- dropped 40%. there is little evidence of the zero-tolerance policy, aside causes, the problems it little evidence it has an effect

on the flow of people. julie is joining us from rhode island, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. --ust wanted to say host: you need to turn the volume down on your set. caller: sorry. to me thatdisgusting ustedcountry is so disg about possibly overturning roe v. wade. no matter how you put it, murder is murder. host: thank you. when you dial in, remember to turn down your television sets. is this a referendum on roe v. wade? guest: in some people's eyes, it will be. to it dependsck

on there are already cases moving up the ladder for it to be challenged. that is something that is happening. see how the we will battle lines are drawn within the first hours of this pick. there is a strong possibility that this does become a referendum. host: david from arkansas, republican line, with chris catalog of and stephen dinan -- with chris catalog of -- chris cadelago and stephen dinan. caller: c-span, you do a great job. regardless of which one he picks -- it really will not make a difference to the liberals -- they are going to come out and accuse them of almost as bad a thing as they did robert burke. i was just a young boy when that happened. i will never forget ted kennedy

coming out and saying the most god-awful things about clarence thomas that were not true -- i -- borkut robert burke that is not true. he was a genius on the law. and democrats put up to the supreme court easily get confirmed. why? because republicans are an honest group of individuals and look at the credit -- credentials. at the credentials. even though elena kagan was not a judge, they approved her. and they approved the other pick by obama. problems, no demonstrations. but the democrat is a party -- it has become the party, even more so lately, of lawlessness. getting rid of i.c.e. -- wrong. open borders.

and the reason why is because the spanish people, when they come up here, nor the democrats are helping them, they are going to vote democratic. and they really are trying to forget the white working class people of america, especially in midwestern states, where trump won the election. we will win with identity politics. are looking at video of the supreme court justices. this is the annual picture taken. if you look at this -- what is a sense about the collegiality among the nine justices? guest: you hear a lot of different reporting out of this. one of the stories that gets told a lot is the friendship ruthen antonin scalia and bader ginsburg. on 9/11, thes is

first call scalia makes is to see if ginsburg is ok in the courtroom. at the same time, we are hearing stories that neil gorsuch has perhaps hurt some of the other justices by his insistence by ents forto write diss each opinion. they are nine justices. they are who they are. they have well-developed legal theories and believes. it is not surprising that will be hard-fought conversations. but they manage to get along and get this stuff done. i cover congress -- congress can never make a deadline. it is amazing the supreme court makes that and of term deadline every year with large decisions. host: we want to go back to the caller's point about republicans and democrats. guest: this would go back to -- i would go back to this

list in front of the president. the caller pointed out that democrats would drag the nominee may wellhe mud, which be. but the idea that some unknown piece of opposition research merge, as it has in the past, is less so now, because these are names we have seen for months and months. this is something that may be argued on the merits of rulings and where folks come from more than personal character. senatoris is what lindsey graham said yesterday on "fox news sunday," one of the programs we re-air on c-span radio. [video clip] >> i have two words -- i think i heard two words. payere's my answer republicans are holding four lottery tickets, and all of them

are a conservative republican, the four people named, particularly thomas hardiman, are all winners. donald trump could nominate george washington, john marshall , and they could not get through. maybe a handful of democrats will vote for a trump take because i have to politically. i have never seen it this dysfunctional. there is nobody that the president could nominate, from a conservative vent, that will get many democratic votes. this is a nightmare for red state democrats, to oppose a highly qualified nominee. and all four of these people are highly nominee. they have been on the court, know what they are doing, mainstream judges. red state democrats will have a very hard decision. i hope every republican will rally behind these picks, because they are all outstanding. host: from senator lindsey graham. let's go to jim in missouri.

