are committed to investing in that plan to build our people, to strengthen our future so we are more competitive nationally and internationally as we look to the next century. drugs be sure to join us july 21 and 20 21 we will feature our visit to alaska. "alaska weekend" on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the freeseas and radio app. >> tuesday, members of congress return from their fourth of july recess and begin work on a number of bills. on c-span2, the c-span continues debate about mark bennett to become a member and then supreme a.m. term live at 11:00 eastern.

>> coming up in one hour, former national security advisor ben rhodes on his book "the world as it is: looking at political and policy issues of the obama >> tonight it is my honor and privilege to announce that i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. ♪ >> is well known in washington and in legal circles, and he is about to become much more well-known. court judge,eals brett kavanaugh, picked last night to fill the ninth seat on the supreme court which opened up to the retirement of justice anthony kennedy. good morning, welcome to washington journal for tuesday, july 10, 2018.

we will start this first hour getting your thoughts on judge kavanagh and his pick for the supreme court. we are interested in hearing from you. ,or democrats (202) 748-8000 for republicans (202) 748-8001, and for independents (202) 748-8002. we invite you to weigh in on our twitter.page, and on you will see a support oppose paul that we have on her twitter page. we will check on that. morning, kevin daly wrote this piece today, the supreme court poised for rightward shift under kavanagh. bett kavanaugh will nominated.

the president trumpeted his election, the fulfillment of a campaign promise, which puts a secure supreme court majority within reach of conservatives. brett kavanaugh is among the most distinguished and respected judges in the country would nearly 300 opinions that demonstrate fairness and a commitment to interpreting the constitution as it is written and enforcing the limits on government power contained in the constitution. that hey caller writes has two decades of experience as a government lawyer, he is an archetypal supreme court nominee. he practiced -- judge kavanagh spoke about his supreme -- about entering the george bush administration. there is a headline this morning -- the newsc come

analysis is saying that the president selection of brett kavanaugh for the supreme court on monday culminates a three decade project unparalleled in american history to install a reliable conservative majority on the nations highest tribunal. it could shape the direction of the law for years to come. peter baker writing that all of the years of vetting, grooming, lobbying, list making by conservative leaders and republican appointees drifting to the left, have arguably come down to this moment, where they stand on the precipice appointing a fifth justice who they hope will at last establish a bench for my committed to their principles. they have been pushing back for 30 years and this was a big soht in the right direction, says the president of a conservative activist group. he says it will be the first

time we can really say we have a conservative core, really the first time since the 1930's. your thoughts on the supreme court pick. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, and all others (202) 748-8002/ we will start in atlanta with james on the democrat line. caller: we need to start looking at the constitution itself. document that is subject to arbitrary and capricious decisions. it is obsolete now. this is a political party, democrats -- is democrats don't push back on the senate with everything you have, black for thosenot go out

representatives. effect, thisinto will help our white people that do not push back. it's because they region they don't care. carolina, on our independent line, ira. caller: good morning everyone. i believe the court is going to far right.--too i hate to use the words white supremacy because it is overused so much, but the base is highly and was motivating the energy is racism. the countries at a point now where there is more conservatism, and i'm asking what are you trying to conserve?

all of civil rights, the abortion rights, theme voting rights,-- the voting this is nothing but a white male power grab. people need to understand it for what it is, because they wanted take their country back and make america great again. so now we have a too conservative core. and folks will remove rights slowly and surely. host: a could be as early as today that brett kavanaugh is up on capital -- it could be as early as today that brett kavanaugh is meeting with senators on capitol hill. announced their opposition must night was chuck schumer, the democratic leader pleading saying i will oppose brett kavanaugh with everything

i have, and i hope a bipartisan majority will as well. if america's -- of americans believe in the right for a woman to make her own reproductive choices and health insurance companies should not charge people more based on pre-existing conditions, now is the time to fight. i'm calling on americans from all walks of life to make their voices heard. brett kavanaugh picked as president trump's nominee for the ninth seat on the supreme court. randy, on our independent line. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i disagree with the nomination, i think he should've gone with amy, i forget her last name. this guy is going to be a puppet from the bushes and the clintons , and the obamas. these three families are crime

families, and this guy's going to be a puppet. he has made a mistake on this one. i'm a trump supporter, but this guy is going to be part of the bush crime family. and the clinton climbed ramming, and the obama crime family. and i wish you would've picked amy, whatever her name is. host: randy, you're talking about amy coney barrett, one of the four finalist for the position. from the wall street journal, thomas hardiman, raymond kethledge, and the president taking brett kavanaugh. -- picking brett kavanaugh. -- you canedicting

find his confirmation hearing on c-span.org. judge 12 year tenure, kavanagh frequently has found that federal agencies including the environmental protection agency went too far in regulation. in his comments last night at the white house, he spoke about his judicial philosophy. here is what he had to say. >> my judicial philosophy is straightforward. a judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. a judge must interpret statutes as written. and a judge must interpret the constitution as written. informed my history, -- by history, tradition, and precedents. i've taught hundreds of students at harvard law school, i teach that the constitution's separation of powers protects individual liberty. i remain grateful to the dean -- justicee, gesture

elena kagan. i hire four law clerks each year and i look for the best. they come from diverse backgrounds. i am proud that a majority of my law clerks have been women. host: brett kavanaugh last night from the work desolate house. deleting theirs opposition. saying he would overturn roe v. wade and and critical health care protections. ,or democrats (202) 748-8000 or republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. there were protests at the supreme court last night, i will show you some of that a bit later too. let's go to the independent line. hello. caller: hello and good morning.

i frequently watch c-span, that way i can get the facts of what is going on and make up my own mind instead of being told what -- or most ofses our news channels. i think on all of the candidates for the supreme court, we need what mitchout mcconnell said on her last administration. i went back and looked at his statements on why president obama could not put in a candidate for the supreme court, because it was an election year. whenever they do that, they set a precedent for every candidate

in every administration from then on. he should not of done that in the first place, but if that is the new precedent for nominating supreme court justices, then of course, we should not be nominating a supreme court justice now. this is an election year. we are not that many months away from the election. i think we need to be consistent in what we are doing, and not change the rules based on what party is in office. we are not going to have a nomination on an election year, then we don't have a nomination on an election year. i think all of us need some consistency. , it gets about peace rid of fear, people know what to

expect, and if you look at the nominees that have been presented, they are buying organization called the federalists. most of us do not belong to that organization, so your supreme court justice should really be representing all of us, not just one tribal group. host: do you think why not doing a nomination and keeping the same standard that republicans kept during the merrick are like some democrats saying the same thing about the presidents pick, ahead of brett kavanaugh being picked. do you think that would depoliticize the whole process? yes.r: i am cautious about setting new precedent. we are setting precedents now in the moller hearing -- the moller

hearing.-the muleller claiming executive privilege or pleading the fifth, they are just not answering. that will set a precedent for everyone else's trial. druglords and gangsters. they are going to start using the same thing. i think a lot of people do not understand that. but if the president -- precedent has been set like mitch mcconnell had done in the previous administration than let us at least be consistent. this is an election year. he said candidate should not be presented for the supreme court in an election year. so let's be consistent, at least. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents and

all others for independents (202) 748-8002. brett kavanaugh worked at the -- in the george w. bush administration, the former president weighing in with the statement about brett kavanaugh. sing president trump has made an outstanding decision in nominating judge brett kavanaugh . brilliant jurist who will faithfully apply the constitution and the laws throughout his 12 years on the d.c. circuit judge is a fine , and the man of highest -- and a man of the highest integrity. that is from george w. bush. members of the senate weighing in. onmay see judge kavanagh capitol hill as early as today. here's tim scott, republican of south carolina saying now more than ever we need a supreme court justice that will uphold freeze each, written -- free speech, and religious liberty.

him inforward to meeting learning more about him through this confirmation process. , inur republican line chicago. caller: good morning. i have to say, this is the last straw for me from this moment on, i could not any more republican candidates ever. with the republican party is trying to do is led to straight -- is led to straight what women do -- what let -- is legislate with what women do with their bodies. what's next? they are going to legislate our ?idneys bone marrow? this is unacceptable. we should trust women to make their health care choices with their doctors without any interference from our government.

this is the final straw for me. , you heart about life this fake pro-life argument from conservatives. this isn't about that for them, this is about them to dating to women how they can control their cycle, what medication they should have to control their reproductive health, what procedures they can have. they have gone too far. this is big. i cannot deal with them anymore. are caller in chicago reflecting some of the sentiment ,n the supreme court last night including senator kirsten gillibran of new york. here's what she had to say. >> the president is done exactly what he said he will do, he has appointed someone who will not protect a woman's right to make decisions about her mind, her health care, per reproductive freedom. this judge must not become the next justice of the supreme court.

and what that will take as all of us fighting, for if hardened as long as we can. voices, our stories, these will make the difference in these nominations. we must do everything we can to give back, speak at, never up, and never give in. it's about our country, our values, and the history of this nation. we will fight, we will not give up, we will not grow weary, we will not give in. tell your stories. tell everyone you know and love why you care so much, whether it's union rights, immigrant rights, or fighting against this president's coercive and very harmful agenda. tell your stories, be heard, do

not give up, we must convince the senate to do the right thing and stand against kavanaugh. stand against kavanaugh. stand against kavanaugh. part of the seamless night in front of the supreme court, new york senator kirsten , we have cameras live in front of the court this morning. so far no protest but plenty of people. we will keep our eye on things for the duration of the washington journal. getting your reaction to the pick of brett kavanaugh as the supreme court nominee. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, and for independents (202) 748-8002. we are also on twitter. janet tweets this, the nomination can be blocked by the senate and congress and federal judges until the molar investigation -- the moller

investigation -- the mueller investigation. another tweeting the supreme court should not be conservative or liberal, their role is to interpret the law or be objective. we need a moderate court that is able to look at both sides of an issue, nominating kavanaugh will not a versus -- will not accomplish this. on our democrat line, good morning to kim. caller: good morning. i was listening to the other callers, and i do agree. i have never heard of the pick a supreme court justice while he is under investigation. and not even nixon, when he was under investigation picked a supreme court judge.

