history of confirmations in the senate. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ tot: president trump heads florida today to address the international association of chiefs of police annual convention around 1:30 this afternoon. the president will travel back to washington for the ceremonial swearing-in of associate justice brett kavanaugh. you can see that at 7:00 on c-span. for the next hour, we want to get your assessment of the state of politics, especially after the last few weeks of the kavanaugh confirmation process and his swearing-in. perhaps you think that country is deeply politically divided. perhaps you think the country

will amend after what occurred. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 if you want to post on our twitter feed, you can do so @cspanwj and then you can post on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. david brooks, the columnist had a piece on saturday taking place after the confirmation of brett kavanaugh taking a look at the politics, particularly the state of u.s. politics as it played out over the process and he has this thoughts saying what we saw in the hearings was the unvarnished tribal is asian of national life. ofthe heart -- tribalization national life. these narratives were about what or what did not happen at a party 36 years ago. there was nothing particularly ideological.

nothing that touched on any of the great national disputes. it reactions to the narrative have been determined almost entirely by party affiliation. those who support democrats asey'sing bl narratives. i can think of few exceptions. these hearings were a devastating blow to intellectual humility. he talks a little bit about the divided politics of the united states, particularly after the kavanaugh confirmation process and we want to get your thoughts on the state of u.s. politics after what you have seen play out the last few weeks and with the confirmation of brett kavanaugh last week. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. on facebook this morning, alan

says after watching this process play out, i don't care about this country anymore. we have the absolutely corrupt running of the countries. they no longer represent freedom. ray adding his thoughts saying the left-wing socialist are being exposed more and more for the evil people they are. democrats have no agenda to enhance the lives of americans. they are calm you list -- commonest and club -- globalists. president trump is a true outsider dedicated to helping americans and maintain our constitutional republic. the state of u.s. politics after the kavanaugh confirmation process. the lines are available to you if you want to call and you can post on social media. democrats line, john starts us off from district heights, maryland. what do you think about politics after what we have seen the last few weeks?

caller: i am not surprised based on how it is controlled by big money from citizens united. what my problem is is how they were crying and whining about this man's reputation at the same time the decisions he will make will affect millions of people for the next four or five decades. they are comparing his reputation to what he will be doing to the nation. if anybody cannot see how one-sided and imbalanced that is, something is wrong. host: when it comes to the divide in the country, do you think this will eventually heal and move on? how long do you think this plays out? caller: this will be here for the next generation because young people -- i am 74 years old. 18 and up who witnessed this and saw this? they were -- this will stick with them. they will never forget what they chuckth this one-sided -- grassley and mitch mcconnell.

it will never heal. host: let's hear from wayne in alabama, independent line. caller: i look at this as a game. as a contest. for thevanaugh was up judge. i live down the road -- in comparison, i live down the road just couple blocks from an elementary school and they have . ball field in the school there will be one team and they will play against the other and when the game is over, we have one team that lost and another team that won. these are people -- children and elementary school and they will go through and shake each game ishand after the over. one team lost, one team won, but you see adults in the democrat party that continue to act like

a fool. that no matter what happens, no matter which way we go, the democrat party is caring america apart. host: if you made the comparison to the baseball field, but you are calling out democrats. i am assuming you represent more of a conservative side, how do they come together? caller: that is just it. the republicans are trying to build up america. him -- butote for what president trump is doing is .rying to make america better even with all the pushback from the democrat party, he is still making jobs. i have some investments. i am disabled and this is part of my retirement.

in the two years that president trump has been in -- the investments that i have have literally over double. host: that is wayne in alabama. steve in california, republican line. caller: the problem is the liberal media and their continued bias in terms of returning -- reporting the news. the service the team to left. that is a fact. for republicans to win, they have to beat the elite liberal media and the democratic party. host: when you say the media is a factor and that it is a fact, what do you point to specifically? caller: you know how the media works, it starts with the new york times and virtually every other major paper in the country is liberal.

the liberals control abs -- abc, -- guest: conservative -- host: there are conservative news outlets out there, too? caller: yes, but not nearly the volume. i learned something new on fox news every day. conservativeny representative -- host: that is steve in california and talks about the media's role in the state of u.s. politics particularly after the confirmation of brett kavanaugh. "trump has broken democracy apart. john mccain was right on one of his last speeches, it is not the republican party anymore, it is the party of trump." internet economist off of twitter saying that of the proceedings involved dr. blasey ford pertinent of a confirmation of us up in court -- of a

supreme court justice of america. ifebook is available to you you want to post on our twitter feed as well. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 getting your thoughts on the state of u.s. politics after kavanaugh's confirmation process and his nomination to the supreme court. carl in illinois, democrats line. in chicago. hi. caller: how are you doing, pedro? host: i am fine, thank you. caller: it is interesting. goesirst two calls already to my point. i am 65 years old and i think a i tried toproblem is be objective.

i am a lifelong democrat, but i see this change. it started basically after reagan. ,epublicans, for some reason took it as it is their birth right to run this country. and what i saw this year with the confirmation is their party has basically become corrupted and they don't even know they are corrupted. it's not corruption by taking money, but corrupted in the sense that how power corrupts you. it blinds you. host: how did you see that play out in the kavanaugh process? thing no one in the process notice is this. the nominee you put to the

supreme court can be from the democrat side or the republican side. at least the majority of people you would expect would be able to support that person. host: in mississippi, independent line. caller: good morning. i wanted to say how great it was about a month ago when you all had a gentleman on from congress talking about the secular coalition within congress. i wanted to say two things. said itefferson bit -- very clearly, the united states is in no way founded on the christian religion. i find it important to remind people of the fact that we live in a secular country. with that, i think it is very important since both parties are controlled primarily by christians for a socialist party that is secular in nature to try to emerge as a third option for people who don't want to try to convert the constitution to christianity, but convert

christians to the constitution. host: how does that apply to the kavanaugh confirmation process? caller: absolutely. i have been following the live feed every day and so much of the conversation is about whether or not kavanaugh is a good christian. he invokes god all the time and that language is a distraction. it does not do anything. it is wasted words and i like to focus on the issues. host: this is the front page of usa today to talk about this issue of political divide. no i rolling, no yelling, no pointing fingers. they sat in a circle republicans democrats. no one pointed fingers, no one yelled at anyone and when it was over, everyone shook hands. 10 people gathered inside a gettysburg church not far from the rolling hills where union and confederate soldiers fought a battle that turned the tide of

the war and tried to find a way to heal the political divisions. -- group that calls it self calls itself politics, fax, and civility had to agree on rules. "we are here to be nice to each other." there is more to this story. you can find that on the website at usa today if you want to view their process and what they talk about in these meetings. robert on a social media saying he is dispirited. who's they are, definitely a low point. apologies -- john says when you hit rock bottom, the healing begins. the left-wing will return as the heart and mind of a big majority speaking of senator mcconnell, he was on the sunday show. fox news sunday specifically

asked about this idea of president trump and looking toward the future, even to 20 and possibly naming a supreme court justice to the court. here is some of that statement from yesterday. [video clip] >> i understand your question and what i told you is what the history of the senate has been. you have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year on the supreme court was confirmed by a senate of a different party than the president. >> if you can answer my direct question -- >> the answer to your question is we will see whether there is a vacancy in 2020. >> you are not ruling out the possibility since you are the republican majority leader that you would go for and push the nomination of a trump nominee in the election year. >> what i am telling you is the history is you have to go back to 1880 to find the last town a senate -- last time a senate controlled party different from

the president fill the vacancy on the supreme court created in the middle of a presidential election year. that has been a history. host: next call comes from jenny in ohio. republican line. caller: yes. i don't know why we have to go back 37 years for these people to come out and accuse him of doing something. i am sure he wasn't picked off the street to be nominated for this position and that woman who calls herself a doctor, she had enough to kurds to go to school, she should have enough courage back then to do something about it. there are a lot of countries laughing at our country because we are falling apart. everybody is so worried and blaming everybody for what they did. it is stupid. host: when it comes to the state

of politics, where do you think we are? caller: i don't know where we are. i think there are good -- andts, bad democrats as far as supreme court judge goes. larry is next from missouri. the state of u.s. politics in light of the kavanaugh confirmation. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, c-span. i am a 20 year democrat and it dis y discuss -- gusts me how my party turned. josh hawley is going to get in. it is what our party did in the isgusts people d in missouri. host: julie, independent line in

minneapolis. you are next up. caller: this is louise. host: go ahead. caller: hi. thank god for c-span. what i want to say is this. my boyfriend is a trump supporter and i voted for hillary. we try hard to stay in our relationship with the divide and the kavanaugh hearing almost really tore us apart. i thought the judge should not be confirmed because of his credibility issues and i thought his temperament was appalling. of course, my boyfriend was, he is defending himself, everything trump is good for him. it is very difficult to say --

host: how did you keep it civil in these last few weeks especially? caller: definitely. we both tried to be open and let each other talk and listen and i can definitely learn and understand some of the things he even though sometimes i don't think so, he does try to understand what i am saying. it should be interesting with the november 6 election. the last thing i want to say is the gentleman who called from missouri, for him to take revenge because of the way the democrats acted for two weeks -- the whole republicans and democrats both acted badly. demsould be happy that the fought as hard as they can toause they were not going confirm anyone easily from

president trump. host: what would be your advice to those who are politically divided whether they are in a household or work face or whatever? where do we go from here, at least from what you have seen? i say what me and my boyfriend try to do because we love each other and want to stay together, we try to work hard and listen to each other and i tried to not ever -- not cot everything he stands for bad and he is trying to not call everything i believe in and the news and watch, try to not call it all fake and evil. speaking of debates in the office over brett kavanaugh, the wall street journal has -- a poll of people in their office places and what they talked about over the last few weeks. the question was has the kavanaugh nomination to the supreme court prompted discussion among people where you work. all respondents saying yes, and

20% not available. democrats amongst those, 56% saying it prompted the conversations. and 57% ofpendent's republicans saying brett kavanaugh's nomination prompted office conversations more among men according to this poll than women, 51% and when it breaks down to age brackets, it was those in the ages of 35 to 64. 56% of those saying brett kavanaugh's nomination did prompt office workplace conversations. this topic came up and how that was handled, particularly about those who on't see eye to eye politics. in alabama, republican line. caller: good morning. first of all, i want to make a comment to the guy from

mississippi. i agree with what he said and knocking religion. i want to be upfront and say i am not religious, i am a christian and i do not believe in abortion. that is murder. second of all, i watch the whole hearing -- watched the whole hearing, the debate and the democrats did attack brett kavanaugh. i watched it. i listened. i did not see any republicans attacking mrs. ford. there was a lot of empty places in her testimony. i listened and i watched her. host: windows things discussed over the last -- when those things were discussed, what does it mean for the country whether it is politically divided are not? caller: the country was divided before this. and really tore it apart

the only way this country is going to come back together is if we pray before we vote. don't vote democrat or republican or independent. you vote the way the lord tells you to vote. you vote for the person who is qualified. host: let's go to charles in dallas, texas. democrats line, hello. hello. i have a couple quick comments and i have a response for the kavanaugh situation. host: why don't you start with the comments of the kavanaugh process and where the state of politics is. caller: i am glad he the vo and --ause people that have lost won because people who lost a situation like this will be more motivated. a sugar high of him not being confirmed versus him being confirmed and the democratic side being much more galvanized and motivated. i am glad about that.