good morning. caller: howdy. one thing that stands out in my mind in this whole supreme court deal -- what is the difference between a conservative and a liberal on this up in court? host: thanks for the caller. goes to what ier was trying to talk about earlier, the approach to legal reasoning and legal ruling. by and large, the liberal leaning justices subscribe to a more expansive reading of the constitution and what it allows. at this point, there are a number of precedents out there you can cite that have expanded what the framers may have interpreted as the original intent of the constitution. to what to gety

to if you have particular ideological goals. for conservatives, that idea exists. there are precedents that exist that allow you to get to your ideological goals. but there is also feel to to the original intention of the -- there is also feel the -- fealty to the original intention of the framers. the limits of they wanted to put on government power. the fealty to that clashes with the precedents that have built up the last odd years. so there is a question of fealty outrecedent and balance what they thought the framers intended. host: on the independent line, good morning. caller: if they just change the number of judges, both up and down, after every election, we could have the supreme court on the ballot every time, and the people could actually have a

voice in picking the supreme court. sure democrats would want that, given the exit polling that came out in 2016. a large number of republicans said it was the most important issue to them. of course, if we did with the caller is saying and they dramatically expanded the g," ifary or did "hackin that is what he is getting at, that would be more in line with what democrats want. host: from tennessee, larry. good morning. caller: good morning. listen. and lesbians and abortion, there is not a single person on the earth that was born through a homosexual act or their families had abortions. that's just a fact of nature. host: thank you.

stephen dinan, what have you heard this morning from our viewers? guest: we were listening before we came on. the amount of support for amy coney barrett is surprising from your viewers. there appears to be a clear pick from republican and conservative callers. the other thing is impossible to escape and may feed into why she is so popular a take -- pick is this is about abortion. this issue that the supreme 1973, taking in on it out of state legislatures and referendums and elevating it to an established constitutional right away from the political process still remains with us. a lot of other countries have left abortion up to the political process. the supreme by court, creating a national constitutional right, it has turned much of the discussion about the court into what we would normally be arguing about

with our legislators, who we elect. you heard the caller saying maybe we should just have unelected court to that would allow us to have a direct say in issues like this, to settle it through the political process rather than have these host: we know based on the white house schedule that are 12:30 this afternoon, the vice president has lunch with trump. the president said he would have his decision by noon. as the vice president have a voice in this? guest: he does. met withpresident has the nominees. they will be discussing this. obviously, the president will be discussing this with him. he certainly has the president's ear on this. host: final question. any guesses?

guest:. host: chris carter lago and stephen dinan, thank you very much. is monday, that means your money segment. we focus on the cost of nuclear --erials with john conley with john donnelly. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> president trump will announce his nominee for the supreme vacancy leftg the by justice kennedy. watch the announcement tonight

live at 9:00 p.m. eastern or listen on our free app. communicators,he a stanford professor discusses about virtual reality technology and its potential for the future. >> when it is done well, the front of your brain says, this is not real, but the back of is terrified. and whenever we bring children on a school field trip or the company, that is what we want to do. show you that it feels real and you are unable to win -- , then to step on a plank we could have a real conversation. candid change attitudes about racism, climate change, about

hard topics you have to experience to understand. >> watch "the communicators" tonight on c-span two. every monday, your money segment. today we focus on the cost of safeguarding nuclear weapons. johnng us here is donnelly. he has been looking at this topic and what have you learned? guest: i have done a few studies on this. the extent to which we spend on the defense nuclear nonproliferation program, meant to safeguard the supplies of nuclear materials and keep them out of the hands on -- the hands of terrorists -- it has

declined. , becauset an issue after his first few years, spending started declining. trump has continued it that way. ifthe last eight years, trump's budget is enacted, there 18% decline inan spending on these programs. and looking out over the next few years, trump wants to increase them at a 7.5% rate but there isn't enough to even keep pace with inflation. so there has been a real shrinking of it. and there is no indication that the threat has declined. host: in terms of numbers, what are we talking about? over $1 billion. is fiscal 2019 trump request