i am wondering what makes trumps a special, that he gets to do this? change abortion, and all civil life. i think we need to get out there and vote, but with all of our light. to keep our as an african-american woman in an interracial relationship, i think all of us have light. what are they conserving with abortion-rights? i think every woman has a right to choose and i am really pro-life. but it is their right to choose. i think this man should recuse , because the president

is under investigation. ,ost: on kim's point about that in the washington times this morning, there is a piece on kavanaugh's long washington history to give review. they write with the campaign under investigation for suspected collusion with russian , judgerussian officials kavanagh would not stand up to the commander and chief citing his 2009 article, showing his personal writings would allow donald's abuses of powers to go unchecked. , there is a point of contention for liberals because it could likely come before the supreme court. don is on the democrats line, good morning. caller: i knew trump was going to pick kavanaugh. he knew kavanaugh is going to help them get out of jail in the

end. another thing is, i was wondering, why is there any .ther israelites calling i need help, because we need to spread the word to the blacks, hispanics, and native american indians that this is not our place. antiquity,jews of and we are the real jews, which no one wants to let anyone know. from therese,ar on the republican line in michigan. morning, i totally disagree with allowing a potential criminal picking his own judge. well he john -- darn picked this one to let him all. the fact that kennedy steps down

early so he could picked this one looks dirty, because his son works for deutsche bank and he already knows trump. it looks like a good set up. our independent line, also in michigan is mario. caller: the only thing i really want to say, as i think the courts should not be right or left. they should interpret the constitution. in terms of having trump nominate someone during an wastion year, the precedent in said about someone not nominating someone during an election, it was during a presidential election year. so the precedent with obama's pick being denied was because we were dealing with a during a presidential election. the next president gets to choose who he wants on the supreme court. whyn't really understand

everyone is so concerned him picking somebody this year before senate election. host: we have not received a timetable yet from mitch mcconnell. theaid he wants to have hearing done and pick approved before the midterm elections in november. your reactions to the choice of brett kavanaugh as the next the brain court justice. for democrats (202) 748-8000, ,or republicans (202) 748-8001 and for independents (202) 748-8002. our cameras are up on capitol hill, the supreme court waiting for possible reaction from people. last night there were protests of the court. in other news this morning, in good news we have been seeing from thailand, here's the latest. the headline at cbs, tyke a

rescue, three more people carried out of kay's -- tied --thai cave rescue, three more people carried out. been taking the strongest boys out first, it may seem counterintuitive but the reasoning for that is that officials of the best chance of surviving getting through the escape route fast. we will keep you posted on any other updates as well. getting your thoughts on the choice of brett kavanaugh for the supreme court. president trump introducing the 53 or older judge must night, let's hear more from president trump on his choice. >> in keeping with president don't askegacy, i about a nominee's personal opinion, what matters is not a judge's political views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the

constitution require. say that i have found, without doubt, such a person. my honor ands privilege to announce that i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. let's go to north charleston, south carolina, valerie on the republican line. caller: good morning. agree this is super important that we have a new scotus, kennedy steps down. but i think this hysteria that is going on around this country is folks, we plea are one country and let's help each other up. let's try to find a way to reach across the aisle to talk. if we don't have a cohesive country we don't have anything. to the gentleman who was

screaming about israelites, i'm jewish. i want nothing more than to see the country come together again. i think that should be everybody's goal, to come together. either we have a country or we do not have a country. it is our choice. don't think short-term, think long-term and cut with the hysteria. to take a couple of steps back, take a breather, and work together. thank you. host: we hear from raymond, also on the republican line in kentucky. caller: i just wanted to comment nomination,anagh's i think it was the right decision but i want to say it could have been the wrong decision too. barrett wouldney have been the best decision president trump could make. that's probably why women's rights groups are screaming with

their heads off right now. kavanagh,gain, judge you have a teenager who wants an abortion, and whether she is legal or illegal or not, she's have toe most abortions some kind of parental consent for that to be held against his ,ecord as it is in the senate and liberals will probably hold , i really think it would be stupid. these, people need to come together. the supreme court of the united states is one of the most important branches of our government. their job is to uphold our constitution. when we appoint nominees like these, what should be most

important is their record. how did they go on things, what is their opinion on law. whether liberal, conservative, or independent. i would be against even a republican, i would be against having an independent justice in the court -- i would not be against having an independent justice in the court. i think you will be a good pic and i think trump made the best decision he could. will be political suicide for democrats to even go the way they really are against .im it's really premature and very immature of them to be -- withll see how it goes midterm elections. i'm satisfied with the picky made. -- the picky made -- the pick he made. bit of female a

male biased for president trump to pick a male candidate. justice neil gorsuch is male. was: do think the president more comfortable picking a male candidate? is that what you're saying? caller: yes, i think he is too comfortable, i think amy barrett would have settled down the side of women's rights groups. made them feel a little bit more comfortable. i think that right there is what enraged the democratic party a little bit more than just someone that is going to want to decide on roe v. wade. host: on your point, you mentioned the decision that judge kavanagh was part of, a recent decision on the immigrant requesting an abortion at the the writing from the washington times. we touched on this earlier. as we pointed out, his recent

ruling against an illegal immigrant seeking an abortion is also a point of contention for liberals because a case could likely come before the supreme court during the next term. the teen, who is in government custody demanded that the government facilitate the abortion by providing transportation and care afterwards. ruledavanaugh against the teen, thing the government should have had more time to place the team -- the teen with a sponsor. in new york, tom on the independent line. how do you say the name of your town? moriches, new york. host: go ahead with your comment. for c-span.k you i want to say that president trump is one of the best presidents i've ever had in my i'm 57 years old and i

really appreciate everything he has done for our country, everything is doing for our country. let others know that there is a country they can go up they are not happy with america. it's called russia. see you later communists. host: let's go to seattle, on the democrats line. carmen, good morning. caller: i hope you give me a , i have beenne reading some of these right wing hypocritical so-called evangelical christians to the former fact that president obama's nominee and being the excuse of an election. surprise, you have a white right

-- right wingers have an election coming up. but that is not my biggest problem. my biggest problem is the fact that the guy that picked kavanaugh is on -- under criminal investigation. y'all have a nice day. in seattle.arm and, we have had a number of comments and questions about the possible returning to the roe v. wade decision, the issue came up and kavanagh'sdge confirmation. do you consider roe v. wade to be an abomination and do you consider yourself to be a judicial nominee like the president said he was going to nominate. to -- if confirmed

to the d.c. circa, i would follow roe v. wade fully, that is binding precedent and i would confirm to the d.c. circuit it has been reaffirmed many times. >> i understand that what is your opinion, you're not on the bench. your talked about this issue to others. >> the supreme court has held repeatedly and i don't think it would be appropriate for me to answer. from 2000 six, brett kavanaugh at his confirmation hearing then, getting your reaction to his now as the ninth justice on the supreme court. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, and for all others (202) 748-8002. night,as a protest less cory booker tweeted this morning about the president's pick, actually tweeting last night,

the announcement last night. watching some of the video. this is the reaction from cory booker of new jersey, and on the issue of roe v. wade. tweeting president trump has been crystal clear about only nominating justices that support overturning roe v. wade. there is no question that litmusgh meets this test. on the democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i believe that trump picked a very good choice, in my view and listening to the way he talks. i believe he's a liberal conservative if such a thing. i don't believe he will over term roe v. wade. -- overturn roe v. wade. host: on the republican line, diana in connecticut. thrilled,m absolutely

when i was voting in the election i voted for the supreme court, not necessarily the person though i really did not like clinton. about theow much young man that he chose, he credentials, great a wonderful family, and he does a lot outside of his job. but i like what he said to schumer, that he would follow the law. shown that has evidently the democrats want someone on supreme court that will give their political opinion. i chuckle when people call him saying that he is going to overturn roe v. wade. lawderstand that that is a and it cannot be overturned unless a case comes up. but maybe they want a moderate ginsburg wholike

voted last time based on political beliefs and not the law. that's not right. i give kavanaugh credit for saying to schumer because he pressed them with well i want to know your personal belief. versatile believe has nothing to do with it, it's what the law is. and that is what is frustrating greatest cars fars these demonstrations, they are wearing thin. -- and what is frustrating, as far as these demonstrations, they are wearing thin. i hope he gets confirmed and they push through. and for any republican who votes against him, on going to be disappointed because i think he is a good man, and i'm glad to have a republican on the bench and as far as the election,

obama was in his last term, it was a presidential election. this is a midterm election. they are very different because obama was not going to be in office anymore. they wanted to wait and see how this would turn out. this is the midterm election and it's not a presidential election. thank you for listening. host: the washington post, the front page has three stories about the picking of kavanaugh. there are a border who covers the court on a regular basis as robert barnes. he writes this, president trump's choice of judge brett kavanaugh to replace anthony move what intended to is already one of the history's most conservative courts to even more consistent right of center outcomes. he writes expect more of a gradual climb than a jackrabbit

acceleration. without the kind of alarms that are set off by disposing a few landmark precedents that are familiar to the general public. despite the clamor of the left and the right about roe v. wade, the ruling need not be overturned for the supreme court to uphold state law that would virtually eliminate the abortion clinics within its borders. the justices do not need to jump their landmark decision, finding a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry to exempt individuals and businesses that because of religious objections do not want to serve such couples. and writes robert barnes, using race as one factor in determining higher education and missions, upheld by court in 2003 is already facing a soft expiration date. justice sandra day o'connor said at the time that it would probably not be needed in 25 years. debtreaction to the pic of -- brett kavanaugh. for democrats (202) 748-8000,

for republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. on the independent line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. c-span is very good. with theely agree with kavanaugh nomination -- with the kavanaugh nomination. he seems to be a spirit constitutionalist who will not be someone who interprets cases in an evolving opinion type process. the constitution is the bedrock of our country, it has to be interpreted strictly. he said even sometimes i make a decision that my opinion is be one way, but the law the other way. and i think that's excellent. and on roe v. wade, that law

will never be overturned. the supreme court cannot overturn a law. it might take roe v. wade back to states rights, which is -- and finally, it is so sad to protesters.ical on what not informed actually is going on. it's just sad. but i support kavanaugh, thank you for your time. host: president trump leaving this morning, he will be out of washington for seven days. nato summit inhe brussels, the president arriving shortly outside of the nation's capital. let's take a look and watch. i have the u.k., which is in

turmoil. and i have put in. " maybe the easiest of them all. who would think? -- and i have putin, he may be the easiest of them all. who would think? host: we go to alice, on the republican line in california. trump is the best president, and you know what, god put him there in the white house. i'm glad you picked judge kavanaugh. -- he picked judge kavanaugh. him.ed for i'm glad it president trump had nominated him.

and i had nominated for him too. host: here is george, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for everything you do. democrat, but i have different views on certain things. i want to address one thing that your callers brought up, and say that it wasn't an election year and things of this nature. this, withline is your president you get to put your selection for the supreme court justice until the day that you leave. there is no lame duck. you are still the president of the united states. for the republicans to hold back his nomination deliberately, for over a year, because it was an election year. you cannot have it both ways.

you cannot say well i will do what i choose to do here. look at them, they are trying to push this through before november, because what they are is when the democrats take the house, and i hope they they areenate too, going to vote for the right person to come in. i will end on this note. i think the supreme court should be divided into two entities, actually three. republicans four and one independent. that would mellow out the supreme court justices. let's get more reactions, this one from senator john mccain, tweeting in his thoughts. that kavanaugh has impeccable credentials and a -- strong record of

upholding the constitution. i look for to the senate moving forward with a fair and throw confirmation process. dianne feinstein of california had her reaction. tweeting that brett kavanaugh appears to me all of president trump political promises for all -- or how his candidate will rule. and as ad on the bench republican operative indicates he would be among the most conservative justices in supreme court history. page of the wall street journal this morning, kavanaugh for the court is their leader editorial. we will get to that in the minute. andrews to a joint base we will watch the president as he departs for the nato summit.