i am not glad about the fact that he will be there to be able to make decisions for decades. in the short term, since everything is so cynical and shortsighted on the other side, let's be short sighted. i am glad he won so that will give energy to democrats to go out and vote and be out in november. host: when it comes to november, were you already planning on voting or did the situation change her mind about voting or sharpen how you look at november and the elections? caller: it is sharpened. it definitely sharpened how i look at november and the election for sure. when he talks -- the viewer talked about politics. if you look at the wall street journal, there is an analysis taking a look at the november elections particularly after what played out last week to read some conclusions in the wall street journal saying ,nalysts said based on polls

the kavanaugh fight in the short term likely refers -- improves republican's chances of keeping the senate and reduces the odds of keeping house majority. the fight for the senate is being waged in states where the president and his court pick are popular where the house battleground is mostly suburban districts more opposed to the president. the kavanaugh fight could reinforce an alignment of the parties that have been accelerated by the trump presidency. is home totic party many people of color and a rising share of female voters. a record number of women are running for office up and down the ballot. the overwhelming majority of them as democrats and many women turned to political activism for the first time in response to the 2016 election. that is in the wall street journal off of facebook. a viewer tagged democrats for liberties say divided as usual, the difference this time is the

president stance a claim -- i apologize for that. -- partisan politics and eventual civil war that will probably pick family members against each other. my investments are doing great. that is some of the ways you can comment this morning. the phone lines and social media. is alan,e -- this independent line. caller: hi, pedro. i am independent. independent of the empire. the saturday night live skit was very insightful in that it tagged both the republican and the democratic parties as being responsible for a lot of the cat calling and so

forth between country and the -- people and the country, which is division within the country. division has always been a major factor of how an empire operate. why dividing and conquering the people. the kavanaugh issue is the fact that of our politics is based on individual issues and large numbers of individual issues. there will be divisions of strikes and conflict between the two parties. before you ask you go on -- can i ask you about susan collins of maine and her part in all of this particularly leading up to the final votes? me, but iu can ask -- susan: --e no no dog in the fight. susan collins is disliked for have to country. host: did you support her for

doing that? caller: i did not support her nor did i not support her. host: what does that mean? caller: i did not contribute to the fund that the maine's people's alliance was running in terms of the competitive for her. host: i am asking as a representative what she -- you thought in supporting kavanaugh's confirmation? caller: i have no dog in the fight. if we look back in american history in the original situation of forming our country, we did not have parties. the people were unanimously across the full spectrum of the country without parties in favor of being against the empire. host: let's go to angela in jacksonville, florida. that is when president trump will be later today. she is calling on the republican line. hello, i would like to

say the only good that has come out of this kavanaugh debacle is that the nation was watching. the nation saw and all of it what the democrats are trying to arend how the democrats trying to take over this country at all cost. how they have thrown out the -- no rulesemblance anymore. they don't stand for the constitution and i have changed everything. a democrat. imo longer a democrat. i will fight like tooth and nail to convert every person i know to a republican because they are right. they are not a fighter and liar and trying to set up a man who is a good man. they will do anything.

they will do anything to get in the power. unscrupulous them and the media are completely -- showed all their colors and the nation shot -- sat and watched and are furious about it. host: the president will be in florida to address the association of the chief of police. look for our website for more information. flying back to washington to attend and be part of the ceremonial swearing-in of brett kavanaugh, formally sworn in by chief justice john roberts and the retiring anthony kennedy. that happened saturday. that ceremonial swearing-in will happen tonight. you can see that on c-span. listen for our c-span radio app and find out more information about it at c-span.org. for the first half hour of our program, state of u.s. politics after the kavanaugh

confirmation. you can let us know your thoughts as others have. ---748-8001 -- 202-748-8000 i am sorry. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 on the sunday shows yesterday, senator chris coons was on "meet the press," talked about the kavanaugh confirmation and the idea of process of impeaching kavanaugh should republicans take power of the house after the november elections. [video clip] >> the house democrats talking about the investigating kavanaugh and possibly looking at impeachment, what do you make of those pledges coming from house democrats? >> i think that is premature. frankly, we are less than a month away from an election. folks that feel strongly one way or the other about the issues in front of us should get out and vote and participate.

there has only ever been one justice impeached and talking about it at this point is not necessarily healing us and moving us forward. the senate's role in our politics is not to reflect -- not just to reflect the country, but to move forward and heal the country and that is the course we should be on. host: democrats line, eddie, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe the country was divided before the kavanaugh nomination. thanks, again. have a good day. host: when you say that, what leads you to believe that? caller: just because of the environment i am around all the time with the people in my circle. you cannot get them to come around. they listen to so much of the same thing every day that there is no middle ground anymore.

host: i am assuming these are supporters of president trump and you are not? caller: correct. host: can i ask -- have you had conversations about kavanaugh leading up to the vote or confirmation last week and what were those like? caller: it is all the same. nobody has their facts together. they just listen on tv and continuously repeat soundbites. do you think there is a way to get beyond that? caller: just keep trying. that is all you can do. host: that is eddie in illinois. independent line, regina from georgia. you are next. good morning. i am a 52-year-old

african-american woman and i listened to susan collins and she cannot say anything about likelye likely and less test. dr. ford said he had been drinking and there was a question about his drinking. if you add drinking, it was more likely she was telling the truth and the judiciary committee -- the fbi questioned mark judge and said he could not remember. he has a book he would blackout and he was a cold assailant. host: aside from the mechanics of what we saw. what do you think about the politics behind it and the state of u.s. politics since the confirmation last saturday?

caller: i believe -- i have a 25-year-old daughter and she is devastated from this decision. i am 52 and i am devastated and i cannot even really go into it because it did happen to me and it happened to a lot of women. show.ened to your a lot of women who were supporting kavanaugh would say they were in their 70's and say but -- i don'to, understand the "but." there was a lot of women who said they supported him and had been raped. i think it is the money in politics because there was no one representing women in this discussion. now it has brought back a lot of memories and a lot of pain. you can see the senators getting on tv trying to heal -- they

give out telephone numbers to the 800 line, but they destroyed a lot of women. host: that is regina in jordan giving her thoughts on the state of politics ever since the confirmation of -- in georgia giving her thoughts on the state of politics ever since the confirmation of kavanaugh. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. secretary of state mike pompeo in china currently talking with the foreign minister -- a picture with the foreign minister. the secretary of state got an earful from a chinese official theng a visit, effectively coming the with a boy in the relationship between the two governments. pompeo is the most senior official to meet with his chinese counterpart -- the vice president gave a speech charging beijing in seeking to undermine the interest in the

globe and the first round -- the foreign minister told mr. pompeo the trump administration's recent actions against china have "a directly impacted our mutual trust and cast a shadow over our bilateral relations." the president sending out a tweet particularly when it comes to mr. pompeo's previous stop , sayingeading to china secretary pompeo had a good meeting with chairman kim in part -- in pyongyang. progress being made on the singapore summit agreement and i look forward to seeing chairman kim again in the near future. that is some of the international stories taking place. the unitedy, in states, talking about the state of politics after the kavanaugh confirmation. republican line, little rock, arkansas. richard, hello. caller: howdy. i think just kind of clarifying their place. prior to kavanaugh's name coming

up, everybody on both sides wasn't giving star ratings on everything and as soon as his name came up, one side attacked him and all of a sudden they were going to back him. it is not being able to see the trees through the forest. i am aas mrs. ford -- man and cannot talk about these things. a lot of women have called and unfortunately it brought up bad memories. i would say more than likely these other women -- if something did happen to them, when they were asked -- host: back to the politics, you said it put everybody in their place. can you elaborate? caller: if you compare to how bill clinton, all the women that came to him were treated with a not -- with a lot more credible evidence as opposed to how mrs. ford was treated, they have the blinders on.

either you are democrat or republican. when you see these people screaming and hollering, you never see conservatives do those things. as far as kavanaugh, i think he pulled the blinds back. enough people will take the time and look and see both sides liked them. the american bar association, everybody else gave stella reports. as soon as this happened and they wanted to make some incident how when he was in high school he did something wrong. if they took points on what he did wrong in high school, you and i would not have a job or anything right now. host: that is richard in little rock, arkansas. there are several stories about that car crash that killed 20. a limo crash in new york. this is out of news by cleveland saying a national transportation safety board team arrived sunday to investigate. the team expects to remain on scene for about five days.

just hlities, it is orrific. this is one of the biggest losses of life we have seen in a long time. buffalo killed 40 people, 50 people. this is the most deadly transportation accidents since -- 2009. this is cleveland's reporting on that car crash. massachusetts, democrats line. robbie, go ahead. caller: hello? host: you are on. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just want to say politics after kavanaugh is not really going to change. kavanaugh is a symptom, not the problem. i am 63 years old. whenold enough to remember

trump was a president that was in power and had the house and the senate. i would like to say to some of country.rs, we are one opinions.e different what has taken place in the last three years is so un-american. host: you said the nomination was the symptom, not the problem. what do you mean by that? caller: of kavanaugh? host: yes. caller: it is a symptom of what has taken place in our country. the hatefulness. -- self -- cell phone selfishness. we are like a jerry springer show and that is not what

america is about at all. andew up in alabama chattanooga, tennessee. everything that thousands of people fought and died for to make our country great. host: that is robbie in massachusetts. libby off of twitter says i am willing to make peas with democrats if they join me in support of our president trump. until that happens, i will fight them tooth and nail. they are trying to damage my country and that riles me up. tj saying kavanaugh hearing showed america how cruel and -- democrats are. that is some of the thinking of our twitter feed. you can post on facebook and give us a call on the lines. samantha in washington, d.c., independent line. caller: good morning. i calling because it is

downlling to see how dumbed the american public has become. the lady was right about this being a jerry springer show. at least jerry springer was not a person leaving our country caught up in covering up for what he thought was how you treated women. it says a certain element of personave taken on the of what is really a sexual predator and sexual predat ation seems to be all right with people who call themselves republican and that is the antithesis on what the republican party was founded on. it was not founded on sexism, racism, and destruction of people's rights. now it has been taken over -- 60 years ago with the element of the john birch society, the ku

klux klan, and the white citizens council, mainly. .ost: that is samantha in d.c this is dave in alabama, democrats line. caller: it is dave, sir. host: sorry about that, go ahead. caller: no problem. this division started decades it is nothing but. i am sorry, i am getting conch i'd. tied.am getting tongue everything they have done, they have never been investigated for. at 911 and weed went to war under false pretenses and never got investigated for that. host: since we are sticking to

post kavanaugh and what happened. how did that determined the state of u.s. politics? caller: it showed the republican party is now the republican party. they are not for america at all. they are for the republican party. they said they were going to be the party of no before president oath ofok office -- the office for his first term. they confirmed that and showed it for 8 years. they -- heges brought forth, they held back so many of them and that is why harry reid was forced to go the way he did. host: let's hear from frank in texas, republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say our country has been divided ever since our

current president has been elected president. during the committee hearings, i want to remind everyone the democrats had already said they were going to vote no for kavanaugh and oppose him by any means possible. i don't believe anything about mrs. ford. i don't believe -- thank you for taking my call. host: where do we go from here? caller: we will have to get together after this election and work these things out. our country will still stand. we have elections every 4 years for president and that is where we have to take it, to the polls. carolyn offr on -- of twitter says we have a president who shows no intention of trying to calm the vitriol and politics. he stoked the fires of division. the new york times talks about judge kavanaugh and he will

supposedly be on work -- at work on tuesday and talks about the work for him. the new justices often hire former clerks, but when they start the court, the only one of kavanaugh's supreme court clerks worked on the supreme -- appeals court. worked forhree appeals court judges appointed by republican president. one also worked for senator chuck grassley of iowa, who helped push through justice kavanaugh's nomination. connie in california. good morning. thank you for calling independent line. caller: it is sad the democrats are acting like they are. instead of helping the country, start thinking about how i can improve it. about their part?