1.2 $5 billion for the program. the energy department request $11 billion for nuclear warheads associated infrastructure. and those two programs are in the same organization. and they compete for the same budget pie. and critics and arms-control advocates are concerned that as nuclear weapons spending has increased, and it has gone up 60% in the energy department in -- same years -- 11 2011-2019, it has crowded out spending. this is the study from rollcall. what led you to this topic? in 2014, when dianne feinstein, the california who was in the senate

sharing the energy and water subcommittee -- she did a report accompanying their spending bill that was one of the most alarming reports i have ever seen come up of congress. talking about thousands of sites , university and medical facilities, that have radiological facilities. them for not secured. so i started watching the threat and how, you despite rhetoric, both obama and trump -- to the is one of the gravest national security ," spending went down. some of the efforts of international efforts to control and safeguard nuclear materials

were not being efficiently run. a bottleneck. the argument was that he can't spend much more than we are spending now. but that argument start for several years. so what critics say is, come on. the problem isn't got away. usean find other ways to the money that will be more effective. senator feinstein today is the ranking member of the spending subcommittee. and she tells me she is waiting for a plan from the trump administration to come up with new approaches. john we are speaking with donnelly. in terms of the mechanics of securing nuclear materials, what is involved? guest: it runs the gamut. everything you can think of from fences to alarms to the

detecting of materials that might the in transport. radioactivity monitors. and increasingly cyber security is a concern. because it turns out that many of the countries that have either weapons usable materials, like english uranium at plutonium for civilian rich from 2000 10-2016, with the nuclear security summit, there is one every couple of

years. but they are not happening and more. this is one of the reasons why wanted to write this story. the world's attention is waning to this problem. it seems like we have the islamic state, that is all couple talked about the of years ago. but there is a mono-and, we can all on one thing at a time. now, all we talk about his russia and china. in terms of the focus of national leadership, terrorism has started to proceed from the front page. you frameh is how your story in the beginning paragraphs. dipped inng has recent years. and donald trump plans to keep it that way according to budget documents.

what is the reaction on capitol hill? this is a lower tier issue. this is an something people give speeches on until something happens, god for bid. and i don't think the reaction will be, well, our funding with the russians -- that is why we didn't do enough. obviously, people last card questions but it is the kind of thing that where you ask a harder question later, unfortunately. good morning. we are focused on how much we are or are not spending to secure nuclear materials. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independent callers, (202) 748-8002. john is joining us. good morning. i think we have a serious problem here with the money. what happens to america when no longertes dollars work as a currency. guest: i don't know if that is an issue. stronglar is pretty darn right now. i'm getting ready to go to europe and i'm pretty happy about it. there is a weapons usable materials like uranium and plutonium. civilian uses. there are thousands of sites in the united states. thousands more overseas. thousands of tons of the stuff. anticancer treatments they use

cobalt 60, a radioisotope. in medicaluff is facilities around the world. there was a facility that had it in mosul and there was concern that the islamic state would figure that out. nuclear security isn't at the top of the list. so it really is everywhere. now, what are some of the advocates, what do they want to do? they want to find ways, wherever possible, to have non-radiological sources for these processes. for one thing. solution thatial thathave started on but

critics say they need to do more of is nuclear energy reactors, converting them to lower uranium. those are the kinds of things that can be done. but the shorter answer is that everywhere is where the stuff is. some of it is ready to be used in bombs, some of it is radiological materials. this is a low probability risk. but the potential harm is great. that is why it needs to be a major focus. terrorists could use highly toiched uranium or plutonium have an atomic bomb. but that is not nearly as likely.

i don't know if you have heard the term dirty bomb, you explode that in a city. not necessarily all lot of would beuld die but it extremely terrorizing. it would have a cascade of the from everything to economics to civil liberties. that is one of the major concerns, even though overall, highisn't necessarily a risk threat, the dirty bomb is what people worry about the most because it is attainable. there a country that is doing it right?

a place we can learn from? is an international effort. there are countries that do it right. host: not that we are doing it wrong but just as an example. don't have an example that we could follow. it is an international issue. moldova, it in won't stay in moldova. moldova, they found a ring of -- they claimed to have nine milligrams.