[wind, no dialogue] host: president trump and the first lady departing from joint base andrews outside of washington. first up will be the nato summit in brussels on wednesday and thursday, on friday he is in the u.k., he will meet with queen elizabeth that windsor castle. the president also going to the trump resort in scotland. the 16th is his one-on-one summit with russian president, vladimir putin. mentioning, the

leader editorial in the wall street journal, kavanaugh for .he court they write that the democrats will also claim that a new conservative majority will mean the rollback of american rights from abortion to voting. don't believe it. the opinion piece rights of the change that we expect will be the return to the court -- of .he court to the role the american left is distraught because they fear losing the court as its preferred legislature. a conservative court will not overturn liberal precedents willy-nilly, but we are hoping that it will let most political questions be settled where they should be in a democracy, by the little -- the political branches. the marginal and fundamental rights of the separation of powers that is the bulwark against chair -- tyranny. the court is become far too embroiled in politics, which is thermining public faith in

lawn the constitution. good morning to kevin on the independent line. caller: good morning, and thank god for c-span. thatld like to mention trump you talk about -- trump, you talk about dysfunctional parts of government. the house and senate have been dysfunctional since obama came in and couldn't get anything done. i think trump, since he is probably indicted -- being indicted for treason has no business appointing any supreme court judges, and if they have any integrity they would recuse themselves from voting in the issues about trump. if you want to take away obama's

2020,e court nominee in then an independent president could just ask the court with 15 or 21 justices which is legal, and then democrats and mitch mcconnell can fend for themselves. god bless america and the republic. hopefully we can get through the without inciting a civil war among the trump's racist 30% supporters. thank you for letting me get a little radical. relatives whoof fought in wars to preserve the freedom of the united states and i'm getting tired of hearing them spinning in their graves. five more minutes of your calls. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001,

for independents (202) 748-8002. this is from planned parenthood, and their tweet about the pic. it is clear brett kavanaugh could not be trusted to uphold the president -- precedent of roe v. wade. the constitution affords every person the individual liberty to make decisions about their body and their relationships. let's hear on the democrat line, melanie from milwaukee. caller: hello. thank you for letting me speak. i don't even know why there is a discussion on this. before -- people need to step back and look at the actions that trump in this administration are doing right now as we speak. wants to take the word democracy out of textbooks. people need to wake up and start connecting the dots and stopping

tribal. right now it's about our humanity, our nation, our values. this man has done nothing but spit on lady liberty. he should not be allowed to even anything when it comes to the supreme court justice. on top of that, we the people need to demand that he does not , alone,h mr. putin anything one-on-one, without anyone else around him making sure that things are being said going to be true. otherwise, he is playing into putin's playbook of plausible .eniability athletes what's in the works. i feel the mr. trump in this administration -- and that is what is in the works. i feel that mr. trump and this administration is creating. chaos among the people and that is what is going on.

people need to wake up to this. itmp is an asset to produce -- to putin. trump willdent indeed have a one-on-one meeting with the russian president, vladimir putin. the president moments ago parting from joint base andrews heading for the summit, eventually heading to the summit next monday. before he left, you can see air force one taxiing, before he left he did speak to reporters briefly about his pic last night. here's what he said. >> last night was an incredible evening, brett kavanaugh has rave reviews, actually from both sides. i think it's going to be a beautiful thing to watch. he has gotten rave reviews. to calls in maryland, michael, on the democrats line. caller: i think kavanaugh was a

great pick, i think trump is a good president. a lot of people are saying hateful things, they have no proof that he had any collusion with russia, the american government doesn't have any proof. kavanaugh, the reason that all democrats and people calling in hating trump, it's like they are trained to hate white men in america. that is something that needs to be addressed. we lost michael. we had to joe, in georgia on the republican line. caller: good morning. doinge you doing? host: fine, thank you joe. caller: in regards to this , theation and our country

congress and senate need to come together under god and country and our constitution and put a price -- for the any preconceived notions about forge our and just nation in a direction positively for humanity, and not think about personality. use common sense for the common good of the country, whatever vote we are doing and not becoming in with blinders on and hatred. the pendulum of democracy swings both ways and we should disagree agreeably. we are leading the whole world and democracy, they need to see some people that are coming together disagreeing agreeably, and forge away in the right direction to bring about peace

and harmony, even if we disagree, but not in a hateful despiteful way. parties,s on both whether republican or democrat. we should come together and look at it for the common good, not for a preconceived coming in voting with hatred and not really analyzing the true facts of whatever they are voting for. host: let's hear from some folks on twitter. we put a support opposed poll out on our twitter feed. here is what some of the tweets are saying today for c-span. they are saying mike huckabee and ted cruz suggested cities and states could nullify supreme court rulings. so they should not have any problem with others choosing to nullify conservative majority opinions going forward.

liberties as it is not our liberal friends that are ignorant, it's just that they know some much that isn't so, reagan was right. kirsten gillibran is saying to fight, and do anything possible to fight this race is amended and evil, as in violence? what else would you do? paul says that he is in for three months of hold as they run a character assassination campaign against him. brett kavanaugh has 46% supporting, and 56% opposing. more calls on this topic, we go to kristin, in maryland, on the democrat line. christian -- christian, in maryland, on the democrat line. caller: good morning. a lot of people are saying we should not be hysterical about this pick.

me, from listening to your show, it seems a lot of your viewers tend to be older. i am seeing something that is going to affect me and my rights ,or the next 30 to 40 years based on trends campaign and his hateful comments are at the debate, -- throughout the debate, i think we have more than a right to be skeptical about what this president is going to be doing as far as personal liberty protections go. there was the case of the baker who refused to give -- to make a k -- a cake for a gay couple, these things keep happening.

it doesn't give us a lot of and what his trump picks are going to be doing. white republicans living in -- thosewealthy areas are just my two cents. host: we will hear from one more caller, we will hear from robert , on the independent line. trump blew this thing so badly. he got played by karl rove terribly. this guy is a d.c. swamp a man thathis is helps justice john roberts make sure that obamacare stayed alive and well. disguise a pure liberal.

you know if jeff flake likes him that he is a liberal. trump did not pick a conservative, he picked a big government god, a -- government you know if jeff flake likes him that he is a liberal. guy. host: who would your pick of been? caller: it would been the later on. in "washington journal." from ben, we hear rose. he is here to talk about his new book on the obama years. "the world as it is." coming up, we meet the susan b anthony list president who talks about president's and how it affects roe v. wade. and the c-span cameras are up at the supreme court, showing you a supreme court

pet care. more on "washington journal." ♪ day --ay night on human night on q and a. >> she saw me. i decided right there that i was going to get the amendment ratified. >> the man responsible for getting the 27th amendment ratified. >> i was in the library of downtown austin, texas. i came across a book that had an devoted to amendments that had passed congress but not enough state legislatures had approved. and this one jumped right out at me. law varying the

compensation for the services of the senators and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened. " i remember standing in the aisle and it was as if lightning had struck. i remember the whole sitting electricity of it all. instead of writing about the equal rights amendment and the deadline,atification why don't i write about this says, remember when congress wanted to adjust their salary? >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

c-span, where history unfolds daily. was created by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. "> "washington journal continues. ben rhodes is joining us this morning to talk about his new book -- "the world as it the you write about how whole reason for coming in the first place was a year of experience in new york after september 11?

be a writer.ed to i was working on political campaigns. and it was september 11 and i thea clear view of watching first tower falling. and i knew whatever i was going to do in my life at 24-year-old was going to be about what happened then. and i went to an army recruiter who didn't know what to make of a community writing major. and worked my-- foreign policy. and i felt i wanted to get involved in politics because that is how you make change. your meeting with obama, fairly after, he brought you on board? 2007? i had been doing

free work for the obama campaign and i got called into a session where they go around the issues they have to deal with in the upcoming presidential debate. and i was so nervous back then that frankly, i felt like i couldn't speak in paragraphs. they were debating whether or not he should vote for a bill that would fund the iraq war. and he likes that approach in terms of trying to figure out was.ommon sense case and ultimately i was hired to write. host: not to give away the end of the book but you do write on one of the last trips with him --obama in 2016 2016. he asks you, what if we were wrong, did that clarify the

answer? guest: i wrote the book to answer the question. thehaving been there on first day and the last day of the obama administration with experiencing eight years of history and having the end be so much against what we were comeng for -- sometimes we as progressives, we think everything moves aggressively in one decision. society could be more progressive and you underestimate how contested american politics work. in thesaw backlash united states and in britain. but i wanted to revisit both. in the united states and around the world, frankly, at the end i end on a hopeful note. because if you take a long look at history, it is what is the

direction of things? and i believe that the politics that barack obama represented is ultimately where the country is heading. to 2008,you look back it was much harder to say that in 2008. what i found in my 10 years in the senate -- in the center of this political world, americans like authenticity. and they want you to be upfront about that. themlike progressives want to be authentic. in the same sense that trump is authentic, so is barack obama. there has been a greater acceptance of just being ourselves. when we look like we are not

in,aring what we believe you want to know who you are being asked to vote for. it's interesting to trace this over eight years. in the beginning, it was such a crisis. and then turning to the oppressive agenda outside of health care and reform. what hindered our gender was an inability to find a way to work with republicans. understandably they had a different view. it was the complete embrace of the opposite of what obama was for.

progressives confides in space to work together even if policies are different. gay marriage, climate change -- you saw a much more advanced sense of progressivism because we couldn't find any common ground so we just it up for the things we believed. host: famously in the first year of the administration, mitch mcconnell made it his now to one term president. how did that hurt? guest: it is interesting when you comment and you don't know what the congressional benefit will be for the full eight years. we had a majority. we got a huge amount done. impossible to get a major piece of legislation through.

mitch mcconnell's approach was such a brick wall. and it was different even then who was more inclined to get something done. presidenthing the could do was executive action and then they say you are not an executive. most relevant for today was merrick garland. eight months before the end of his term, obama nominated someone and didn't get a hearing on him. that is without precedent. host: you wrote that the refusal was staggeringly un-partisan and unpatriotic. the republican party spent eight years disbanding norms and -- what else do you

mitch mcconnell, he was worn down by republican obstructionist. september 2016, we went to congress and said, here is the evidence and here's what we know about russians interfering with the election. and we would like this to be a bipartisan expression of concern about a foreign adversary meddling. mcconnell refused to sign off so ultimately there was no bipartisan statement. obama -- i was shocked and others were shocked that mitch mcconnell looked at statement,olitical admit it waso happening.