there was a president with several women also and other democrats and the republicans did not act that way, carrying on like they do and saying all these things. ever since the president got elected, they have been uncontrollable. host: if that is the case, where do we go as far as bridging the gaps? you talked about this idea that that has to happen. what does it mean for the other party or both parties in this process? caller: democrats should start thinking how can i improve all of this that has been going on? how can we turn things around? start working together for the better of our country. host: amy off of twitter says tack began with bernie sanders and continued into the kavanaugh saga. bonnie off facebook says democrats have gone insane and

terrorists.g into they have become a danger to society. evelyn in illinois, democrats line. caller: hello. i would like to say i think the american people -- as a teacher and a student of political science and others -- academic pursuits, people in this country are not educated. they are not looking globally. the rest of the world is and they are fight going to take advantage of this country because we have a few 1%-ers who want to control everything. host: what do you mean by that? caller: i mean the rest of the world is laughing at us. other than that, they are plotting and scheming. how can we kill this country? host: how did you come to that

conclusion? caller: the united states are handing the rest of the country, like china -- china is not sitting back doing nothing. they are watching. they see the disruption. host: michigan is next, republican line. dave, go ahead. caller: yes, i did not believe mrs. ford. she told too many lives. her reputation at the says the chevy chase was the plural. that is why she left and went to california. host: aside from the mechanics of what happened, what do you think about the politics and where we go from here? caller: it reminds me of a history book i have written by -- during a blanket -- during abe lincoln's era. it wasn't the north against the south, it was the party of lincoln against the democrats.

right now it looks like it's the party of trump against the democrats. i hope it doesn't become an exact comparison to that history book. that is what it looks to me like because mr. trump has redefined the republican party and democrats are in a fit and don't know what to do because the republicans are more or less compromisers to the democrats. there was not much fight when democrats wanted their way, they usually got it. the republicans kind of attached themselves to the wall like a flower. now the republicans are having their way and democrats don't know what to do. host: that is dave on the republican line calling from michigan. the editors of the wall street journal under the headline the next kavanaugh's stakes. the supreme court is unlikely to be the less alternative

legislature for policy agenda. a conservative majority will not attribute agitation if congress shoulddone so -- that say arbitration, i am sorry. will not create new rights not in the constitution and more skeptical of congressional branch rewrites of statutes. the paradox is over several years, this could reduce the political tempers over the supreme court. the reason nominations have become so contentious isn't merely because the country as politically divided, it's because the progressives that use the courts as a political piledriver. democrats will have to achieve their goals the old-fashioned way, by winning elections. that is some of the thoughts of the editors of the wall street journal. joe is next in west virginia. hi. caller: hi, how are you today? host: i am well, thank you.

go ahead. i have a few things to say, so if you would not cut me off until i have my say. ok. i am a democrat and i am 80 years old. i did not believe the lady. because she was not raped. she was right on top and all this. how can you believe she was raped? if you can't remember all of what is going on, how can you remember you only had one beer? host: let's move forward to politics in the united states after this. caller: you take anti-pelosi, walters, and ellison. they are no good. why don't we do anything about him? because he is a democrat. democrats have turned to be cruel, hateful, and how they could do to two little girls what they did, that is a shame

and i am ashamed to be a democrat and i will never vote democrat again. host: let's move to ohio where patrick is. caller: i thank you for your time and service. listening to everybody butting heads. this hate and nationalism has to stop. we are all one country. i am sorry. we are all one country. we are all one people and if we don't stand together, we will fall. host: when you say we don't stand together, how does that happen? how does that get achieved? caller: we just have to stop. we have to stop pointing fingers at each other and we have to stop -- start listening to each other and work together. if we don't, we are going to be in big trouble. do you think that kind of

not listening to each other -- that is what played out over the kavanaugh not for -- confirmation process? caller: it is just one of the many shiny coins that has been going on for way too long. has just been accentuated through this last election and it has only amplified and gotten worse. we need to stop and actually listen to one another because if we don't, we are going to be in big trouble. host: when you talk about where you live in ohio, especially when it comes to the nomination process. what were you hearing in terms of people debating this? to eachy listening other or did you see instance of them trying to listen to where the other side was coming from? caller: absolutely not. i had family members who would not take the time to give each other the time of day. they became so divided. i looked at both sides and i

said, i am sorry, you are making me crazy. host: that is patrick in ohio. ed sullivan off of facebook says democrats need to change their philosophy or sink into the fate of the wigs. a man's life and career is top consideration. that is some on our facebook page. you can post on our twitter feed. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 this is from michigan. matthew is there, republican line. caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to say i am so happy kavanaugh has been confirmed. i am sure the united states policy would be schlanger --

stronger. host: before you go too far, give your thoughts on the state of politics after the kavanaugh nomination. what do you think? theer: my subject is about candidate for congress and she has a lot to do for poor people and everybody's health. i have connected with her a lot -- i am sure i want republicans to vote and be sure. our health care issue will be improved. thank you. host: north carolina, democrats line, dorothy, hello. caller: i want to make comment and i will -- host: can you start with the kavanaugh thoughts first?

caller: all of it will be about kavanaugh. the lady did take a lie detector test and a full fbi investigation. he did not. what is being set up is like dominoes. the republicans are entering the thoughts of these people talking about how much they are going to do for the people. when you hit that one domino, it all comes crashing down. social security and medicare will crash it because what kavanaugh is going to do -- when republicans get ready to demolish social security and ,edicare and people's pensions kavanaugh will be the one on there that will side with republicans and corporations. host: what makes you believe that? haver: because republicans always said they need to get rid of social security and medicare. they have always said that. the koch brothers said that for

years when they were younger. they need more people in the house and senate to get it done. host: susan in oregon, republican line. caller: mia on? -- am i on? host: you are, go ahead. inton wouldmrs. cl come out and say i lost the election, that would bring the country together and kavanaugh was a good choice for the judge. host: why do you think hillary clinton would start the process? caller: because they are still saying she won the election and she did not. host: one more call from gary in indiana. -- one more call from indiana. caller: try to get together. this is resist that all cost thing going. it doesn't take much knowledge to know what the next move is going to be.

if they are going to resist everything without thought, how can you communicate with somebody with that attitude? it is almost predictable with -- what the decisions are going to be and it will be negative against anything that has to do with trump or republicans and that is not somebody you can negotiate or come to terms with. people need to stop at resist all and back it down a little bit. host: gary is the last call in this hour talking about the state of politics after state oe kavanaugh confirmation. we will continue on, talking about the november election. talk aboutaar will the top house and senate races to watch and the impact of the kavanaugh nomination on the election, coming up. then carolyn shapiro, who teaches at the university of chicago law school, takes a look at the history of supreme court nominations.

she will join us later in the program. you are watching "washington journal." ♪ >> tonight on "the communicators," the assistant homeland security secretary for cyber security and communications talks about cyber threats against the u.s. and how the country is working to foil foreign efforts to interfere in the 2018 midterm elections and emergency communications. >> every single day, every system, whether a federal agency, a bank, a local government office, you are constantly battling, if you will, actors who are trying to get into your networks. if you have sensitive data, if you have some system that powers something important, you have

everything from your everyday "hacktivist" trying to do face your website for some -- trying to deface your website for some purpose they think is important to nationstates trying to gain access to either sensitive information that may be useful to them or trying to be in a position where our critical infrastructure is held at risk. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> c-span. where history unfolds daily. was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. 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. josh kraushaar, who reports for "national journal." he is their political editor, here to talk about the november election. good morning. how would you say, overall, how kavanaugh plays out? guest: he plays to both partie'' bases. asocrats are as energized they have ever been, and republicans have gotten a boost in momentum, especially in the places with conservative turf. democrats look in position to take that the house, but republicans have gotten a jolt of energy in the senate. host: we even heard mitch mcconnell talk about republican enthusiasm. already hadrats momentum. even though this energizes women, liberals, there was not a

whole lot more to be gained, given that you look at the elections of the last couple of years, democrats are showing up. republicans were not. there was some republican apathy and even overconfidence in some of the more conservative parts of the country. to gainlicans have more from this battle, especially in these red state senate races. host: on the house side, remind how many -- or my people how many seats have to be overturned in order for democrats to take control of the house. guest: democrats need to win net 23 house seats. there are over 93 seats in play that republicans hold. so the battleground map of districts that democrats can win is getting larger and larger. and they are predominately taking place in suburban parts of the country, where the president is not particularly popular and where the base, spent -- especially suburban women and independent women are turning away from the republican

party. host: you spent time in kansas. what were you looking at? guest: i was in the suburbs of the -- in the suburbs of kansas city. -- is facing a challenge from a first-time political candidate, who surprised a lot of democrats in the primary and is leading. it is one of the most affluent parts of the country. these are the types of demographic parts of the country that has moved away from the president. davidshy is sharice having such a showing? guest: she is certainly energizing the base. she would be the first native american congresswoman from kansas. she raised $2.7 million in the last three months. that is the type of money that

senators raise, not first-time house candidates. energy.e is a huge any democrat or anyone who looks at the kavanaugh hearings and gets upset on the left are showing up at the polls and doing a lot to organize. host: from the money she raises, is that coming from all in-state? guest: there is a lot of outside money coming in. that is to be excited, given this is a nationalized political environment. -- that is to be expected, given this is a nationalized political environment. that is an issue that kevin yoder is attacking her on. he says he is raising money in-state, she is going to fundraisers in new york to get cash. host: let's show the folks watching what ads look like in kansas, particularly when it comes to this race. [video clip] >> congressman kevin yoder and democrat candidate sharice davids were scheduled to debate

today. >> then, the democratic candidate pulled out. >> kevin yoder was there, but sharice davids was a no-show. >> he voted to do away with projections. >> with pre-existing conditions. >> meaning my breast cancer. >> meaning my heart condition. >> could cost thousands more for coverage. >> or would be denied from care. >> i am no longer voting for him. >> this voter -- >> is not for yoder. >> i'm sharice davids. i approve this message. host: break these down. ad is a running theme from the congressman who is trying to portray himself as the underdog. when i was in kansas, he was at a local bar association of them that the democrat decided to

skip. he is making the case that she is running like the front runner, trying to avoid voters. now they have put that message up on television, it remains to be seen if that will work. ad by david's drive some -- by davids drives home a point that a lot of democrats are talking about. health care. protections for people with pre-existing conditions. democrats believe the issue of health care and the republican votes to appeal obamacare is a winning issue for them, not just in more democratic parts of the country but in hearts of the country there are more conservative. that is a driving theme of davids' campaign. host: when it comes to mr. yoder, how much support is he getting from national republicans and from the president? guest: the national republican

congressional committee, which funds the most vulnerable in comments on the republican side, pulled out some of the money in kansas city. but there is another super pac which is also still there and is putting quite a bit of money. so yoder was trying to say he is fighting this race on his own, but in reality, there is still outside republican money going into kansas city. host: our guest is here to talk about the november elections. you can ask him thoughts about specific races and as came -- ask him overall about the election. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to post thoughts on twitter, you can do so, @cspanwj . is there something to the yoder race that can be played out, especially with the other races you are seeing in the house? of thethis is emblematic

challenge that republicans face holding the house. when you have a democrat who no one really knew about a year ago raising record amounts of money. you see the energy on the left that is at a peak in suburban districts. when you look at the battleground of house races, many of them are taking place in a flowing -- in affluent, suburban battlegrounds that republicans once held comfortably. the yoder district once voted for mitt romney by double digits , but voted for hillary clinton in 2016. democrats are doing well with the romney-clinton voters. host: let's go to virginia. comstock versus jennifer wexton. guest: this is an even tougher district. norther is a veteran virginia politician and has been able to hold the virginia

suburbs. but this is an area not far from washington, d.c. where anti-trump sentiment is high. you also have government workers. so whenever the president attacks the government, the swamp, he is talking about comstock's district. the super pac is not spent a dime trying to help comstock out, that money being spent by the national republican congressional committee. host: why did she win in the first place? guest: there are a lot of swing independent voters in this district. the assumption was hillary clinton was the favorite to win the presidency, so a lot of these swing voters wanted a check, a balance, with a republican member of congress. now, republicans control all branches of government, and the check would be jennifer wexton.