they don't know if they are bluffing about it. host: our topic is the money segment. back to your phone calls. texas.rom good morning. from aprilerved 1974-may 1975 on a weapon storage site in northern italy. our security was a combination of high tech and arms and each one had a power locking system. had low-tech security.

is, who in for you the world is taking care of this stuff now when i can read about people on the icbm site who is on drugs and have drinking problems and gambling problems -- who takes care of these people? states hasunited secure systems in place for the nuclear weapons and for the plutonium and enrich uranium. caller raises annexed on point. there was a recent story about the lsd ring at an air force -- nuclearase flown to louisiana

and they didn't know that they had live nuclear weapons on board the plane and the plane sat on the tarmac for 24 hours before they realized the error. this caused a huge shakeup in leadership for good reason. it is in the kind of thing where you can look at it and say, we took care of that issue and move onto the next. it is constant vigilance. host: should we be concerned about what north korea will look nuclear materials? -- this is a tweet. guest: absolutely. every country that has nuclear weapons or energy -- and there are more countries that use or expand them, the international community needs to help. that theyd to mention

plan to reduce spending over the next five years. 7.5% but to grow by within the total, there were serious cuts. compared to what obama had safeguardo control or nuclear weapons. so that is an element of this. in this case it would be penny if thed pound foolish whatme will be hurt by

they don't do -- north korea is sealed from the world. whatever they come up with, it will be an element. there will be the access to make are that whatever they building. host: any idea of how much this is off inventory? loose inventory? we don't know. there may be a classified assessment somewhere. there hasn't been any kind of round of materials.

the former georgia democratic senator, his group -- it is really hard. as you murky as an area can get. we're not saying out loud that this is something we want to .ccomplish host: grant is next. caller: john glenn and senator stewart passed a couple of amendments. do you thinkon is

that should be enforced and the unequivocaln -- --t the israelis diverted from the plant in pennsylvania to build 10 weapons. is, do you to you think that the uranium, enriched uranium, should be returned to the united states as an effort to show that the u.s. actually is serious about the issue. ignoring the israeli air -- the israeli system. host: you know a lot about this issue? caller: i wrote a book. ofis a result of hundreds documents about the agency and the fbi investigation and inability to do anything about

this particular version. i haven't tracked the issue.port control if this is true then it is a serious concern. and there is a double standard about how we treat certain countries in the world versus others. and this threat is eight democratic one. it doesn't matter whether inerials were unsecured allies facilities or enemy facilities. if it comes back to bite us, it bites us. host: we go to texas, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my question and call. this is a really important subject.

my comment and question is this. trump tore up the iran nuclear deal. that agreement was a multilateral agreement worked out by european parties and the british foreign service worked on that for 10 years. and they tore it up. reviewable bywas our congressmen and trump tore it up. antonelli find that we need every line of the agreement when we negotiate with north korea. pompeo could go look at that agreement and say, well, we need every bit of that to deal with north korea's nuclear program. guest: yes. well, that certainly is the case that any country that has nuclear weapons, if you are toss them out, you have to offer them something. so there will be something

offered to north korea as there was to iran. theas was the case with iran deal. there needs to be some kind of monitoring and inspection program. ironic that shortly after tearing up the agreement, the president is in the process of coming up with something very similar with the north koreans. ont: good questions coming twitter. from johnny -- are you looking forward to a nuclear safeguard solution out of the upcoming nato summit? that gets underway tomorrow. and don't know. it may be. on the agenda. reality, when these things happen, there is only one or two issues that rise to the top. there is only so much time for leaders to talk about issues. and it may be somewhere in item hierarchies for

nato. but in terms of top-level attention, not getting it. which agencies are responsible for this? the department of energy national nuclear security administration and the state department has a key role. host: josh is joining us from the democrats line. talking to john donnelly. this band.nk you for it cost to get that cleaned up and the other costs of the nuclear site in the u.s. -- where has the budget money gone for all of that? host: thank you. guest: it is a huge bill. not just nuclear remediation but environmental cleanup in general definitely in the