, democrats.748-8000 (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independent collars. the book is called "the world as it is." what was the president's worldview coming in in 2008 and how did it change? coming in worldview was that we were overextended in the wars in iraq. and he saw the principal objective was responsibly trying to draw down troops. at thehad 180,000 troops beginning of the administration. down to 15,000 at the end of the administration. and what he wanted to do was draw those down and then refocus on a broader set of priorities. anding with climate change

stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, which led to the iran nuclear deal. changed is circumstance. and that always happens when you are president. managing these different syria, obviously we didn't come in expecting that would consume the amount of time that it did. and there, he struggled to but abound between doing what we could, to limit human suffering -- but he always had humility intowe can't keep going middle eastern countries one after the other to remake society. it didn't work, fundamentally. so it was how much can we do to manage the crisis versus not wanting to get overextended in another war as we were in iraq. host: we have collars waiting

for ben rhodes. greg, go ahead. caller: good morning. at the obamaback administration, it is clear that one of the key foreign-policy is a struggle related to israel and in particular, barack obama's relationship with benjamin netanyahu. and i think it is reflected in the news in the last may that linked to a spy and security organization, which was also involved in helping harvey weinstein dig up dirt on his , involved inrs operations against obama officials that were involved in drafting the iran deal. rhodes is, for ben

this is obviously a major issue of difference where the obama administration had significant differences with the benjamin netanyahu government. the trump administration has taken a much more positive approach. a much better relationship in terms of agreeing about iran and other issues relating to israel and a media policy. in the division of netanyahu and those closest to him. how much of this whole battle going on within foreign-policy establishment with regards to how much is related to israel and a different vision as far as iran is concerned?

is an important disagreement between the obama administration and the young yahoo! -- and the netanyahu government. >> an important question. i spent a lot of time on this in my book. the reality is that barack obama obviously had a different point netanyahu, not a fundamental relationship in israel. we provide more support for the security that any of ministration in history. issues, howrincipal to deal with iran and his nuclear program and how to accomplish it. we supported a two state solution to the israeli -palestine conflict and were unable to make progress there. and it was a failure of our administration. but the reality is that when you parties who are willing to take big risks as the

former is really leaders did, there is only so far you can get. it was really, do we believe we can resolve this issue diplomatically with the nuclear program? our view was that iran was a bad actor. they threaten terrorism. that is why we wanted to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. at the end of the day, prime minister netanyahu didn't want to see that go forward. he wanted to address every aspect of iranian behavior. and that with the approach of having a world power and an a nuclearjust being program. i think it did shape a lot of the debates in washington and the foreign-policy. israel and saudi arabia are influential countries here in washington. covering lot of time

the case. and it is very adversarial towards iran. and also towards the iran nuclear deal. the thing you mention is just an indication of how ugly the scott. -- how ugly this got. reporting information on my family and my children, pictures of my apartment where i lived, i think that it is one thing to have differences on policy. it is another thing when it crosses a line and it gets that personally i can't think of a precedent in history where you have that type of investigation by a foreign contractedentially members of the administration. i hope that for everyone in government it doesn't become a

normal thing. what i take a different view. it is better to have the iran agreement in place to prevent nuclear weapons than the uncertainty that we have without it. obviously the irony for me sitting here watching the developments unfold is that trump is going to north korea and trying to reach some type of agreement there -- thus far basically has some kind of a nuclearnt to give up weapons. not nearly as robust as what was in the iran agreement. it is difficult to explain why that worked out when the more internationally inspected limitations of the iran deal were not. host: for all the discussion about doing low-level meetings between north korea and iran or whatever is being structured, you write in the book that president obama early on wrote the supreme leader of iran and

broached the idea of some sort of conversation starter. what was the reaction? in 2009. wrote that he was very open to diplomacy with adversaries. saying that we make peace with enemies, not with friends. over-the-topan recitation of differences with the united states through history. we clearly were not going to get anywhere. we did take some of his language -- i want to show the reader how this works in the white house -- we took some language that the supreme leader wrote and put it letter, so that we got your letter, but we won't compromise on the things we believe in. frankly, it took an evolution where we imposed sanctions for several years before they were willing to come to the table.

so sanctions change their thinking. and also the change in president. the combination of the sanctions and the new president opened up a window for diplomacy in the second obama term. host: let's go to florida, charlotte, good morning. caller: thank you very much. c-span, you do a fantastic job. good morning, ben rhodes. an lightning and a thought-provoking book. i have this book. i am an academic myself. i'm going to include this book in a 13 book curriculum masters program. because i think it creates a very inside view of the perspective. the historical context and politics. and the responsibilities that we have as citizens.

you had an upfront and close insight in writing this book. my question to you sir, if i one, let's look at the 25 year windows of when we brown, coming into 1968, with the changes that -- it appearsde to me that we have an entrenched where the democrats, by refusing to demand an authority

to govern on behalf of a constituency, but rather prioritizing that we will sacrifice the instrument of power for the perception of principle. your book is a brilliant reflection of the principal leadership that i believe the obama administration brought to the country and to the world for 25 years, our chronological history that we will look on as historians. to let himoing respond. guest: thank you for the comments on the book. i hope it is useful to you in your curriculum. you raise an important question. in this to show people book what it is like to go through the personal experience did it, what he was wrestling with. andar rides and plane rides

what were the forces in opposition to us? there were a lot. i don't mean that as a parson statement. it is a fact that we did face an opposition.l of as we discussed before, mitch withnell refused to work the administration from day one. not seeing what we would do. you saw the rise of the media with obama. and it was qualitatively different from the type of opposition that we have seen in the past. and the underlying premise of your question is fair. there seems to be an imbalance. wanting tosistently republicans.t to and i put an example in the book.

there is a movie about working with the president to get something done. and obama brought a bunch of republicans to the screening to think it would be something nice to do but not a single one came. campvited republicans to david to talk and nobody came. you can extend a hand but if somebody doesn't reach back then you can't work together. and i think we've seen a pattern in the last few years. it became difficult for democrats to figure out how to deal with that level of opposition. and how do you balance the need to try to work together, to lead by an example where you are not trying to be -- the strange thing for obama is that he was cast as a radical figure when he temperamentally conservative guy. he gets along with people. he isn't a name caller.

becomes, when you try to work together and you try , andt that type of sample when you had to say, i'm going to go my way and fight for the things i believe -- he was willing to do that on a number of cases, gay marriage or health care or the change on immigration and climate change. but this is a difficult call for democrats. at the end of the day, you don't want to turn into the political force that rejected you. you don't want to be a mirror image of that force of obstruction and rejection. what i think you have to stand on principle. and you make your case. and you build your movement. and that is what barack obama was able to do in 2008, to

overcome the backlash that they were facing. question, weyour have to make our case to build the constituency and we have to turn out our votes to try to work with the other side. try to lead by example and by embracing a view of democracy that is inclusive. what i think when you reach a certain limit there, you have to to fight on principle. and that is basically the view that parties have raised under trump. rhodes is our guest. john is up next from north carolina on the independent line. caller: good morning. i appreciate the conversation this morning. i look forward to reading your book. it is people like you that i like to listen to because you have an inside birdseye view versus the average person out insight andds that

perspective because you come across as a respectful young man. and you will seem rational. want, nois what i matter if a person's democrat or republican or independent. ,e want thoughtful disagreement both sides listening and we want people to work out problems. that is the reason people like me voted for trump. we are interested in outcomes. as i listen this morning, i say this with the deepest respect for everyone -- there is a lot of talk that i've heard about , specifically. i don't help anyone listening to this couldn't rationally conclude that everything you just stated about how the republicans are up structure obama -- howsident

that is not near it now. what i would like to hear you comment on is -- if you can answer this question for me. there was no hearing for his nominee for the supreme court justice because the numbers weren't there. the republicans were in position to with hold a hearing. i would like to ask you respectfully, can you honestly if theyour perspective democrats were in a issue in the senate and congress today to stop a hearing from taking place on his nominee, no matter what anyone thinks about the nominee, can you comment and let us know -- advise us, i do think democrats would not obstruct even permitting the hearing? i look for to listening to your book and your comments.

i'm going to purchase your book and i'm going to read it. i appreciate your time. guest: i appreciate your question enter,. all, part of the challenge -- and i understand -- people say to me that, how did some people vote for obama and central, i understand the frustration. you just want change. i do believe the obstruction is a political strategy under obama. from the get-go they were going to be against what he does. it had more to do with the .ysfunction obama tried in the early days with the economic crisis. -- which third of that actually is and what we would have done if left to our own devices but we tried to bring

republicans along. we had an enormous bill to bailout the american economy and we try to make it the type of bill that could attract bipartisan support. again, there was a political judgment made on the other side of the table saying, we are better off hunkering down, not voting for anything obama does and then running against him. which is everyone's political right. your impatience with obstruction, if someone came in and lead with some of the things we talked about on the campaign trail like infrastructure, saying that, we need to get this economy hyper charged and we need to fix our roads and ridges, you would have found democrats willing to work with him. even people like chuck schumer. i think the selection out of the gate that he pursued to start with the repeal of health care

is obviously not something that will win democratic support. it is obviously the most contentious to messick policy in our country. so i think there is an agenda that could be pursued that is bipartisan. that deals with the development of infrastructure, or deals with since the occasion of the tax code, education -- the types of things where america just wants to see improvements in their lives. and even on that ideas that usually attract bipartisan support, it was hard to find. trump's agenda is not a little place for the issues that democrats care about. on immigration. i would like a compromise to get done. i understand or frustrated. i think democrats would prefer to not use obstruction.