host: talk about the president's role and influence he may have and the evidence that he is having an influence. guest: he is campaigning aggressively, but he is staying in the conservative rural elements of the country. he was in topeka, kansas saturday night for a rally. kevin yoder was not there. he did not want to have a trump shout out at that rally, because he knows trump is not popular in his district. but in the more small town, rural elements of the country, and the big senate battlegrounds taking place in north dakota, missouri, indiana, montana, you will see a lot of the president. that is where the white house wants to position him. host: josh kraushaar is with us, covering these elections we are talking about as political editor for "national journal." the first call comes from california, democrats.

stephanie, hello. caller: good morning. i believe the republican bump is a temporary result of the kavanaugh -- i believe the democrats will is aout like it presidential year. we do have to stand up and put a check on this president. there is a lot going on that we do not agree with. and there are republicans that want us to come out and win. i believe all of this hoopla about the republicans are close, this, that, and the other, i do not believe they will maintain control of the house. and i do believe the senate will change as well. i think the electoral college put trump in, and as a result, we got kavanaugh. but i believe the democrats are going to step up to the plate, because we have no choice. we are calling on all democrats to come out as if it was a

presidential year and put a check on this resident. host: thanks. the caller mentioned the senate. i think the senate for bing would be unlikely. north dakota, heidi heitkamp is the most vulnerable senator. in northats cannot win dakota, they would have to win either tennessee or texas. hold thecruz and then red state seats. there is a reason mcconnell sounds confident about his chances. host: there is a story about heidi heitkamp in one of the papers, saying she knew she would have a difficult vote. on "60 minutes" last night. she gave a well reasoned reason for voting against kavanaugh.

the problem is it does not play in her state. i think she took that vote knowing -- there were two public polls that came out before her vote on kavanaugh that showed her down by double digits. i think that vote was also a recognition that she is in trouble. vote to helptake a her party rather than try to survive. host: and the california dental .- the california 10th district denham ish harder -- a battle tested incumbent. he tried to position himself more to the center. it will be a good bellwether. host: texas, republican line joining us. go ahead. , andr: in the election with the ballot in the senate, 25 seats are not held by republicans, currently.

of thehe election cycles last 10 years, there has always been top from mitch mcconnell and the like that we only need a handful of seats to get over that line. where is the go big or go home mentality? i recognize there are voting trends and statistics and polls and voter turnout results to look at, but the reality is this is a competition. what is the point of putting up a candidate if you're not going to support that candidate and really push to try to take a seat? host: thanks. guest: i am not sure which specific race the caller is talking about, but she is right map,the map, the 2018 regardless of the political environment, is about as a verbal to republicans as you can get.

even if republicans pick up a is possible,which under a hillary clinton presidency, they could have gained eight or nine seats. republicans are playing offense, democrats are playing defense. with atays 51-49 republican majority, that is good for the democrats. it means they have a chance of taking back the senate in 2020. are in texas, the u.s. senate race between ted cruzand beto o'rourke, is playing defense these days? host: he is playing a little offense, given the kavanaugh hearing. historic sumscing of money for a democrat in texas. he is running a very

independent-minded campaign that is awfully competitive. has notas -- texas elected a democrat to statewide office since the mid-1990's. given that the basis that into come home for republicans, given that ted cruz has an issue to use, i think he is a solid favorite. host: here are some of the ads being played in connection to the texas senate race. [video clip] >> i am ted cruz, and i approached -- approve this message. >> beto o'rourke blasted police as the new jim crow. of shootingpolice people based solely on the caller of -- on the color of their skin. >> you have a senate democratic candidate saying maybe you are a bad guy. >> there has been a war on police in several years. his rhetoric is insulting and dangerous. >> you may have seen some of these negative attack ads

seeking to scare you about what we are trying to do for the state and our country in this critical moment. we can be defined by our fears or we can be known by our ambitions. i am confident that when we see each other not as democrats or republicans but as texans, americans, human beings, there is no stopping us. that is why i am running to represent you and everyone in the state of texas. host: two different kind of ads. guest: cruz is leaning on the cultural wars. raising the specter of nfl players kneeling during the national anthem. it is telling, though, that on the defensive. when you have to cut an ad saying this is where i really stand, you are on the defensive. cruz is hitting 50% in the polls. i think you'll get great

democratic turnout. he will do great in the suburbs, dallas, houston, san antonio. but in a state like texas and running as left as o'rourke is, your hitting a ceiling. o'rourke is running the campaign. i do not think he has a top pollster in his campaign. he is running an unconventional race that is proving to be successful in its own way, raising historic sums of money and exciting the democratic base. but ultimately, he is playing defense. he is not attacking cruz. he is trying to show where he really stands on an issue that cruises attacking him on. -- cruz is attacking him on. host: here is catherine in gainesville, florida, independent line. caller: yes. i am astonished to be on, because i have been dialing for

days. bernie in ther last election in the primary, and then i voted democrat. and i think that we have been suffering from the fact that, in this 2016 election, 24% of registered democrats voted. that is why we do not have a democrat, because if all of them voted, we would not have trump. and also, with gerrymandering over the -- all over the country and democrats do not vote in the interim, so republicans have managed to redistrict so there is no way for anyone to win. they cannot even get rid of the republicans they do not like in some areas because they are so gerrymandered. host: thank you. guest: the energy is not

something democrats have to worry about. we have enough off year elections, governors races, to look at. it is clear that in every election, from oklahoma to california, democrats are turning out like we have not seen in many years. turnout on the democratic side is not much in doubt. minorityaveat is in majority districts, those voters are not showing up, those democratic voters are not as energized as we might expect, especially given the antipathy towards the president from some of those communities. , a district near the border, he is leading by double-digit against his democratic opponent. in miami, there is a close race, even though it is a very democratic district that voted

for hillary clinton. we are seeing white-collar suburban voters are singing to the democrats, and that is having a big impact. but some of the more minority majority raises -- districts are remaining resistant. , he isarlos carbelo running against a woman. guest: she is in one of a historic wave of women running for congress, running predominantly on the democratic side. 50% to 60% of the nominees in big battleground areas are on the democratic side. democrats are poised to win back the house because of this blue wave, but it will also be a pink wave. we will see a historic amount of women elected. host: on the republican line, colorado. caller: perfect segue to your

last comment. let's suppose the democrats do wind the house and pelosi is speaker. comment on the amount of pressure that will be on her to have an impeachment proceeding against judge kavanaugh, which i do not think she will do, and how her refusal to do that is going to then split the democratic party wide open. if they do win, they are more than likely to win on this wave of the #metoo movement. i think there is a danger for the democrat party in them winning the house back. i would like your comment on that. guest: first things first, if democrats win back the house, nancy pelosi is going to have a tough time winning the speakership. there are a couple dozen top democratic challengers that have committed to not supporting policy for speaker -- not supporting pelosi for speaker.

she will have a math problem if that democratic edges narrow. democrats will not want to fight although some, liberal democrats have raised the specter of impeachment. they will have to unite the left and moderates that will win the close races and think about governing and legislating. host: let's go to maryland. this is where david is. democrat line. caller: i have a comment and question. listening to the contrasting ads you are playing in the dish -- in the different districts, it is interesting the democrats talk about themselves and the republicans talk about the democrats. rarely do the republican ads have anything to do with republican candidates. in maryland, so close to west virginia, i wonder

what you think of the joe manchin vote. it seems to me that he voted in an effort to appease the trap voters -- the trump voters. trump is telling his voters to vote for his opponent. it seems like he shot himself in the foot. guest: i disagree. i think joe manchin resecured his -- secured his reelection by voting for kavanaugh. there is no real liberal democratic race in west virginia like in missouri where claire mccaskill is running for reelection. there are pockets of liberal base that need to be energized for these democrats to win reelection. the no votes from a casco and donnelly have political -- from mccaskill and donnelly have

political motive. featuring senator mccaskill and josh holly, where does that stand? guest: very close. i interviewed josh hawley, who is probably one of the leading challengers. that race is that and it. -- is neck and neck. not for claire mccaskill, it is likely you will vote for one of her challengers as an independent. wley has a legal background. he has been running ads on kavanaugh. a closehawley -- it is race. i think he has a slight advantage. host: and in indiana? guest: another very close race. these are the tossups when it comes to the senate. slight lead, but

aun has a lot of money in the race. host: iowa is where our next call is from, republican. caller: good morning. i was calling to gauge your guest's opinion on the iowa races, especially the senate race between senator bloom and -- senator blum and abby finkenauer. guest: the upper midwest is a problem for republicans. iowa is a big example. the governor's race is looking like it is leaning towards the democrats. things have gotten so bad in iowa that problem -- that rod blum is not getting any republican help for his race. ankenauer, the democrat, is

clear favorite. and the third district race between david young and cindy axne, a freshfaced democratic challenger, that is a tossup. the momentum in the des moines area is going towards democrats. host: (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. while we are on the subject of iowa, cory booker was there. he talked about the november elections and also hinted at his personal interests in future elections. [video clip] >> how long? not long. until we elect a governor in the state who will stand up for women, stand up for planned parenthood, stand up for public education. how long? not long. until we elect people who represent all the people, not just the fortunate few. how long?

not long. until we not only believe women but elect some great women to congress. how long? not long. until we flip the state house and the state senate. how long? >> not long. >> until we take back the house of representatives. how long? >> not long. >> until we answer the president's hates with our universal love. how long? >> not long. >> until november. host: expand on what he is saying. guest: we think he is running for resident -- he got his start term in the kavanaugh hearings as one or two possible presidential candidates on the senate judiciary committee. that was a caffeinated speech. i think he was trying to rally the base and come up with a national message for iowa voters.

democrats are at least -- democrats, at least, are hungry for change. booker is a little too hot. obama did so well in iowa. booker may be trying to build a similar coalition. host: there is a story in the "new jersey -- there is a story in the "new york times" about new jersey. guest: menendez, because of ethical issues, should be toasting. but ultimately, when you have a blue wave in a democratic state like new jersey, it is hard to see how menendez does not win another term. the environment is so good. there are at least three house races in new jersey that democrats are likely to pick up. that is an environment that will help menendez win another term. host: democrat line, ohio. caller: i wondered if climate change will be a big issue in

any of these races? guest: it is a question a lot of liberal activists want to care about, but it is not coming up in democratic campaigns, for the most part. if you look at the messaging on the airwaves, democrats are talking about health care. they are not talking about the environment, not talking about climate change. while that issue energizes base voters and younger democratic voters, you are not seeing it as a huge issue. host: one viewer on twitter says any politician that will publicly support medicare for all will not be getting my vote. does that topic even come up anymore? guest: a lot of democrats are now embracing a more liberal vision of health care. medical or -- medicare for all is a safe catchphrase. raiseicans are trying to the specter of socialized medicine. that is the attack republican

candidates are employing. but there was a study that showed half of all democratic ads in the country are focused on health care. health care was an issue that drove majority in -- drover publican majorities in the house in 2010 and 2014. to tables have turned medically. especially on the issue of protections for pre-existing conditions. host: josh kraushaar with us, political editor at "national journal." from minnesota, independent line. hello. caller: hi. i am 60 years old it in my lifetime, every time i go to work for somebody and they pay me, i am expected to do what they want me to do. now we have congressmen and women and senators that are working for us, the people, who do not give a damn what we say or what we want. they vote so they can be reelected.