billions that they are spending. but the problem is that there are so many -- probably $100 billion or more that needs to be spent to clean up all the facilities. so it is a liability over their heads. they spend a lot of money but it is a problem that dwarfs the budget. host: diana from maryland. good morning. and comment you made about what is the most important issue -- whose responsibility is it -- is it the president's responsibility? or the legislative branch? to make sure that we have a list of priorities and that the american public is capped in line -- ok, the nuclear threat is number five.

who do we look to you? because now it seems like we have a president who goes off on all of these crazy tangents and to make things that are not important important. like an american citizen, middle-class i am 71 and i get social security. who do i look to? i don't think there is anyone in the government right now who doesn't get distracted. obama wase intelligent and he kept that what is important. but as far as i can see, we don't have anyone now. what do you think about that? guest: presidential leadership is critical in general and on this issue in particular and in

general. that most an issue people aren't clamoring about. this is the kind of thing that is easily ignored without a president stepping up to say, hey. this is something we have to pay attention to. even though obama did decrease spending and the latter part of his ministration, he deserves credit for putting the focus on advocate and being an for the nuclear summits that occurred between 2000 10-2016. congress has a role. if the president doesn't step up and lead, lawmakers have to take the initiative. but again, this is an issue that constituents are not calling about, they feel no pressure to do anything about it. host: we go back to dianne feinstein, the number one democrat on the appropriations panel. tell you that the threat of a

terrorist with a dirty bomb is something we have to take seriously? is the u.s. taking this seriously enough? i think you can ask the question. if we were spending 18% more in 2011, why do we spend 18% less now? is the threat 18% less? i'm not saying that there is a butc number, budget number, it seems to me that it is clear that it is a major international problem with thousands of materials that are not secure. and with the cyber threat emerging, it could get worse and worse. so this is something that needs great attention. all i am saying is, let's talk about it. let's ask the questions. i don't know what the number is or if there is one but it needs to be talked about.

the next call comes from missouri. good morning, you are with john donnelly from rollcall. caller: it is nice to have you. the day before yesterday i just by -- "voicesook chernobyl. we are right on with the concern we need to pay to this. the book's first-hand accounts of people who were used to clean up the accident. chernobyl cancer is even worse. something grew on him. his neck disappeared and his tongue fell out. he began to bleed and he was 45-year-old. -- if everyone has seen

suggest they do. because the scene of a young onentist who touched for month thousands of a second, he touched it and said he was dead and 10 days later he was. this is dangerous. it should never have been spread the way it has over the earth. i believe it may have made the earth uninhabitable. and there are people who know that. what do you think? guest: thank you for your call. i would say that we need to be aware that nuclear energy has been -- comparatively speaking, a relatively safe endeavor. and i don't mean to characterize that as something that by itself isn't a problem. the issue is, how to re-controlling some of the

materials that go into nuclear power plants and the radiological materials used in industrial processes. judging by the amount of materials that still are not safeguards or safeguarded effectively, we are not doing well enough. and the consequences potentially are the kind of stuff that the caller talked about. host: the reason for the 18% cut, what are they? guest: a lack of focus. reasons for some the reduction. i mentioned the discontinuance of the russian program. which accounted for a lot of it. and i mentioned the backlogs, the bottle legs with -- the automatic score some of it. the money was piling up and piling up and that is the explanation that was given. but that explanation has been given for years. and if you have to say, that

isn't working, let's find another approach. also, one thing that critics point out is that this idea of unspent money from prior years a a reason not to appropriate sufficient in this fiscal year, you don't hear that as often on weapons programs as you do for nonproliferation programs. with weapons programs, they have a few years to spend. the sameay that isn't -- but it is a double standard. is the headline. this is the reporting of john donnelly. this is part of the monday money segment. thank you for being with us. host: we will know in a couple of hours to the president well