it is quite likely that if democrats controlled the senate, it is quite likely that they to heavilyast try scrutinize the nominee. i think in perpetuity holding up the hearing until the next president is elected, i don't think that is practically feasible. what think that after happened with merrick garland, if democrats had power now, i think they would wait until after the midterm elections. have done this over the years at points. in this case, mitch mcconnell the argument that the election thein eight months, american people should have a say before there is a hearing on supreme court justices, democrats are in a similar position now, less than six months before the elections.

so i think you're right. but this is a consequence. it is very hard to say to a political party that we get to break the rules, we get to violate the norms and not have a supreme court hearing but you hold yourself to a higher standard so we can get all of our things done. other sideon is the of the claim to the previous caller who was expressing the frustration that we try to abide by the norms and get run over. that this fever breaks in general for both parties. i think it probably will take a couple of elections to reset the dynamic in washington. i frankly think it is asking a lot for democrats, given this president attacking them and

completely undoing the obama legacy to say that, this is what will garner bipartisan support. it would take it to front set of issues. there is confined space for common ground. host: among many things you write about in the book, there's a photo in the book showing obama making the announcement and your infant six-day-old daughter in front of the screen. tells about that process? and what do you think about the trump administration's reversal of some of this policy? guest: to me, it was one of the most exciting things we did a government. we led secret negotiations with the cubans. which ultimately led us to the vatican. and it really was a powerful thing to produce a bit into. essentially putting it

difficult. of our time against us. and in our first meeting with the cubans, i described that they went through the bay of pigs invasion. and castro and the cuban missile crisis. all these grievances that build up. and i wasn't even born when those things happened. i think it did express a bigger point in cuba and that congress can work through issues with dialogue. could improvee --es of the people in cuba we wanted to help cubans. clearly what we were doing wasn't working. more permission were reaching the cubans.

it would be more likely to open up political change. libertarians like that idea. many believe that open markets -- that there were opportunities could sell them and if you put this to a vote in congress, the embargo would go away tomorrow because there is a lot of republican support for it. there are voices that are well placed to put a hard line against cuba in both parties. marco rubio on the republican

side. that trumprienced is is having a missed opportunity. he essentially hit the pause button. the chief thing i can say is that in his announcement, he cast this as wanting to help the cuban people but they hated this. these people are now isolated again. the cuban people are suffering again. cuba is not becoming more democrat. we are once again beating them over the head. if we are into did in the actual outcome, opening up to a place that is 90 miles from florida seeing that --

host: (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independent callers. caller: good morning. as a former national security advisor, what you see is the role of world poverty aid and how do you see the position change through the trump administration in washington and amongst americans around the country? and what the repercussions were of this change in how world leaders perceive the americans. guest: an important question and a tough one. first, we are talking about a the money percent of

we spend. and it does enormous good. some of it is about saving lives. hiv-eightssh's initiative saved millions of lives. so for instance, when the ebola epidemic took place, our ability to strengthen the public south -- the public health system in africa save lives. you can go down the list. foreign assistance makes life better for us. the ability to try to improve situations for government. their -- itent for

comes back to the united states. my concern there is that we see a slashing of that assistance. i think it has a number of repercussions. number one, this could harm a lot of people. people rely on this to prevent .isease and on a human level, america should always be the leader of the world and solve problems and make life better. ourndly, it will prevent capacity to deal with issues. at a fraction of the cost. the most obvious one was a military. than costs a lot more preventing a war. you money money we're spending on enforcement actions, potentially on a wall, we get

that their investments in central america in preventing the flow of people through the border. the reason people come through the border isn't because it is easy, it is because people don't want to stay where they are because they are at grave risk of islands or destitution. this is what we try to do at the end of the obama years. it could dramatically cut down people.flow of could take1 billion on cutting down the people seeking to reach. seems like, why do we spend this money and other countries, it can also be in our own interest.

i think it hurts us as the leader of the world when we walk away from these programs. other countries are supporting them. the united states, part of the leadership roles in the world is that we build collective action for how we solve these problems. and we walk away from the table, we isolate ourselves. and other countries like china take our place. china provides a lot of assistance to latin america and southeast asia. that if we walk away from the field, the chinese will be the ones to replace us. a very different view of how the world should be organized and our world will suffer. been is next on the democrat line. thank you for accepting my call. i want to make a statement. i served 25 years where we have in massachusetts

don't try tot and humiliate republicans. we attempt to work together. we have a good working relationship with the republican governor. at time that i served -- least on four different occasions. toyou end up trying cooperate and give the best outcome. that the government can provide to the constituency. i wanted to talk a little bit and ask you a question -- you have a good name, my name is i haven't read your book but i plan to. i have listened to you and i respect the perspective you provide. that when obama was create ahe tried to working relationship with the

republican party. you explained why that didn't happen already. but he did try. and among his effort, he also appointed members to his cabinet. he kept james comey, the head of the fbi. gates, who wasn't a republican but he tried to -- he appointed some directly. just rotation, environmental. i would like for you to talk how he tried to cooperate in terms of government. i don'tthis president, know any who have been appointed. called bobnk he gates, yoda? guest: his view was that you

needed continuity. bob gates had the understated political way of providing advice. very calm. obama did call him yoda. and i think to the callers point, there are a couple of ways. one is yes, by appointments. we kept the fbi director appointed by george w. bush, bob mueller, a repeated republican appointee. and then we appointed james comey who was also a republican. ray lahood was appointed. to thewas appointed veterans affairs. gregy to appoint judge through the commerce department but ultimately he did pullout at the end because he saw the direction it was going.

another important point, the health care bill, everybody forgets that it has become so contentious. on as actually paste republican idea passed by mitt romney. provided universal health care. single-payerrsue a system.ed we had a republican thinking when you had a system in place -- mitt romney promoted

that plan and he had to tie whyelf in knots to explain the same plan he was for as governor was terrible now that obama did it as president. in this opportunity. trying to find the common ground , we see that happening now. and you are right to be frustrated. it is enough to say to democrats that you have to work with republicans, they have to work with you. host: let's go to nick, next. caller: i am a retired, disabled veteran. awould like to ask your guest

little bit about the robert mueller investigation. it has been over a year. either there is nothing to the this is the most incompetent investigating team with $18 million and 17 people. isn't it time for a second special investigator or special counsel to be appointed to look into the doj and fbi stuff? because whether you like him or trump i think president is the best president we have had in the last hundred years do, because of -- so if allegations cooperationking for with democrats, quick looking at the false negatives. treason orshould be conspiracy to commit conspiracy. he is my president. along with millions of other people.

i want him to get the job done. i am tired of this. guest: thank you for your service to the country. hadnoller -- bob mueller nothing to do with the appointment of the special counsel. what happened was that jeff assions recused himself and republican trump appointee, rob rosenstein appointed bob mueller to the special counsel. a firmer appointee of joy shall be bush. so this isn't an investigation being run by nancy pelosi. mans an investigation by a who was the attorney general -- four, again, on behalf of a republican led justice department. inis important to note that , we let the rule

of law run its course. and to suggest that nothing has come of the last year or so of the investigation -- there have been more indictments of people in this investigation than anyone i can remember. you have the president former national security adviser, the campaign chairman and a number of others who have very been indicted. the campaign chairman is in prison as we can now. so it isn't as if they are not finding crime. keep in mind that some of these haves -- some people immunity. they reached plea agreements. so the notion that this has uncovered nothing? it has uncovered a lot. some of it isn't even special counsel are -- special counsel findings. it is the fbi or other things.

i think that what the stakes here is that it is a nonpartisan principle. is the rule of law in the any powerdependent of including the president of the united states? whoever is president russian justthat he can't arbitrarily shut that down. and i don't know what robert mueller is going to find. but i do believe that you don't interfere in an ongoing investigation of an important matter. people would like to move on, i think whether or not russia interfered with our election in collusion or coordination with the trump affect the outcome, that is an important question. not just because criminal activity may have taken place but because they will do it again. have saidn appointees they expect russia to interfere in the midterm election and the general election.

it was always the republican party that wanted to stand up to russia. that was ronald reagan and john mccain. so i understand the frustration but they're always need to be investigations. citizen, why would we not want to get to the bottom of what happened? why would we not want there to be some capacity for bob mueller -- let him do his work. it can't go on forever. but let him come up with the full story. and then people can judge for themselves and hopefully our legal system can do the final justin -- the final judgment. twitter, "what should democrats message should the midterms be?" as a basic matter of

politics, let's face it. in thetend to vote midterm elections against something. we experience that in 2010. we saw that with republicans in power. and in the presidential election, you have to have a positive, affirmative agenda. to just oppose trump. so i think that democrats candidly are going to mobilize a lot of voters through opposition to the agenda emanating from trump. i think they can be clear about the values they stand for and what they prioritize. expanding greater health care and trying to fix and reform the immigration system, trying to affect the immigration growth -- i think the policy side is the biggest thing they have done, waysfrankly, has a lot of

to help the american working people. we help the working people on health care and other issues that will unify the party in midterms will be opposition to anmp but then there will be important pivot to say, you know what we are against and what we stand for. here is the agenda we take into the 2020 election. it is you won't defeat him by running against trump. you have to run for something. .ost: we go to jeff thank you for taking my call. do you think that the obama administration should have less forceful on trying to get the ach through? because it seems like when they put it through as soon as they got into office, it seemed like

it caused backlash from the republican party. it got in and punch them in the nose and they didn't recover and then they became obstructions. trump's first thing was to try to get rid of the ach so -- so the aca. do you think they should have been less forceful? what do you think will be the one policy issue that is going to try to bring both parties together? guest: at a minimum, we misjudged how difficult the aca would be. i remember we came in and we get the stimulus for the economic crisis and that spring we pivoted to health care. the feeling was that it would be a few month-long process.