how can they get away with this? guest: i would argue that a lot of members are simply voting based on the mood of their constituents. we live in a very polarized time, i very polarized environment. so if you're a republican, you're moving further right. if you are democrat, you're moving further left. i do not think it is because of money or campaign donations. i just think we live in a tribal times. host: from north carolina, democrats line. caller: hello. i am 87 years old. i have traveled all over the world. i'm the widow of a veteran. the not like the way democrats have behaved themselves throughout everything. and i will be voting straight republican ticket.

thank you so much. guest: there is some of this negative polarization that we have seen in the light of the fight.gh confirmation that voters think that even if they are not fans of trump, they dislike the democrats' behavior, the rush to condemn kavanaugh. i do not think it will have an impact. republicans generally will vote republican to -- and democrats will generally vote democrat. democrats worry that went too far in the kavanaugh vote. host: let's go to the race in georgia. stacey abrams -- how is she doing? guest: stacey abrams -- a very close race against the secretary of state, brian kemp. what is making this fascinating is she is running on a campaign

that focuses on rallying the base instead of appealing to swing voters. then you have brian kemp, who won the primary against the lieutenant governor because he got an endorsement from the president. now he is trying to run to the middle and appeal to the center. downis a race that will go to the wire. you may have a runoff in georgia. you need to get 50% of the wind -- of the vote to win. ce is possible that that ra may not be decided on election day. host: how could senate elections change governors races? guest: in the midwest will getrly, democrats a lot of pickups. so scott walker in very serious trouble in his bid for another term. kim reynolds, the iowa race, democrats are optimistic about

that. areichigan, democrats optimistic. minnesota looking to be a democratic hold. the midwest, a region where trump did so well -- picked up wisconsin, pennsylvania, michigan -- those states are reverting back to their democratic form. host: california, we will hear from joann. republican line. caller: i am so perplexed by my district, california 49th with darrell issa. i see lots of ads for the democrat levin and nothing for the republican harkey. guest: i have some bad news. i think that race is moving the democrats' way. mike levin has lead in a lot of public and internal polls. harkey is not getting the

support from republican groups, because they think that race is not particularly winnable. still competitive enough, but that race leans into the democratic column. you probably will not see many ads from outside groups. host: is immigration an issue? guest: republicans are running on cultural issues. use of the ted cruz added earlier. int is a familiar theme republican advertisements. at the same time, democrats feel like the trump administration has overreached on border security, on splitting families. they feel like that will propel energy on their side. host: we will show you a bit of in michigan. the topic about immigration. [video clip] >> awol wall is not -- when you say wall, use adjust it is a structure across.

what we need is a secure border. there are places along our border that have a unique spot for a wall, but there is technology that would allow us to create a barrier equal to a wall. we need to invest in that. when i hear "wall," i understand what people are saying. we need to secure our borders to make sure we do have a direct trafficdrugs and slave back-and-forth, with human beings. >> should i.c.e. be part of that? >> absolutely. the counter solution would be to have no borders at all, or, like my opponent's party has proposed, get rid of i.c.e. and support sanctuary cities. that is not common sense. >> what are your thoughts? >> his opponent can speak for herself. it is another example, just to respond, to where i am a different person than this sort of stereotype that mr. bishop

like submit out there of every democrat. whether he is talking about pelosi, about my party. as someone who served her country, let me say that i believe i.c.e. should exist and should continue to carry out its mandate, just like any other service and border force should. we are not all the same. we are very different people. as much as he would like it to be the opposite. in terms of immigration, the system is broken. immigration is a national security issue. it is an economic issue. it is a moral issue. i served my entire life trying to protect this country from attacks, homeland attacks, so i feel strongly we need to enhance security on our borders. >> do you mean a wall? >> i do not believe it will make sense, but more technology and more border agents, yes. guest: this is a race where democrats are getting optimistic of defeating a well entrenched incumbent.

but democrat, has a national security background. she worked in the obama administration. she is credentialed in a way a lot of other democratic candidates are not. she has also struck a more moderate message, as you see there, versus a national party. she has done a good job inoculating herself from these attacks that she is too liberal, she is not able to represent a swing district like the one bishop represents. that is a race republicans are getting more concerned about. has afair to say slotkin slight advantage at this point. it is one that ties in all the themes of why democrats are doing so well. a woman running for congress, raising a lot of money, and running for the middle on a lot of these big national security and immigration issues. host: two women running for retiring jeff flake's seat. what is that stand? guest: very close. the ads. the republican ads against

sinema are brutal. they are attacking her for being anti-war. sinema has had the lead. the lead is getting a little more narrow over time. but democrats believe the blue wave will hit arizona, and that will be beneficial for sinema. host: maryland, independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. as a war veteran, i am very disturbed about what is going on in our country. i'm a vietnam veteran. really likehings i from some of the republican presidents we have had, like teddy roosevelt, lincoln, eisenhower, bush i, all of these men put country ahead of party. i see happening in the republican party now is exactly the same thing that happened in

germany in the early 1930's, controller took total of the government. what is happening in this party is very dangerous. host: specifically how this applies to the november elections? caller: well, the whole thing now is i see how the republicans, current republicans, are gerrymandering, rigging elections so that they will get absolute control of government. point theint by similarities between what happened in germany and the united states now -- everything is exactly the same. host: ok. guest: i think any comparison between nazi germany and what is going on now is pretty ludicrous. but there is tribalism. you are seeing fewer republicans displaying any degree of independence from the white house. what the republican party is a coalition of the bush party. we saw that with the kavanaugh fight.

kavanaugh is bush-y. he is an establishment republican. but there was a push and merge of the trump vision, where republicans were unified and offending kavanaugh. democrats were reminded of why they did not like bush. host: from connecticut, josh is next. caller: there is all this talk about a blue wave. from my personal experience, i see no evidence of this blue wave. i am wondering are you relying on the same polls that predicted hillary was going to win? it just seems, to me, that from experience in what i am hearing or's -- and seeing on the ground, i am not seeing any blue wave. host: what are you seeing that convinces you there is not a blue wave? ,aller: i go on breitbart a lot

the comments and stuff. there was a big problem between the bush and establishment republicans and more trump guys. iter this kavanaugh thing, is pretty solid. it could not have happened at a better time. people are talking about this lieu wave. it is like saying the loudest car is the fastest car. host: got you. thanks. guest: remember the john edwards line about to america's? we are seeing two americas. in the suburban and urban parts of the country, there is a big blue way. that is undeniable. look at the polls and the advantage democrats hold in the generic ballot. --n you look at the senate and it is possible republicans may gain a seat or two when all is said and done in the senate. and states that are more conservative and rural, you are seeing no blue wave. you are seeing -- one rep.

pocan: operatives that it is not about a wave, it is tornadoes. there may be tornadoes in some parts of the country that decimate parts of the republican party in the midwest. but in more conservative parts of the country or conservator parts of swing states, you may not see a lot of democratic running -- gain. it depends on where you live. if you live in a small town in north dakota, it will be a republican year. i do not think the blue wave applies everywhere, but certainly in these big battleground house races, democrats have a significant advantage. host: our next call is from pennsylvania. break down what you're looking at in pennsylvania. democratice is a new -- there is a new congressional map that is helping democrat conor lamb. you have to the amsurg ramin setodeh philly area that will flip just because of the new districts, the sixth and seventh.

then you -- the big race is the fitzpatrick=wallace race. you have a moderate republican fitzpatrick running against a well-funded democrat wallace. wallace has a lot of baggage, but in big blue wave environments, you can get weaker candidates through. so that is a big bellwether race. host: let's hear from jack in amperage, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. day --bout the columbus folks, ifo ask some they hear me, please know your history. columbus day is irrelevant. that is what is important about this. host: i apologize. your question or comment about the elections please? we are running out of time. caller: sure.

columbus day is a day of --grace, not national host: ok, thanks. to finish up then, what other races have we not talk about that people should keep an eye on? guest: i would look closely to california. in some of the traditionally conservative suburbs, in orange county in particular, democrats are hoping to make significant gain. they may get one third of the seats they need in california alone. at the dana rohrabacher seat. at the los angeles area. there are a lot of republicans on the defensive in orange county suburbs. orange county had not voted a democrat for resident until clinton since 1936 -- had not voted a democrat for president

until clinton since 1936. host: josh kraushaar, he serves as political editor. coming up, we will talk about judgehe ending of kavanaugh's process, historical of supreme court nominations. carolyn shapiro. ♪ the c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour. inrecently stopped indianapolis indiana -- in indianapolis, indiana. we are asking folks which party should control congress and why? >> the party i want to take over congress is the democratic party. it is not just because i support the values of the democratic party. but because i think the republican party has completely abdicated its response ability

to serve as a check and balance on the executive ranch. in addition to legislation, certainly, the -- it is the responsibility of congress to serve as that check and balance. we have not seen that. presidencyn the runabout. >> -- run amuck. >> i am a college student just getting out of school soon. things such as tax breaks or such as financial matters that get decided across congress myld directly affect me and future success. also, i am an african american women, and the representation that is there for me and those fighting for my rights and civil rights is very important. i believe this will be impacted if there was a change in congress. >> the elections this year, if, by some strange chance, the

congress should change over to another party, we would have some impact here. but generally in indiana, we are pretty independent folks. as with our infrastructure program, we have moved ahead with whatever congress does. --make sure we operate and in a responsible and businesslike way. we passed a major infrastructure bill last year. if the federal government helps us out, great, but if a don't, we will continue to march. >> i think democrats should control congress. i believe our country should swing more left or progressive. i am interested in issues pertaining to women. women's ability to choose and women's right to a safe workplace. thank you. >> voices rum the state -- part of c-span's 50 capitals tour.