nominate. who would you pick? who is the ideal supreme court justice? those are the questions. , democrats.00 (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independent collars. again dialing now or share your comments on our facebook page or on twitter. back in a moment. ♪ tonight on the communicators, a stanford professor discusses on-demand,xperience about virtual reality technology . ? when it is done well, the front of your brain could say it isn't real but the back of the

brain is terrified. childrenver we bring on a school field trip or the ceo of a company, that is the first thing we do. we want to establish it is real. because if you are unwilling to plank, onceof the we sell you on the idea that it is so real that you won't even step on the plank, then we can have a conversation. racism,se it to solve environmental issues, things you have to experience to understand. c-span, where history unfold daily. it was created by america's cable television companies. bring you we

unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. "washington journal" continues. host: this is the list of the four people we keep hearing. the four names that are being touted by the white house as the finalists for the president's election. to get to your calls and talk about who you think would the best option. (202) 748-8000, line for democrats. (202) 748-8001, line for republicans. magazine reports on this. "some conservatives have expressed concern about

cavanaugh, a clerk to justice kennedy, questioning his commitment to social issues like abortion and noting his time under george w. bush as an establishment choice. but he is a former clerk to kennedy, as is cap fletch. excited social conservatives to she was questioned about her roman catholic face -- catholic faith last year. this is from the front page of the washington times. "trump gets a rare chance to reshape the high court." tell us who you think would be your ideal choice? begin dialing now. this is what bradford richardson writes. trump appoints a tourist to deliver decisions by which

decisions have been looking forward for years. issues ranging from abortion to the ministry of state could be strongly influenced by the president's appointment of who will fill the seat. -- the shortlist from when gorsuch was appointed. who is on your list? caller: i am leaning towards barrett but any for would-be good. i am a libertarian. from a libertarian perspective, the public needs to be educated in how much power over the last 60 years, the court has taken from the legislature. i am a lawyer also. if people understood that desegregation was put in by the -- put in because the

funds of a hotdog stand traveled ,hrough interstate commerce that is how desegregation got put into place. the court magically found a right that never existed before but that politically, liberalist activist said wait, we don't like this. we need to find a new right. people always say it is reactionary. but that isn't always the case. final thing is that if the liberals like justices who find rights out of thin air and put in massive new trump card policies because the wheat in the bonds of the hot dog stand

traveled through interstate commerce so they can impose a --icy that has nothing to do that power could be used by toial conservatives abortions.span all written the following -- i have long urge that the most important decision a president can make is the election of a supreme court justice. it will be announced tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern time and we will have that live for you. residenttion after the speech. the latest from the associated press which keeps track of the developments in thailand, it is capturing the worlds attention over the last few weeks. ambulances have been leaving be

thailand cave site. aboutave been tightlipped the rescue operation and will not comment on how many people were removed on monday. on sunday when the rescue there wereegan, scenes of divers bringing out for of the boys but waited several hours before confirming their safe rescue. again, and other rescue operation is now underway. back to your calls on the supreme court nominee. russell, good morning. comment is that i understand there is a rule that any president to is under possible indictment cannot appoint anyone to the supreme court? host: where did you see that rule? caller: i was listening to npr a few weeks ago and they talked about it.

host: your point is? caller: why should trump be allowed to appoint people if he is under appointment -- under indictment? why should trump be allowed to appoint people to the supreme court? host: washington post has the front page story. robert costa and robert barnes -- the president weighing the and they write the following "at various times, judges cavanaugh and barrett have been seeing as the leading candidate. trump boast last year that he choice closelyh held until the primetime announcement. presidentnd, the

talked about how close he came last year. trump airey -- hardeman's working-class root. law student at georgetown university and was cited as a plus inside the white house along with conservative rulings. however, mitch mcconnell didn't push choices on the government theycconnell did note that could fare well in the senate because there locations and records were not as politically charged as others on the shortlist. the democrats line, russell is next. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to bring out the fact , what is the first seat stolen by the republicans? clarence thomas represents the stolen seat because judge