frankly, it ended up dragging on for almost a full year and consumed the political debate. and we, at a minimum, deftly underestimated the opposition and the time it would take. there were priorities we didn't get to in the first two years that we still hear about from certain constituency groups which i am sympathetic to. like reform. i didn't work directly on the health care bill. i think we misjudged the difficulty of getting that through. we had trouble with democrats -- joe lieberman cast a deciding vote against the concept of having a public option for the aca which extended things by several months. so i think we were guilty of misjudging the time it would take. and the time it would evoke. to your question, i think them for structure is the obvious choice. country, we have

enormous infrastructure need. transportation needs. roads, bridges, railways, airports. a significant amount of jobs .ould be created there are different ways and models with conservative ideas to finance and infrastructure bank. how much of that comes from spending and how much comes from the private sector. i think there is a clear consensus. and it is important because as technology stands, trade is not what employs workers, it is automation. findve to work hard to demand. whole industries will be what doug i automation.

on aing out consensus world where technology takes those jobs away, that is where i would like to see our jobs -- see our parties work together. host: ben rhodes, what is next for you after the book? i'm going to do a few different things. i still work with obama a little bit. i will travel with him to south africa next week. somewhere -- help him with international work. i have an organization that does deal with the progressive national security debate. so politics and writing and seeing where things lately. host: do you think you will see the former president on the campaign trail? guest: he has taken a low profile. but he will be out there on the

campaign trail. host: ben rhodes, thank you for coming by. we hope you come by again. up ahead, we continue our discussion of trump's pick of brett kavanaugh for the supreme dannenfelserrjorie . we have our cameras up at the court through the program and into the morning. we take a look as folks gather up there. more ahead, stay with us. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a -- >> she saw me sitting in the aisle and she is at least costed at me and said no change. i decided then and there going to get that amendment ratified. >> gregory wasson, the man

responsible for getting the 27th amendment to the constitution ratified -- >> i was in the library downtown austin texas and i came across a book that had an entire chapter devoted to amendments that had passed congress but not enough state legislatures had approved. this one jumped out at me. varying theaw compensation for the services of the senators and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened. and i can remember standing in the aisle holding that book in my head and it was as if lightning had struck. i could feel the pulsating electricity at all. i thought, instead of writing about the equal rights amendment

and this disputed extension in its ratification deadline why don't i instead write about this when memberst says of congress want to adjust their salaries they actively until the next election >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a . washington journal continues. host: joining us to talk about the pic of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court, president of -- what is anthony your organization has interest in that? guest: we care about the courts are we been involved in elections for some time. 2014 was a big year. we are a pro-life organization collecting pro-life senators. 2014de great gains in which led to a great win in the

trump presidency. this led to the nomination of gorsuch, now the nomination of kavanaugh. we need the senate to confirm along with perhaps a democrat or two to confirm this nominee. host: what are your initial thoughts? guest: i think he is highly confirmable. iny much like neil gorsuch background and philosophy. the senate has confirmed neil gorsuch. i think we have 49 solid program life vote from that angle in the senate. we have collins and makowski on record voting for gorsuch before. i mean by the content of his intellect and background but i also mean because this senate has a record of confirming someone just like him. host: do you expect the hearings will directly focus on the issue of roe versus wade, the areas of

individual liberty? guest: i have no doubt this will come up in every hearing. i have no doubt because we have .een through this before especially democratic senators will be asking those questions. pro-choice senators will be asking. there is no way a justice and answer that question ethically they cannot prejudge a case they might be -- that might be coming down the line. , as every other judge that's come before the committee, will get asked those questions because they are great pr but they will not elicit the responses the democratic senators are looking for. marjorie denon -- his nominee for the ninth justice on the supreme court. we welcome your calls, comments and questions.

the number to call for democrats. .202) 748-8001 for republicans and for independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. what do you know of judge kavanaugh in terms of his rulings from -- in particular your focus has been on pro-life issues. what you know if his rulings from the d.c. circuit? d.c.: in general in the circuit but also because he's a teacher, he teaches ibm and harvard, harvard educated guy. he is a textual list. constitutionalist. it boils down to the actual text constitution and the text of statutes as written are the most important piece of evidence of judgment rule on not what they would like it to be. not with their sense of justice would inform them to a farm but actually what the law says. in this case what the

constitution says. that is who he is. that means he has a strong sense of separation of powers that each branch has its own government. power grabs from one branch to the other area of legislative over executive, executive over legislative. he has a keene i watching for that. however you look at it, not -- should not be the job of the court to take away legislative power from the legislative ranch. view believedn my happened when the roe versus wade ruling occurred. host: let me get your reaction publicrrent snapshot of opinion on the issue of abortion. a quinnipiac poll from last week ad they great that there's small gender gap is american

voters agreed 63% to 31% with the supreme court roe versus wade decision. man, 61 percent to 32% while women agree 65% to 32%. the quinnipiac poll five republicans disagree with roe v wade 58% 36%. guest: i think you can see that change over the couple of months. a lot of polls including the poll we released today from the terrorist group that says the american people prefer state legislatures to decide abortion law over the supreme court. vast majorities agreement that. aware inpublic becomes these hearings that is exactly what road disallowed roe versus wade and its decision disallowed state legislatures from enacting their own will in the law then we will see a correction of understanding.

it's understandable that there would be a sense that the only thing roe did was to make abortion illegal in the nation. that's not what it did. because it ran into the constitution are right it shut down every legislatures ability to enact commonsense terms, any of those pieces of legislation into the law. that is wildly unpopular and i think you will see that in poll after poll. host: trump picks kavanaugh for high court. robert bourns writing despite the clamor of the left him right the ruling need not be overturned for the supreme court to uphold best of all state law that would eliminate the abortion clinics in its borders. what has the supreme court decided in the several cases come to before dealing with that issue and of your organization support a fundamental overturning of the court itself

saying overturning roe versus wade decision? guest: we believe the will of the people, the majorities across the country no matter what your state and want to make their way into law. there will be laws that stop portion after the second trimester. secondates even trimester they may submit as a bridge too far. that is what i see happening especially if it is us second or third trimester restriction there's no question that will challenge -- i agree with the writer that it is not necessary to overturn roe to enact all ,orts of safety provisions things around the issue. when we start getting to the gestation at one point two we think this is a moral being that deserve protection? that's when we start to look at

is there is -- is there a constitutional right or do we seek consensus revolving around another place? we find it revolves around another place and that is where -- that would affect roe. it's possible at 20 weeks, maybe not. we will see. host: let's go to marcia in englewood florida on our democrats line. caller: good morning. thejust wondering how pro-lifers can be so hypocritical but if they look around at all these men in congress all these people that are supposedly pro-life, why do they only have two or three kids even though the been married some 20 years? they must be using contraceptives. there have been congressmen

sitting that ran on pro-life in onem but it came out case his wife and his mistress were ordered by him to have abortions. understand the hypocrisy of it. if people open their eyes -- the only kids he's got are those two i guarantee you they are using contraception. guest: if you are correct the pro-life movement took a stance on contraception and the pro-lifers were using contraception and not having children than i did say you would be right but the pro-life movement takes no stance on contraception. before the creation of a child. this is only about after child has been formed so that is where

the area of debate is. not about whether people should have contraception are not. i have not done a poll on how many members of congress how many children. theave nothing to say about process for child has been created. host: wayne on the republican line. caller: good morning to you. i wanted to ask what do you the person that was picked now later down the road like if justice ginsburg retires what you think about the final -- the other three nominees that were picked in this? do you think they would be that ?t again she is a very strong advocate for life. she has seven children. she is a devout catholic and she seems to be right in the middle

of all of that. she's not afraid to speak her mind. i think there is a perfect person for that kind of belief. this country you have people that don't normally talk about abortion but it does bother them in a way. was judge kavanaugh your ?enovation top tech host: doug guest: we believe everyone on green eyester shading and taking a look at records everyone on the list was was and having the list unifying civil discipline. i will say amy kavanaugh -- amy somebody womenas would have loved. not because necessarily her profile because of the identity because but certainly

she is a respected jurist right. beloved by her students. just a fantastic person. she's also young and has not been a judge for very long soak possible in the future. host: vanessa next republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a thought. why has it not been spoken about maybe the trumps really convinced kennedy to resign. i thought it was interesting when he first came into office that his daughter visited kennedy with her little daughter at the court. now all of a sudden we had kennedy is retiring. i feel like we are being bamboozled by the republicans -- not just the republicans but the divisiveness in america and we have someone who's bringing out that divisiveness and we don't

know a lot. the public is really getting lost in all the stories. the ones that should be important are not being spoken about. why did she visit kennedy when he came into office and now he's retired? ofst: that is an area crystal ball work i am not privy to. i do know for the last year and a half there have been rumors almost every six months by kennedy was going to retire. another thing i'm hundred percent sure of and i know some of these justices, the most independent group of humans you will ever meet. i profoundly respect and think they think independently. i could not disagree with anyone in the bottom line with ruth bader ginsburg. kennedy the same. no one can i believe's way that man off his mark. he was ready to retire and so he

did. if we want to look for difficulties and division -- i feel it too. .t is a tough place to live certainly in the swamp but across the nation. and i do think getting back to this abortion issue is there a more divisive issue? more rancor or difficulty involving any issue you can think of? the reason for that, we as citizens were disenfranchised from our ability to enact laws into the register that would reflect our view of what this means. host: let's hear from mike in virginia. republican line. caller: i think people are getting wound up over roe versus wade for nothing. the odds on thing getting .verturned are miniscule if it were to be overturned, it

would be from a case coming before the court where the justices were having to reconsider whether or not roe versus wade was decided properly in the first place. decision back over the , i see that the whole idea of the constitutional right was created out of whole courts from an amendment that deals with unreasonable search and seizure that has to do with a person's papers and effects of property. instead, it has been turned into an amendment governing morals. it is astounding that has stood the test of time like that. came before the court and you had a bunch of originalists on the court looking at this from the standpoint of what were the

founders, what were the framers actually trying to prevent -- because remember the constitution is not about the people. it is about the federal government. the laws that govern the government. they would have to look at this from the standpoint of what is the intent of the framers. does this case actually have whether a person wants to go through a pregnancy or not. guest: i think it is a very astute point. the reason there was so much brouhaha is there is dramatic misunderstanding about what it is. if we stop even using that word and started talking about the people in states have the right to have their legislators pass laws that have to do with this issue that i think there would be less rancor.

there's so little understanding of what the decision is. this is a moment educate the country. you are very astute also to say it's of course going to depend upon the case. roe has already been recast from its original meaning to sort of the trimester system shaken up and viability was a standard. ifuess the question would be a 20 week bill on the federal challenge up to the supreme court from the states with the supreme court see this in violation of roe versus wade. now 20 weeks is close to viability. viability has changed every decade one week. viability has moved back one week every decade since roe so that is the standard that is moving and changing difficult to base law on. it's a big i don't know.