>> "washington journal" continues. shapiro is the codirector of the institute on the supreme court at chicago-kent college of law, joining us to talk about a historical perspective on supreme court confirmations. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: you wrote about the hearing process. over the confirmation process overall, you said it is part exciting, part is appointing. guest: i mean, it is exciting. in part, it is a spectacle. it is exciting to hear this person who may become supreme court justice get a sense of who they are in terms of their public personality and intelligence. who is true, regardless of the nominee is or the nominating president is. but it is frustrating, because the nominees do not answer a lot of the questions we would like them to answer. they do not tell us things people want to know. host: has that been a constant

theme of those appearing before the senate to get confirmed? or is that a more recent thing? guest: tomorrow -- to some extent, it is a more recent thing. and to some extent, there is a historical pattern at play. historically, nominees have resisted -- talking about how they would vote in a specific matter. but they talk about more well-established precedents, talk more openly about things i have previously written about, and speak more openly about traditional theory. host: professor elena kagan wrote a view of a book taking a look at the confirmation process. specifically highlighting the board hearings presenting to the --lic the meaning of the

repetition of platitudes displays discussion of viewpoints and anecdotes have replaced legal analysis. is that something you would share? guest: i do not think it is entirely accurate. in the post bork years, there was a sophisticated discussion of additional philosophy and hearings. if you look at justice ginsburg, who is often touted as creating this "ginsburg rule" which suggests the nominees should not say anything, she actually talked about a lot of different cases and a lot of different points of law and express her opinions about them. justice thomas also talked a lot about his judicial philosophy, the role of natural law and his understanding of the constitution. they may not have said specifically how they would vote on particular matters, if they had not previously talked about itse in their writings or

beaches, but they talk a lot about how they thought about the cause how they thought about law. 2005 andw millennium, going forward, we have really seen a shift. the nominees have moved away, even from sharing their judicial philosophies, to a large extent. get as much of a sense of what motivates the different nominees' approach to the constitution. instead, we get language about neutrality. we get language like "i'm an umpire. i only call balls and strikes." as if you can look at law hard enough and long enough to determine the right answer. in fact, the hard cases, the cases most of us care about in the supreme court, are cases

that have ideological components. there is a lot of judgment. it involves weighing competing constitutional values. there is no right answer that can be deduced by looking at legal materials. host: our guest with us until 9:30, carolyn shapiro of the chicago-kent college of law, here to talk about historical perspective on the confirmation process of this up in court. if you want to ask her questions, c-span.org -- her question, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. talk about the recent round of confirmation hearings. guest: one of the things that was interesting about -- different between judge kavanaugh and justice gorsuch is their willingness -- they talked about the case of brown v. the board of education.

uniquely, wash, reluctant to come out and say he thought brown was rightly decided. he did eventually say it, but it to, while, and he -- it took him a while. the reason he wasn't comfortable about that was because he did not want to talk about other cases. judge kavanaugh was more forthright about brown and more forthright about justice gorsuch about his judicial philosophy. but all of that became eclipsed by two other things. one is the senate democrats' concerns about previous testimony that he had given in his earlier confirmation hearings and things he did in the bush white house. and of course dr. ford's allegations and everything that happened after that. in this sense, though there was serious discussion of judicial philosophy, it was overshadowed by this other stuff. host: when it comes to judge

kavanaugh himself, you were part of a letter that went out opposing the nomination? guest: that is right. after his testimony at the reopening of the hearing, after dr. ford testified, his demeanor, his temperament, his extreme partisanship struck me and, quite literally, thousands of other law professors as really inappropriate. circulated.was i believe, in the and, more than 2400 law professors signed it. i was one of them. host: what does history to just about how the court process handles scandals that come up during the commission process? guest: there are two other examples i can think of. one is justice thomas, of course, who was accused of sexual harassment by anita hill. harassment. i think that justice thomas, in terms of the inner workings of the court, really is like any

other justice. the court works hard at maintaining good relations between the justices, not just for the sake of good relations, that is being able to do the work and talk to each other about hard questions. so they would maintain at a minimum cordial, if not warm relationships among themselves. there is speculation that justice thomas's experience led him to harden his views. he does not participate in oral arguments, largely because he says he already knows what he thinks. he does not some interested in engaging with his colleagues about the law. and it is impossible to know if that has anything to do with what he found to be a pretty scarring experience in his hearing, but it might. the other example is justice -- and in the 1960's he was an associate justice, the nominated

by president johnson to be the chief justice when chief justice lauren stepped down. during his hearings, there were many questions about his ethical lapses, including advice he was giving the executive branch, whether he was trying to get people jobs while he was a justice. he was filibustered, not only because of those concerns, it had a lot to do with his views on race and on voting rights and on criminal procedure, he was filibustered by conservatives. he did shortly thereafter step down under an ethical cloud, so he did not stay on the court after what was a pretty scandal -- that might be an overstatement, but a confirmation hearing that brought to light concerns about his ethics. host: our guest is the founder institutector of the

on the supreme court of the united states. our first call for you from troy, michigan. go ahead. caller: good morning. it is interesting that she just brought up just as fortis, because i was thinking it has been several years since i read bob woodward's book "the brother and. -- brethren." i was wondering if she could go over the attempts, back in the mid-70's by the nixon administration, i think, to try to impeach -- oh gosh, i have for getting the justice now. he goes all the way back to fdr. william o douglas. justice douglas was, i think he might be the longest-serving or close to the longest serving justice on the

court, and he was extremely, famously, liberal or further left than any other justice, according to many scales. the interesting thing about justice douglas is that he was personally something of a wild man. he was known as a womanizer, among other things. and when he was confirmed he did not have a confirmation hearing at which he testified, because that did not happen in those days, but the story he told about himself and his biography turned out not to be too. has been so fascinating biographical work about the things that he said about himself that turned out not to be true. in today's world, that could never happen. you could not create a false biography for yourself and to be nominated, then confirmed to the supreme court. host: from california, the independent line.

kathleen, good morning. caller: your last comment makes me even more interested in the idea of the advising consent and respect for the confidentiality, my understanding the confidentiality of the process, because yesterday on the show the guest said, how do we know there has not been a sexual allegation since the clarence thomas hearing -- and i am thinking, we're not supposed to know because this is supposed to be handled confidentiality -- with confidentiality. so the weaponizing of the process is curious to me. what is the history of this type of evolution of this type of, you know, i do not know, national kind of this case we have seen over the last two weeks? guest: it is not actually clear that these things have to be handled confidentially. there is a process to handle certain types of allegations or issues raised in a sort of

executive session by the committee, and any more confidential way, but there is allegationt says an of sexual abuse cannot be discussed publicly. and of course, it is not unique to either justice thomas or now justice kavanaugh to have allegations related to somebody's personal life come out during their confirmation process. justice kagan had to have college friends go on tv and talk to the press about her sexual orientation, which is, you know, it should not necessarily should have mattered at all. but there were rumors circulating that she was gay and a number of the people who have known her for many years said publicly, no. but that is certainly -- that must have been embarrassing for her. i do not think it is unique to this particular process that we have embarrassing, personal

allegations or details come out. i think it would've been better for dr. ford's allegations to have been handled initially by the fbi, in an initial investigation, and then determinations could have been made on how to go forward. but i do not think it is necessarily improper for the country to know if there is a serious allegation of misconduct against a nominee. connecticut onin the independent line. caller: yes, good morning. 86-years-old. i was born the year franklin roosevelt took power. roosevelt was going to stack the court with all democrats. that was a big worry then. well, so we got over that. i mean, i have lived through

roosevelt, kennedy, nixon, reagan, um, ronald everybody. and it all comes out in the wash. ,nd i do not know another thing with this past experience with brett kavanaugh, he said he sticks with presidents. i have worked with the court and they will go with precedence. they look at their law books and to see what has happened in another case like that and they stick to that. host: thank you. course judge kavanaugh talked about prece dent, which is actually the way the senators ask him about roe versus wade. he went on say directly whether or not he would vote to overrule roe versus wade, but that is what people want to know. so they have conversations about

precedent, and he says he respect it, but the court does overrule precedent. and may have done it in". in".one it it does have the power to overrule it in cases that lower courts do not. saying that you respect it is not really tell us what you are edenceto do with pres you think is wrong. -- you talked about testifying, how did judge bork affect this? guest: he answered questions candidly. some people would say he was unfairly defeated, some would say appropriately, because his

judicial philosophy was so extreme. and since then, people do not talk about things as candidly as judge bork did. i think the impact actually is much more subtle than that, because in the years following his nomination, through 1995 the nominees did speak candidly about the judicial philosophy and what they thought. what changed after judge bork was the attitude of many about what they other side, for lack of a better word, is willing to do about nominees that they do not like. on the right, judge bork is something of a rallying cry. people believed that what happened to him was unfair and it began a process of degrading the confirmation process, making it politicized. that is not historically accurate. if you look back at what happened to say justice fortis

or marshall in their hearings, there was just as much effort to politicize and to go after them as happened with the judge bork. if you go back to the founding, the early nominees were frequently defeated by senate that did not like their judicial philosophy and ideology. so if anything, the judge bork's testimony and his hearing has affected the process in terms of people's perception, much more than in a kind of inaccurate way. host: if you go to our website, we have video judge bork's testimony before the senate judiciary committee. to show you a little bit of it, during the confirmation process he was asked about his views on the 10th amendment. power not given to the federal government should be put to the people or the state. here is part of his answer. that that is think unfortunately part of what i was

discussing when i was discussing the fact the commerce clause has expanded in ways that are too late for a judge to go back and tear up. i think that the framers and ratifiers had a rather clear idea that these powers were limited and had kind of cleared condors to them. and the government operated that way for a long while. but the fact is, beginning with the civil war through the new deal, the idea that those powers were limited and not really national in scope got lost. and now we are operating in a fashion in which the 10th amendment, i am sorry to say, has almost no practical syndicates. and -- no practical significance. in the wayt see much that the country has grown. host: any input on the?

-- on that? guest: that is an example of him saying, although he thinks it is wrong, it would be hard to turn back the clock of various prece dence. it was not clear if many of the cases he thought were wrongly decided, including the case of griswold that protects people's rights to access to contraception, it was not clear that he thought it was wrongly decided, meant he would vote to overrule them. those are two different questions. he said something that were quite remarkable and really, i think am inconsistent with what most americans felt comfortable with. for example, he talked about rights as being something of a zero-sum game. so if one person or one type of person has rights, that necessarily - does not necessarily mean that people have fewer rights. that is not necessarily in

approach to thinking about rights that americans would embrace. host: this is the republican line, madalyn. caller: thank you for taking my call. , regardlessto say felt above judge , the way that they cannotand treated him, i see how anyone could say they christian or they had a heart. someone can talk about , they justmocrats

criticized him like he was a nobody. and everybody knows he is very smart. host: ok. is there a history about the people coming out right off the bat, once the nominee is named, about whether they will support or oppose him, that we saw this time? guest: sure. southern democrats, for example, in the 50's and 60's. southern republicans, like senator thurmond, who would come out actively against any nominee that they saw as supporting brown versus education, or the criminal procedure jurisprudence. the early hearings in the 1950's and 1960's are made up exclusively of segregationists be rating nominees who they thought might agree with brown v. board of education.

so the idea of what we have seen raises, or isw or different in terms of how nominees are treated, i think that is really quite inaccurate. host: our guest served as the former illinois solicitor general, the founder and codirector of the institute on the supreme court of the united states. a little bit about the institute, please. guest: we started in 2011 and we are committed to public education about the supreme court and having some academic symposia and conferences at the law school itself. and we have had several justices visit the loss goal, justice scalia, justice hagan, and justice stevens have all visited since the institute came into being. and we have a blog, which you can find by googling it. we have tried to teach people and you've them abreast of what is happening at the supreme

court at a level that would interest the educated observer, but not any wonky, lawyer way. host: bob in wisconsin. caller: i have a question and a comment. has there ever been a member of the other party, a chair of the other party, that ever held things until the last week? and a quick,. comment. he was really calm to the way i would be acting, if accused of rape. you cannot accuse somebody of something and not expect them to fight back. guest: i think it is not true that we expect people to stay calm when they are accused of things. we expect committal defendants to observe a lot of courtroom manners. so i am actually not all that sympathetic to the notion that the way that judge kavanaugh expressed his anger was

appropriate. or even to some degree understandable. i could understand him being angry, but his anger directed at the senators, imagine criminal defendant doing that with a judge or prosecutor. it would not go well for that person. so we expect people, which is of things, rightly or wrongly, to behave with a measure of the quorum. -- of decorum. host: charles is next. caller: hello. 84-year-old liberal democrat. gideon versus rain white -- wainwright. you would think it is some but it could write a letter to the supreme court and get their attention? guest: this is a great question. i think the answer is actually yes, but i have to explain a little bit. the supreme court gets somewhere between 7000-9000 petitions a year asking the court to hear cases.