marshall was considered the father of civil rights. but dating site with the voting rights act, gerrymandering, racial segregation and currently , any civil rights issue. and he represents a stolen seat that had affected black people for the last 40 years. and it really wish that democrats would wake up and how important it is to have some kind of influence on who actually is placed on the supreme court. i don't agree that any of the that we have talked about since 7:00 this morning, should be on the supreme court -- i don't think any of these people should be, the people we have talked about ad nauseam all morning.

post, "momentous choice is set to be announced today, drum says all are excellent." expect when the president supports a new supreme court nominee. david, you are next. good morning. this.ys enjoy it bothers me because with this president, the supreme court picks that he has come is like he has a mandate. mandate. he acts like he has a mandate. he doesn't have a mandate like ronald reagan or barack obama. he lost the election by 3 million votes and barely had the

electoral college. and i think that this is ridiculous. democrats need to hold him to this. tell him that they have no mandate. that we need more moderate picks. host: who would be the moderate picks? ?aller: i guess cavanaugh i guess? i enjoy c-span every morning. host: thank you. from the washington times, the brexit negotiator resigns under want to share with you what david davis told bbc 4 radio over the weekend. when we debated the cabinet on friday, my opening remark to teresa was, prime minister, i am the odd man out.

i didn't say anything thereafter. and that is because i was thinking about the consequences. time, it wasn't the best strategy. said,ght it would, as you be the list -- bd least risk this policy has a number of weaknesses. share these can responsibility. i would explain it to the house and then go out and deliver it to the public. and frankly, it was known that i had no concern -- it was frankly

known that i had concerns about it. i wouldn't have done a good job of it. the things i said was that, i hope you are right. host: this is the headline from the daily news. "stinkerhrough the likes it trade deal" the minister resigns. saying that

host: we mention that because the summit gets underway in brussels. they will meet with prime minister theresa may on thursday. back here, your ideal supreme court nominee? caller: yes, how are you doing? ok. i am wondering why people are so concerned about the supreme court justice and they act like they're not concerned about these babies being separated from their parents and like they about what comes out of the president's mouth.

that on the road to armageddon, we have to start somewhere. and i think this is the road that we are going on. a lot of people act like they can't see. i think god for the ones who can see. that is all i have to say. god bless america. tweet -- "we have the most fake stock market in history and d.c. does nothing to stop that fraud." lawrence, good morning. caller: thank you very much. that i hopesay ,merica lives up to its name and we put a native american indian on the supreme court. as a judge. after all, they have been there longer than anybody. everybody was at one time or

another foreigners. others try to get in here. and what goes around, comes again -- comes around. small-scale to what happened then but it looks like the same kind of thing. i would like to see one of them on the court. host: from the new york times editorial page, "why nato matters." pointing out that nato isn't a golf club. and it is one measure of the cost and benefits of belonging. host: tony joins us from texas. your ideal pick? caller: i am an old man.

excuse me. please don't hang up on me. we have to get money out of politics and did you know, israel has no unemployment? because we make their life so great and we give them all of the educated goods, and we are not getting no education and it isn't fair. there is too much corruption in .his country that is not fair to me, as a viewer. do you understand? for the call, we appreciate it. this tweet "the more desperate obscures get, the more metaphors they will invoke to

make an argument they can't articulate." (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. we welcome listeners on c-span radio. we will have live coverage of the announcement tonight at 6:00 p.m. on the coast. p.m. eastern. steve jobs is mom had him and then handed him off for adoption. as the world is better off with him. these babies are born, our parents gave us life. the gift of life. it is a hypocritical thing to say that they don't want a baby girl to be a will to grow up, that is ludicrous.