is what you do know cited earlier about what people poll after poll shows that people in state want their legislatures and on the federal level to legislate this rather than supreme court. host: broader issue was raised by republican senator susan collins. she was on abc and she said this about resident. she said the supreme court's nominee position will tell me about whether or not they would overturn roe v wade. the candidate of this position who would overturn roe v wade would not be acceptable to me because that would indicate an activist agenda i don't want see a judge have and i would indicate to me a failure to respect precedent as a fundamental tenet of our judicial system. guest: that makes total sense from her perspective and from the perspective of anyone who thinks president are stabilizing

force and our democracy. that is why we have been marching for decades over this one decision. there's only one justice who has said they would overturn roe and that is just as thomas. -- that is justice thomas. they each, with roberts in the lead have spoken to and written much on the value and necessity of resident and what an ominous spots ability it is to consider has part of their job description, to work out from those decisions. so i don't believe that anyone can say for sure. i'm not a legal scholar. i can say that as a person who agrees with the vast majorities of this country, including women

, we should see laws put on the books that would protect a child at least after 20 weeks. we are one in seven nations that has failed to do that. we are in the club of the ,ietnam, north korea, china among nations who have refrained to do that. that puts us in a human rights category we cannot afford to be a. -- we cannot afford to be in. host: our democrats line, welcome. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for washington journal. in its the show impartial views. the question i would like to ask against alle you the organizations? all forms of abortion? what about the case of rape? cest or when the mother's

life could be in danger? mental defects that could not function as a human being. that is my understanding why these abortions happen. host: allen, we will get a response. guest: look at it this way. if you think an abortion is a moral equivalent of an ,ppendectomy or tonsillectomy which is what planned parenthood and other organizations are on the left characterize this procedure as, it makes no sense and the pro-life movement majority of americans are pushing for, restrictions on abortion. where they are now, where i am now, where the congress, the house the senate and presidency are, is to come up with common ground -- common ground consensus on this issue after fighting for decades. we do not have a majority on

extremes on either side of the do have vast majorities and till, an 18 20 week week bill. if we are ever to regain civility, compassion for each other, for women and unborn children, it will be because this is the area where we focus and the only way we will make progress in that area is if judges allow us to do it. host: a look at a full-page ad running in some selected papers across the country. trump has been loud and clear in saying he would pick supreme court justices to end roe versus wade. and at targeted at susan collins. livingston is with us. independent line. caller: good morning. the people say they are pro-life

and care so much about saving the infant's life. why don't they start an organization that detects the ?ife of that baby try to help if that baby comes ?re they willing to help start an organization that can help the people. think --le i don't that must be a reason. ways butame a million they can't come up with one idea to help that baby when the baby is alive. to help the mother to make sure they don't -- too much percy in this country. correct iyou are would be angry. in fact to or not. only is my organization focused on that but there's a vast

network of organizations house the country. centers.nancy care a great number of them do exactly what you say. they are diving off the process .f pregnancy whether a woman is planning to be a parent or allowing the child to be adopted by another family that process is holistic. cares about her health. mental, spiritual, physical welfare and that of her child. i believe we have a responsibility to address those needs. something my organization is deeply involved in. saying yes to women and children. dannenfelser is our guest. here is that poll available at sba -- list.org. majority of battleground state voters want to confirm kavanaugh. a new poll finding majority voters in senate battleground states want

president trump supreme court nominee confirmed. read more online. we hear from don who's in san clemente california. caller: hello, c-span. washington journal, good morning . marjorie, you answered my question i was going to ask so i will ask a new one. do you think coach k will get through the senate? i know there's about 10 states trump flipped. they're sitting in a red state now. dave think they're going to go against schumer? guest: a perfect question on the heels of the polling you just cited. the polling your cited came from senate battleground states. states were there are sitting democrats and red, purple states

where trump won. those democrats are feeling the heat. those democrats will be hearing from us starting today. rallies are going on now and calls like and and the ones we saw from the other side. all communicating through those sitting senators how vital it is that they vote for this nominee. i love coach k because i had not thought about that. i will give you an tradition from now on. the have a lot in common. host: your organization initially did not support president trump but then changed. the hill reports you sent out mailers in the iowa caucuses urging voters did the best at pick literally any other candidate. changed in your view on the president? i have never found a moment i was so happy to be so wrong.

it does not occur all that often. i was wrong. adid not know he would be person that would live up to his promises at that point. and that point a lot of those promises that we received from him had not happened yet. in thatpened was change, a commitment to do certain things. one was to nominate a supreme court justice like when we had today. i don't know if there is another issue he's been so consistently full of integrity on than the pro-life issues from the minute he took office, even for this even before. very happy to be wrong on that and i'm happy to rescind the record. the: notably helped by federal society. also by the heritage foundation. did your organization provide

input to the president or to his office in terms of supreme court pick? guest: we did not and jurist to that list. ,e have the constant gadfly making sure the right questions are being asked. the list it was delivered to us from greater legal minds in my own. , made sure everyone of those that there was reason to believe that they were people who cared about what the constitution says rather than what they would like to read. host: about 10 more minutes of .alls. we hear from brian next ellicott city, maryland on her democrats line. caller: good morning. i had a question as far as what you and your organization costs stand is as far as guns with relation to the abortion issue. if your organization is truly

pro-life and all of its stages you would most likely be anti-gun. is that true or are you mainly focused on life only when it's inside the mother's? stand.we take one that when the human being has been created it is wrong to kill it before birth. that is very different from the battle over gun rights. this is the most fundamental human right being debated on the face of the earth at this moment whether you have the right to live or not. to read in the area when i breathe. once a child has been created should we decide only certain ones measure up to our standards ? values are not -- does it and anything to his world? say isg else we would

inviolable when it comes to human rights other than life? secondly we have to start with that one. comparing it with gun rights is when down the line you party been granted the right to live and you chosen to buy gun. that is something of a qualified nor care to comment on. host: roger, greensburg indiana independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have one question for everybody. have a better understanding on abortion. is there any records that show how many people get abortions and why? that might help us understand the issue. thank you. guest: there is a lot of data on that. experiences over 800,000 abortions per year. from ages 18 to

40 generally around that 20 to 25 age group. are over and over and over again categorized as more reasons of birth control. what thes sense given planned parenthood promotion is. if you really think it is not a human than it is basically the equivalent of contraception. anything that any right we should afford to them along the way ma? if you think it is just any other medical procedure seeing it as another method of control makes sense. the experience of women since 1973, the pain and difficulty,

remorse and regret saying other children on sonograms, seeing there own children on sonograms is a constant argument to them that maybe there is nothing else there, not just an appendix that means taking out another person that needs love in addition to the woman carrying the child. this.ryan tweets with regard to the importance of the separation of powers could you elaborate on how mitch mcconnell's congressional blockade of sitting presidents -- talking about the merrick garland pick by president obama. guest: i think it is simple. i -- i will not speak for him but i will speak about him. i hope senator mcconnell sees as so important to preservation of the

constitution. that that trumps every other consideration and its should. on herere sean next up democrats line. caller: how are you doing? calling in reference to the supreme court. i would like to read alexander hamilton us federalist papers statement. the concept of judicial review is for the supreme court to ensure the will of the people who will of the legislator. even when it comes to abortion issues there's no specific law out there. just like right now trump is trying to sign legislature and i think the supreme court was designed to help break that. to separate those branches. deadlocked when it

comes to this row versus wade i --'t think it's fair host: we will let you go. guest: i hear an argument in your room. host: that is actually something -- guest: that is something this nominee believes strongly in. the three branches of government how it is so vital for them to know what their powers are and what they are not. when one oversteps the other we create great civil unrest and in no other issue could you see that in stronger highlights in the issue of abortion. when the supreme court justices made up a constitutional right and basically legislated from the bench striking down every single state law that existed in this nation, and disenfranchised every citizen and legislature

and make sure that they could not do what democracies do best and our democracy does best, hash it out, argue and then come to consensus and put that consensus into law. often nobody is completely pleased, but at least we come to some common ground in the marches perhaps could fall away a bit in the vitriol could fall away a bit. people at planned parenthood wouldn't be sending trolls into public office. people's twitters and things to make them miserable. in thisle of meanness has got to go away in the only way of the is if what you pointed out becomes a reality. that legislatures are allowed to enact will of the people into the issue of life and death. host: a few more calls on the presidents pick you how calling from toledo washington.

. caller: i got early to try and catch what's been going on. i'm 84 years old now. my parents were given the choice of saving my mother or me. could not save both that was in 1934. my mother was thrown from a taxi in the fifth month of pregnancy and was packed in ice and a time to try and save -- packed in ice in a tub to try to save her life. 14 -- i left the meeting and about a block and a -- i went toeard the doorway and by that time i badgefirst eight marriage -- first eight merit badge. i found a woman lying in blood.

i did not know what an abortion was at that point. i had no way of doing anything for the woman. i found a police officer in me to keep quiet about it. the chief of police was a friend of our family came to our home and thanked me for what i've done and then i learned what it was. as far as i'm concerned god bless the individual. each has to sign his own signature and that's the way we live our life. we are also given free will. from a judicial standpoint and look at the constitution the explanation in the federalist papers, and i see in federalist 10 that we should not have ortatorships of the majority the minority. women should have control over her body. i should not. law is an evolving thing. i heard your guest comment on other nations of the world only

one of three in the world that has this right for a woman to have an abortion? i hear constant comments from the same side of the political aisle that the supreme court should not look to jurisdiction in other countries as to where our laws should stand. that's an argument that seems to be perilous for the sincerity of your guest. host: i will let you go. thanks for your call. that: several comments deserve addressing. i'll start with the last. statistic, one in seven nations is only about permitting abortion after 20 weeks. most nations in the world rest of andll the after that point. united states pick no place along the continuum where it

thinks it is an equal more of being to you and me. most americans, especially women , believe there is a point. is it after birth? ? month or two after birth there has to be some point. when i was very pro-choice i said what you said, i need to have control over my own body so that i can make decisions that are good for me. now i know and so do most people , it does not take a mother to know this, if it was a matter of your own body would be one thing . it's a matter of two human being already created we have to think of them both. woman is going to force a in terms of her own death to give up her life for another child. that is obviously a matter of will and no one should be required to do that. no one is or will be.