many of those petitions are pro-say, written against themselves, most of those written by prisoners either writing to appeal their sentences or their convictions, or they are writing to appeal about the cases where they were alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement. and there are thousands of these petitions that come in every year. they are -- host: we lost a bit of audio. if you want to continue on with the calls, once we get back to chicago, you can call 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. you can post thoughts on twitter. and you can also post on facebook. if you want to post on this segment or others, good to

facebook.com/cspan. , weguest, carolyn shapiro will try to get back to her as soon as we can. diane in michigan, hello. we are on, what is your comment or question? caller: i just recently learned that the supreme court is made judges and three jewish judges. i am questioning why more people do not talk about that heavyweight. host: why do you think it is important to consider? caller: i do not, well, i do not know. it just seems like they would all be bent in the same direction, although it does not look like it anymore. host: does religious makeup play into the supreme court and how the confirmation process goes? guest: it certainly has not been

an issue in the hearings themselves for the most part. i do not think it is appropriate to say that we have to have any kind of religious quota, it would be unconstitutional to say that there is some kind of religious representation that is required or necessary on the court. but it is true that people's background into values inform their ideology and judicial philosophy, and so those things can be related to the religious backgrounds. and we have heard nominees talk about the religious backgrounds as a source of the values that inform their lives. host: in your opinion, what was the standout feature for ruth bader ginsburg testified before the senate? guest: what everybody likes to say is she created this ginsburg give nominees will not forecasts on how they are likely to rule. but i think the standout feature was how much she did say.

she talked a lot about roe versus wade. she explained she did think it was rightly decided. she thought the reason he was wrong and she explained why. and she had written about it previously, so she was not saying something new that people on the committee would not have already known about her, but she was willing to explore that. and she was likewise willing to talk about a lot of previously decided cases and indicate whether or not she thought they were rightly or wrongly decided. unfortunately, in recent years, nominees have not been willing to be that candidate. host: if you go to art video library you can see ruth bader ginsburg talking about her thinking on roe versus wade and related issues. go ahead. >> you asked me about my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy. and my answer to you is it is both. this is something central to a

woman's life, to her dignity. it is a decision that she must make for herself. and when government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices. you also appreciate that simply presented this not as the only approach, but as an option that was looked at. um, with regard to the equal would the argument, equal -- since this may well confer a right to choose on the would it alsod, follows that the father would be

entitled to a right to choose in this regard, or some rights in this regard? >> that was an issue left open in roe v. wade. and if i recall, it was closed court's mostthe recent decision. there where a series of regulations -- were a series of regulations that the court dealt with. upheldi remember, it most of them, but it struck down one of them. the notice to the husband. and has something to do with a matter that the chairman raised earlier, i think there was an thatation in that opinion marriage and family life is not

always all that we might wish it to be. whoseat there are women physical safety, even their lives, would be endangered if the law required them to notify their partners. host: as you said, a lengthy explanation. what was the response, do you recall? guest: i do not recall what came next after she said that, but it was not a surprise to anybody that she thought roe v. wade was correctly decided, or she thought that women's equality depended on them being able to control their own bodies. she had written about that. one of the things that was disappointed to me about brett kavanaugh's testimony is he backed away from things he had previously written about, and is spoken about public. he said in several speeches he thought that just as request's

dissent in roe v. wade was terrific, a great opinion. and in his hearing, he backed away from endorsing that opinion. and even if he thinks that that judge was right, that does not commit him to overruling it, but in my opinion he should have been willing to say yes, that is what i think. i think it was wrongly decided and i think justice rehnquist was correct. host: again, carolyn shapiro is our guest. steve, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am curious, had the allegations been nonsexual, say about fraud or bankruptcy, with the investigation had taken a different tone as opposed to what i am understanding, is because it was sexual it was pushed under the rug, but had there been another type of allegation, would the

investigation gone a different way? guest: i would say that there are two different ways of thinking about that. one is that, of course it is impossible to imagine that this wayhat the allegations, the the allegations are responded to has a lot to do with the historic moment we are in, with the me too movement, anger about things president trump has been with respect to women. so the moment we are in, the cultural moment, informs people's response to the specific allegations. but the other thing i would say is if there was some kind of financial fraud or concern about -- that could be just as major a scandal. there were a lot of people who wanted to know more about judge kavanaugh's finances, people who are concerned he did not adequately answer those questions. some of the questions could have

been addressed in the confidential session, we do not know. but it is possible that such allegations, hypothetically -- i am not making allegations about his finances -- but such allegations could lead to a big scandal, depending on what they were and how they came out. host: from latonya in texas, democrats line. go ahead. caller: i am a precinct chair for the harris county democratic party. involved, and i am upset about the confirmation of brett kavanaugh. he is a rapist. and, you know, i am very upset about the process. too-ist as well. what is the democrat party going to do about this? because i cannot stand this. i want brett kavanaugh

impeached. and i would like to know, what is the democratic party going to do about this? host: thank you. the impeachment process or questions about impeaching somebody currently on the supreme court has come up over the last few days. can you give us some input? guest: the impeachment process requires the house first to vote to impeach, which is like an indictment. they would do an investigation, determine if they thought allegations were true and worthy of impeachment. the senate, if they decided it was, the case would go to the senate and the senate would have to decide whether or not to remove the judge, or in some cases the president, or other officials from there office. -- their office. they can only be removed by a two thirds vote. a impeachment is by

democratically controlled house of judge kavanaugh is not implausible, and i cannot speak for the democratic party, but i would say that it appears that there are -- there is interest to at least investigate some of the things brett kavanaugh said further. that is not limited to the things he said about dr. ford, that includes things he said about things he did while he was in the bush white house. things he said that may or may not be confirmed or refuted by documents that have yet to be released by the national archives, but will be released by the national archives. and there are many people who, certainly senate democrats, who are concerned that even before the allegations came out, that he was not being candid within them. host: tom on the republican line from a sugar. -- from michigan. caller: i have a suggestion and

a comment. has c-span as, an information portal on cable news, have they ever considered somehow getting to a point in the future where we will see arguments occurring in the supreme court on a regular basis, not just any hot button issue that happens to come up in the public's consciousness? and specifically what i would like to see, i wanted brett kavanaugh on the court because i think with a conservative majority we will finally get to a point where they will argue roe v. wade. i do not think it will be overturned, i think there are other justices that will prevent that from occurring, but roe v. wade, if it came up with the whole brett kavanaugh nomination -- what i would love to see is c-span taking initiative to get more coverage of our supreme

court. host: tom, thank you. i will point you to the website at c-span.org, our cameras in the court website. we have long held the position that cameras in the court is something that we would want to see, as we want to see what plays out before the supreme court. hen we get audio, w audio the arguments we take that process and we play it out. you can see her positioning when it comes to cameras in the court when you come to c-span.org. professor, as we wrap up, what does the future hold, especially what we saw in this confirmation process, how do you think it will shape future ones? guest: future confirmation hearings? host: yes. guest: right now, everybody is still extremely raw on both sides of the political spectrum. so there is a lot of, a lot of allegations being thrown back

and forth, accusations, and people on the right think that what happened to brett kavanaugh was done in bad faith. that dr. ford's allegations were held back deliberately and brought out at the last minute to try to sabotage him. people on the left, of course, many people on the left feel like the allegation was not properly investigated, that it was not given the kind of serious consideration that was appropriate. and also do not feel an appropriate amount of information was made available about judge kavanaugh, even before the allegations came forward. it will depend to some degree on which party controls the senate the next time there is a supreme court nominee, but i do not think those particular allegations and reviews of the other side will really go away. they seem pretty well set. and i should add, that the democrats are still angry about

what happened with president obama's nominee, merrick garland. hearingnot even given a after president obama nominated him. so i think that the level of partisanship and anger on the part of both parties, on the committee and people in the public who are partisan, it is not going to go away. and on this issue, as in so many others. the: carolyn shapiro with chicago-kent college of law institute on the supreme court of the united states. thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: until the end of the program at 10:00 a.m. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. ♪ host: we will be right back. announcer: american history tv is in prime time this week. tonight, the supreme

court historical society looks at the lives and legacies of chief justices warm burger and john marshall, as well as robert jackson and thurgood marshall. on tuesday, federal appeals court judge douglas ginsburg on the history and evolution of the nation's highest court and of the debate over original is in. and on wednesday, on lectures in history, a discussion on southern culture in the u.s. with history professor tom lee of east tennessee state university. on thursday, in a look back 100 years at german u-boat campaigns during world war i, starting with the 1918 attack that sink the ss mark off of the coast of north carolina. and on friday, descendents of president ford, truman, mckinley and theodore roosevelt share family stories at the kennedy

center in washington. watch american history tv this week in primetime on c-span3. c-span, where history unfolds daily. created as aan was public service 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 dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: again on this open phones, if you wish to post thoughts on our twitter feed, you can make those known as well on facebook.com, and with the phone lines -- for republicans,

202-748-8001. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. the house a speaker will be speaking at the national press club. he is their guest, discussing the theme of americans and how they are better off now, highlighting the contrasts between republican policies and the democrats' vision for america. that will be at 4:00 p.m. on c-span2. the swearing in for brett kavanaugh taking place today at 7 p.m. this evening. he was officially sworn in on saturday, this is the ceremonial swearing in. c-span, c-span.org, and our radio app, you can listen to it there. the president will be in florida speaking with the chiefs of police at 1:30 p.m. on c-span. we will start with chad in maryland. democrats line. caller: how is it going?