policiesp following like that, we are on the wrong side. the guy who talks about armageddon, that is your side. armageddon, evil stuff. don't point fingers at one side. we have to stop murdering babies . we can't keep doing this. host: do you have a favorite? caller: i like amy. they are all good people with track records. and for any republican to go iainst -- just remember, don't call it abortion. i call it murder. it is what it is. it is headed great goal -- it is to take something

from falling in love and having ,riends and hearing birds chirp saying they could stop the next woman from being born. a sad state of affairs. host: thank you for the call. the president leaves tomorrow for nato and tweets this morning nato summit. "the u.s. spending far more than any other nato country. this is not fair or acceptable. we must do much more including germany, which is at 1%, the u.s. at 4%." thistweet sent out morning. let's go to cindy joining us. from minnesota. mentioned nato. i am a catholic. most of these countries were at

one time catholic. all of them should know how to do a little bit of suffering because that is what we are all do, to this earth to choose the right path in life. as far as the supreme court election, i would not choose amy barrett. because when she was asked the question of orthodox catholics, she didn't even know how to answer it. and if the president wants a he must havelist, a theologian, at least, who knows who the real god is, that the founding fathers spoke of. the creators the first person in .he lesser trinity so to choose her would be a mistake. alliances now has with anyone to become part of the one world church. cindy from minnesota.

front page of the times -- two stories are getting a lot of recognition today. eight of those boys have been freed from the cave, that is the front page of the financial times. and below that, the u.s. standing firm on north korea and sanctions begin to fray. that took place over the weekend between north korea leaders and mike pompeo. york,ast elmhurst new good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am perturbed by the argument we are having as to who will be liberal or conservative. justice -- if justice is just and lined, we should have people who make decisions based not on their political views but on the content of law. if that isn't enough, i am

bothered as we have a situation now where the future of the shift by an immoral president. that bothers me. thank you very much. ist: another tweet "trump president now. time to love him now. you have another chance to vote for him in four years, bet you can't wait." next week, there will be a bilateral meeting in helsinki, finland. president meets with allies. you get the last question. who is the ideal supreme court justice canada? caller: i don't have one. i'm sorry. i'm a democrat and i don't think

-- i'mve the right sorry, i don't think they have the right to pick somebody. why should they pick somebody before the midterms? he's going to pick some psychotic person who is go back 50n and we years as always like he has been doing with everything else. the man is not's. we left england because of the tierney we suffered from religion and taxes. what are we doing now? it is all about religion and taxes. host: a busy week. reaction and session, after the speech and who the nominee is, tomorrow morning on washington journal.

.hen the nato summit thank you for joining us as you begin a brand-new week on c-span. a reminder, all of our coverage is on c-span.org. have a great week. ♪ >> coming up lives, remarks by on dashiell and bill frisk

global health and diplomacy, and the impact of president trump's emergency plan for aids relief. then a review of the supreme court case way fee versus south dakota. we will have that discussion on c-span. and it would to advocacy group will kick off in washington. , live at 1:00 eastern. you can watch these events live or listen live using the free c-span radio app. >> president donald trump will announce his nominee for the supreme court. filling the vacancy left by anthony kennedy. atch the announcement live 9:00 eastern on c-span and

c-span.org. listen on the free c-span radio app. tonight, stanford professor virtuals his book on reality technology and its potential for the future. >> the front of your brain can be saying this is not real but the back is terrified. when we bring children on a theol field trip, that is first thing we do. we want to establish that it feels real. if you are unable to take a step , once i have soldier on this idea that it is so real you are not even willing to step on a fake plank then we can have a .eal discussion

>> watch the communicators on c-span 2. >> next, the week ahead in washington dc from today's washington journal. our monday roundtable with stephen dinan. he covers politics in congress for the "washington times." and chris cadelago, who covers the white house for politico. regardless of who the president nominates tonight, the white house will hit the ground running. how so? guest: the white house has been preparing for this for quite some time. there was obviously talk of justice kennedy potentially retiring at the end of the term. i think we have seen them really withit into gear, starting this list they have of 25 potential justices. now,y