i think it's fair to think deeply about what those people deserve. what kind of love and protection they deserve. host: marjorie dannenfelser is president of the susan b anthony list. you did follow their tweet updates during the confirmation process. thanks for being with us. we have open phones until 10:00. it can talk about the presidents pick or any other topic we touched on. we will update you on the situation in thailand with the rest of the boys trapped in that .ave and reopened phone lines be right back. >> sunday night on q and a --

>> she came back a few days later she saw me sitting in the aisle and she physically tossed it at me and said no change. i decided right then and there are going to get that amendment ratified. >> gregory wasson the man responsible for getting the 27th of to the constitution ratified. downtownin the library austin texas and i came across a book that had an entire chapter devoted to amendments that passed congress but not enough state legislatures had approved. this one jumped right out at me. it said no law varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives shall take effect until election of representatives shall have intervened. and i can remember standing in

the aisle, holding that book in my hand and it was as if .ightning hedge drug i could feel the pulsating electricity of it. instead of writing about the equal rights amendment in this disputed extension its ratification deadline what my instead write about this amendment that says when members of congress want to adjust their salaries they have to wait until the next election? >> sunday night on c-span askew 's q and a. host: it is open phones until 10:00 eastern. our live coverage in the aftermath of the pick of brett kavanaugh. live eastern we will be

chuck schumer, dianne feinstein and others rallying of the capital. that's coming up at 10:30 eastern. .e will have it live on c-span open phones until 10:00. any news item you want to talk about. very good news out of thailand. .ave rescue all 12 boys and soccer coach freed from the caves. that is good news indeed. back to the issue of the presidents pick up brett kavanaugh for the supreme court. front page of the washington post as a mentioned. three articles focusing on the selection. conservative judge has strong ties to republican establishment. robert barnes writing mr. cavanaugh's link to the bush clinical dynasty gave trump cause and he peppered associates with questions about whether "my base would embrace him."

cavanaugh'sd conservative judicial record made up for concerns about how some of these core backers would view the pick, officials said. let's go to clean in swansboro, georgia on her democratic line. caller: good morning. that young lady but it is so hard to get through here. i want to comment on this. i'm going to make a quick. side the bible says take nothing you can't give back. i feel like if you don't want these babies why do you live down and get them? my mother taught me if you are good enough to lay down and get them you should be good enough to test god is not pleased with that.

when they first get there on the board where is it later on? they throw it away. another thing about why don't -- coming in on these things because i'm a democrat but i believe in -- nothing slide to go through. you're supposed to get together and love one another and do the right thing for your people. host: a tweet came in earlier for our guest. this one from colorado on a why ourissue saying infant and mortality rates so high united states we are the outlier of developed nations. we hear from madeleine, republican line. ifler: i would like to say people knew their bible and

believed in god we would not abortions. abortions. we were not be fighting to bring the country down. party whatup for any i am saying as a person who believes strongly in god, if we read our bible there would be no abortion and no fighting likes going on in her country. thank you for taking my call. host: brian in woodbridge, virginia. . caller: most of these religious people confuse fetuses, reproductive cells with babies. reproductive cells are when they first get conceived before the third trimester, they are reproductive cells are in their

not human beings. if they become full-term they will become human beings. are expired cells all of time. what these religious people are trying to do, force people to reproduce against their will. contraceptives are not 100% effective. rate so% failure someone does not want to have a them tothey would force reproduce against their will anyway just like animals out in the fields and the argument about well if you don't want to have babies don't have sex, nobody wants to have an accident in the car, stop driving? horse is is a trojan designed to legislate religious values on other people. they have a right to their beliefs. if they don't want to have an abortion that is their choice but don't try to make me or my

wife or mother my child a of birthbecause control failure and you decide you don't want to reproduce and have a family night you are a criminal because my beliefs is the bible should not kill. the bible was written by men, not god. caller: i'm calling on the democratic line. i don't know how you figure all democrats are for abortion. no one wants abortions. when women fell it to anger orse something like that or they knew a guy or a lady that could do this type of thing. around thes been beginning of time as far as i know. thesepeople giving

figures, 800,000 babies a year, 6 million babies, you could come up with all kinds of figures. knows what really? criminal? you put her to death for killing somebody? it's a divisive thing in this country. the country divided -- house divided against itself will fall. host: thanks for your call, richard. resident from departing washington this morning leaving for the summit in brussels. he will also be in the u.k. on friday meeting with queen elizabeth at the windsor castle. the new york times writing about the overseas trip. a four-day u.k. tour with protests at every stop. in london a giant orange balloon

debating him as a baby having a tantrum will float over parliament. a wall of sound featuring marriott chain music and the cries of children and tension centers calling out for their parents. a carnival of resistance involving throwing rubber boots at a trumped all. i look at the doll in the new york times this morning they photographed as part of the protest of the president's visit to the u.k. we hear from mike next in highland, new york. i i does have a couple of comments. never been a better time to be an american. i think the democratic national communist need to get on board. thank you. host: how you drink your coffee in the morning may change. business section of the wall street journal, starbucks and hyatt hotels saying they will

phase out the use of plastic straws. joan is on our democrat line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. all the things happening to donald trump he brought upon himself. he does not think of this country first. what i want to speak to his abortion. . in the 1950's my grandmother had what would have been called a retarded child. her name happened to be joanne. as she reached puberty boys started touching her inappropriately and all of these things. in the 1950's nothing was happening. my grandmother ended up shooting her daughter and herself because there was no place for her to go for this kind of situation. the woman just on speaking there are two human beings in the body

in terms of the woman in the child, it is simply not that. totally and completely pro-choice because every hasation is different and different reasons and wants and desires. no woman ever wants to have an abortion. there's got to be a serious situation to consider that. of course there are reckless people in the world but they are reckless in every way. ?here are the men why are they not responsible for impregnating women in the first place and having some kind of accountability for what they have done to the one in the first place? have a beautiful day. host: david is next on the republican line. caller: this last speaker touched my heart. she makes valuable points.

women do not want abortions. there are long-term consequences to the mother. her challenger to those were pro-life to really step up. we need to make it easier and better and less dishonorable for women who do not want to be pregnant to carry their pregnancy through the term for adoption. i think one of the problems pro-choice people they may not understand about the conceived child, between conception and death life is a continuum. significant that event. between conception and death development process all the way through aging, one continuum. the child is no less human conception. circulations are separate

between the child and the mother. the child would die that happens. genetically completely different individuals. when the ama was founded, and completely pro-life organization. and it was well-established for a long time that life begin at conception in the medical profession. there are not enough resources. it will bring their money where their mouth is what comes to protecting the unborn and assisting mothers who would rather not have abortions. mothers who did not want to be pregnant, they were cared for in homes outside normal environment and it was acceptable for them to disappear -- itwhile and it was not

was recognized that pro-life with the acceptable solution. host: appreciate you weighing in with your comments. a protest on the steps of the supreme court. a number of groups. interesting side like about that. some of the video from last night. we covered all of that. you can see that at c-span.org. will be back of the court for a rally with senate democrats at 10:30 eastern. why the point out this article in the hollywood order about shannon brame. write that post the tweet of shannon brame. very few times i felt threatened out the field. the mood is very volatile. the decision to move her show away from the steps of the supreme court. try to get a couple more calls.

the independent line to hear income bill,en california. caller: thank you for taking my call. floridaman from complaining about the length of the russian investigation going on with the mother investigation right now. i wanted to remind your viewers that the event as a select committee, that investigation laste over 2.5 yearsd and found no wrongdoing from secretary clinton. kevin mccarthy did say why they were doing it. there were doing it to destroy her politically. that hurt her in the 2016 election. thank you for doing such a great job. host: glad to have you dial in. to dilute. leah, republican.

caller: i would like to comment on the gentleman who called in and said it's not a baby it's just sperm and sells and eggs. so not true. week 4.es heartbeats at the gentleman could not have said that more eloquently and lady who called in with the special needs child that ended in tragedy, i taught down syndrome children and there's nothing more to life than what they give to us. the whole abortion bank is about responsibility -- the whole abortion thing is about responsibility. there is also a spiritual component that you are responsible for your own soul. if you're for abortion and utilitarian you are responsible for your. soul. host: thanks for the calls and comments this morning. we're back on c-span and c-span radio from washington journal .very day 7:00 a.m. eastern

we will see you tomorrow. ♪ >> the c-span bus is traveling on our 50 capitals to her. the folks what is the most important issue in alaska? >> the issue most important to me is the environment. the number one fishing port in ,he nation, as you can imagine it weighs heavily on the seafood industry. the industry has the potential to be wiped out. >> i'm running for governor of

alaska. i was born and raised in alaska. weave three platform issues need to take care of. one is the budget plan. one is protecting the dam and giving money back to the people. i want to give it all back with interest. i think it is the right of the people to be able to keep the resources at last. thank you. the children suffering throughout the united states, people come in throughout the borders, etc. are. i am x -- i am upset they have taken mr. trump to task for this child abuse.

i would like to see the stop allowingral this to happen. that is just one issue. i want to welcome people to visit alaska. we have a lot to offer here. lots of kids are having fun. i am santa claus missing you a very merry christmas. >> for me, the future of alaska. i am concerned about it. i am concerned because we have the highest health care costs in the country. highest unemployment in the country. rapidly changing environment. thatptimistic despite because our people support

stronger education. there is a big debate in our state. our university has a plan and we are committed to investing in that plan to build our people, to strengthen our future so we are more competitive nationally and internationally as we look to the next venture. >> be sure to join us july 21 and july 22 when we will feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> last night president trump nominated bret kavanaugh to the u.s. supreme court. he became a federal judge in 2006. prior to that he worked for kenneth starr's investigation into the clinton administration. judge kavanagh serve as a lawyer and staff secretary for george

w. bush. coming up, we will hear from chuck schumer and other democrats on the senate judiciary committee which holds confirmation hearings for justices. watch live coverage on c-span. some of the supreme court announcement from last night. >> i am pleased to say that i have found without doubt such a person. tonight, it is my honor and privilege to announce i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. [applause]

>> they do not stand and give applause like that very often. they have some respect.

their two daughters have joined us on the podium. congratulations to you as a family. >> mr. president, thank you. throughout this process i have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the american judiciary. no president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more tople for more backgrounds seek input about a supreme court nomination. mr. president, i am grateful to you. i am humbled by your confidence in me. ago, president reagan nominated anthony kennedy to the supreme court. the framers established the