host: fine, thank you. caller: with the whole brett kavanaugh thing, i mean, he was not special, there were other people who could have been elected. when the controversy came up, it was a really strung out thing and if they still elected him, and it seems like a big "f" you towards women and shows the lack of equality in the country. it is richmond versus the rest of us, i guess. host: cahd in maryland -- chad in maryland. you can see this tonight, the indiana senate debate at 7:00 p.m. with joe donnelly and mike on and --vaughn. you can see the on c-span2. that is part of our coverage. larry on the republican line. caller: yes, obviously, i think

the thing that really -- was the bedrock principle of you are innocent until proven guilty. this really alarmed me when the democrats polled out all the stops. it is one thing to oppose brett kavanaugh on political grounds, but when you start accusing somebody without any collaboration and you are guilty until proven innocent -- we would destroy our democratic institutions. i think that everybody in this country should be alarmed at that and there is nobody that has the political courage in the democratic party to oppose that. they can oppose brett kavanaugh based on his decisions at the federal court level, but to make some accusations, you know, and it just, without any collaboration. it is alarming and i do not by the fact this is just a job interview. we can make any accusation against a senator, when we could

have a private investigator dig of their on them and this country would really be dysfunctional. host: bob from california. caller: hi, there. my -- in the 1950's. and in the 1950's, i learned that it is ok for a man to correct his wife. i have seen a drunk hit a woman. the woman was his wife. of course, that was his property and she better shut the hell up. it is going to be a heck of a time with the kind of court and law, and the pursuit of injustice of some people in the as they try to preserve their personal power. their personal power may be of a clan, of a race, a religion. but all of those things pushed

heavily on us in the 1950's. i was looking into going into the air force in the early 1960's. and then i saw that the air force was deeply affiliated with christianity. the flyers they sent from the air force to join was seeped in religion. host: ok, bob in california. president trump sending out a tweet on columbus day, a federal holiday, saying christopher columbus's spirit of adventure has provided inspiration to generations of americans. we honor his remarkable couple schmitz as a navigator and to celebrate his voyage to the unknown expense of the atlantic ocean. a statement from the white house. internationally, particularly the turkish president questioning the actions of the saudi government, saying he

called the disappearance of the saudi journalist a very upsetting thing, but stop short of the reportst of the killing of the journalist last week. the washington post reported on saturday that a turkish investigator had concluded that the critic of the saudi leadership had been killed inside of the consulate on tuesday by a team sent from saudi arabia. a person familiar with the investigation called a preplanned murder in the u.s. official confirmed that the turkish government had confirmed he was killed inside of the consulate by a team that arrived on private jets. the officials concluded his body was probably dismembered and flown out of the country. save those missouri -- st. louis, missouri. steve. caller: i have watched the post hearing, and i really tried to be objective about this and i

have actually watched a couple times over, as i had taped it. i came to the conclusion of this, and i am still not sure, ok? i do not deny that dr. ford was very credible. and i really believe something happen to her. evidentiallook at matter. that is what i have been hung up on. if there would have been just one person under oath who would have said they had seen something, that would have swayed me. i have from missouri, you have to show me. and i am still hung up on this. i still want, i guess i want to believe them both and i know that is impossible, because i think that they were both credible. host: ok. let's hear from dennis in illinois. republican line. caller: i have called in to ask,

in the last 80 years has any republican party done anything poor,e medium role, destitute and homeless people in this country that would benefit other people than themselves? republicans are takers and have been for years. they believe that all that money in fort knox is their tax money. they have no intention of ever helping out anybody else in their lives, but themselves. republicans run their own businesses and if things do not go their way, they would fire all their employees and make sure they cannot find a job anywhere else. i really believe the republican deteriorated so much that it is something like the hitler party. host: the new york times talking

about the secretary of state, mike pompeo, currently in china. but also on sunday, in north korea where he said that, according to the new york times, he said nothing about making significant breakthroughs in their nuclear program, but saying the north's agreement to allow inspectors to a network of tunnels where they conducted nuclear tests, including one last november, had claimed it was a successful test of the hydrogen bomb. missing from mike pompeo's account from his meeting with kim jong-un, followed by lunch, was any mention of the first step toward denuclearization. and the inventory of the north's of its missiles and missile launchers. the u.s. has said that it would form the base of determining whether the north was being truthful. washington has compiled its own list based on intelligence

sources. and has set a schedule for dismantlement. so that in the new york times. mike pompeo in china, currently. caroline, maryland. democrats line. caller: good morning. i love hearing all the comments. i wanted to comment on judge kavanaugh and the collaboration. i cannot expect them to find any collaboration, because abusers, molesters, of their best weapon is the secrecy and they will get someone in a private situation and that is how they do it. so i did not expect them to find anything, because that is what they do. but the greatest thing of all of this is it brought out the issue of abuse, molestation, all of that. it brought it to the forefront, which it needs to be. we need to talk about that and we need to talk about it in a civil manner. and that is why so many people

are in pain, because they could recognize in christine blasey ford, they could recognize her pain. you do not forget the abuse or the abuser. you might forget the other stuff, but those are two things that you do not forget. host: ok, terry in washington state on the republican line. caller: i want to employ the democrats, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, to realize how important this election is in for them to both stepped down in leadership roles. nancy pelosi shapiro support behind john lewis. chuck schumer behind tammy duckworth. i did a republicans to come after them, as a speaker and minority leader. everyhould pledge for dollar that dollar chunk gets from the mexican government, we will appropriate a dollar for the wall. as soon as the mexican government starts sending him a dollar, we will match in them.

host: why change the leadership? caller: because do not make them an issue. do -- unless it is their ego of power, they should realize how critical the election is. and take away any issue that this moron and chief can use. john lewis, why shouldn't he be the first black speaker of the house? host: ok. let's go to mike in maryland. on the republican line. caller: i want to give a big shout out to the american people for electing president trump to start dismantling the less power structure through bureaucracy and the courts. and another tip of the hat for making the point that a lot of the -- cannot be won through the ballot box, so they do it through the courts. how did we get abortion? through the courts.

they cannot win at the ballot box, they cannot win legislatively to get their agenda across, so they always back door through the courts. obamacare, outside of that, they have not had legislative victories. and once they elected him, they lost a ton of seats because of the dirty secrets they want to hide is, the mica people do not agree with the left agenda. the media may want you to think it, the courts may try to force it on you, but every time people get a chance to vote they vote them out. host: ok, mike in maryland. craig in washington d c. hi. caller: can you hear me? host: you are on. caller: my name is craig. good morning. host: good morning. caller: i wanted to comment on the latest that called not long ago, she made a very good point. that the republicans, you know, they are always doing something for the rich.

this is really true. i hope you are listening. helpcampaign on trying to the middle class, but they will not do anything for the middle class. and they were talking about the government, they were about to take -- raise. they are not going to do anything for the middle class. and a lot of white folks who vote for him, when they take your assurance from you -- ins urance from you, you will be in a lot of hurt. host: one thing that came up from the confirmation hearings into the sunday shows was the idea of a potential move by some on the democratic party, should the house take control of the -- or should the democrats take control the house, was the idea of impeaching brett kavanaugh once he is on the court. here is one democratic senator talking about that and what he thinks about that. >> the house democrats talking

about re-investigating brett kavanaugh, possibly looking at impeachment, what do you make of those pledges coming from some house democrats? >> i think that that is premature. i think that frankly, we are less than a month away from an election. folks who feel strongly one way or the other about the issues in front of us should go out and vote and participate. there has only ever been one justice impeached and talking about it at this point is not moving us forward. the senate's role in our politics is not just to reflect the country but leave the country, and that is the course we should be on. host: tony in marietta, georgia. on the line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning. if we could just take politics dr. ford's testimony and

a look at what she stated, the fact that she said this person had their hand over her mouth, restricting her breathing. now, as a child you would remember something that profound happening to you, and you would not confuse who it was that was doing it to you. i mean, look at the human side of it. there would be no confusion in your mind as to who was doing this act to you. thank you. host: the wall street journal reports that the pentagon is set to audit its defense supply chains. this story this morning. the purpose is to find gaps in readiness, reporting that u.s. intelligence agencies will help with a sweeping review of demented supply chains, according to ellen lord, who is saying we will audit, as she

told reporters, as a report revealed risks in the manufacturing center that relies on foreign suppliers and through a shortage of workers. the story goes on to say that the shortage of parts has hampered u.s. manufacturers' ability to reach demand. boeing, the second biggest contractor for the u.s. government, has had to park partly completed jets while it waits on parts to finish them. more on that in the wall street journal. we will go to marie in san antonio, texas. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i think the program is outstanding. i am a democrat and 66 years old. with brett kavanaugh, i was really -- i got caught up in the television coverage and i was really unsure. but then when i heard senator

wasins, i must say that i so impressed and she was so articulate, that i just knew that, yes, she did read all of the judicial decisions that the judge had made. she did her homework. she worked hard on her research. she had people come in and brief her. i believe her decision, it was hard for her to come to her decision, but through her research and through everything that she did, she made the decision, i think it tough decision, especially whatever her outcome will be, i think we need more politicians like her. she is very credible. too-er. a me i believe dr. ford did go through the experience she said. we cannot remember a lot when things happen like that.

however, if it was the judge, i believe it was probably him because that does not go away. but he probably does not remember, and snowman is going to admit -- and no man is going to admit to doing something like that. now we need to move on. the judge is in office. it is a lifetime appointment. if you want to change, go out and vote. and let your voice and vote be heard. host: senator collins' speech was 40 minutes and you can see the entire speech on c-span. here is a small portion. court'supreme confirmation process has been in decline for more than 30 years. the brettly hope that kavanaugh nomination is aware the process has finally hit

rock-bottom. speech isn, the full available as c-span.org. from broken arrow, oklahoma, bob is next. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am well, thank you. caller: i think people out here, it is laughable to see how chunky t and the rest of the media has handled this. they are getting hysterical over punch bowls and this and that, do they not realize how ignorant they sound when they wear their narrative on their sleeve? it is a good time for america and a good day for america that brett kavanaugh is finally in and the democrats are absolutely pathetic. have a good day. host: harrisburg, pennsylvania, barb is next. caller: good morning. i wanted, as a catholic, to throw some color -- that one

caller mentioned that six of the judges are now catholic. and i wanted to point out a clarification. when you go into a confessional and confess sins, you cannot be absolved unless you make reparations to the person that was sinned against. and also, when you receive communion every day or every sunday, if you knowingly have sinned and receive that communion, then you are committing a sin again. so i just think that brett kavanaugh in his heart, i guess he believes he is innocent. he is receiving communion with his daughters and wife. if you received communion every sunday, in his heart he must know that he is innocent. so, i am very conflicted. i am not happy he was confirmed.

i just think that there is too much at stake. at this point. but i wanted to clarify those two points about catholic teaching and if he has fortitude in his heart to do the right thing. host: ok, 7:00 p.m. tonight is where you can see just as kavanaugh's ceremonial swearing in. that will be on c-span and c-span.org, or listen to it on the c-span radio app. wayne in pennsylvania, you are next. ayne.r: hello, this is w i want to comment on politics. i am a supporter of president trump, by the way. i just believe, the thing with the election, there are many people who disliked him. and right now i think the best

way to pull the country together is for the democrats to come toward the center and pull away from some of the harsh rhetoric towards gender and racial rhetoric. it does not help this country. i and 34 years old, i have not seen things like this now. host: should republicans also move toward the center as well? caller: absolutely. i think they should call the president out on some of the things he says. i support the president's, but i disagree with some of the things he says. host: aside from what he says ,hen it comes to policy -- says when it comes to policy what should they work together on? caller: main issues, such as the immigration issue. i think that there is a lot of -- um, -- gosh. host: we will go on to patricia. patricia is in michigan,

republican line. caller: good morning. i am talking about the me too movement. i guarantee you some women in on? crowd -- am i host: go ahead. caller: in that crowd that actually had something that happened to them, but what they want, they want somebody to pay for what happened to them. so they are going after brett kavanaugh. that is going to give them justification. they scream in the faces of the senators. the republicans know what is going on. they do not go against what is happening. but you can't take a good man down because something happened to you. and furthermore, within one of those movements, the me too movement, with the hollywood shes -- i guarantee you

wanted him gone, so she called the democratic party, wanted it to be kept secret, get something going so that hoping they would keep it secret. i just -- host: that is patricia in michigan. this is the hill this morning, saying senator jeff merkley from oregon, saying an interview on monday on their tv program that the white house violated the separation of powers by refusing to turn over documents related to the supreme court justice's time in the george bush administration, saying, "we cannot do that if the president uses privilege to block or access to keep documents and that is what the president did in this case, 100,000 documents related to his service during his time with the white house counsel.

it is the first time it has happened in our country that this censorship has occurred. it is a violation of the separation of powers. the courts could not move fast enough to get a hearing." dding that the comments came after the u.s. district court judge amy berman denied his request on friday to force the disclosure of over 100,000 pages of documents. from brenda in los angeles, go ahead. caller: good morning. if i am just wanted to know all of the the senators -- the senators who interviewed these two parties, if any of them have been trained on how to interview a victim of abuse and the abusers. i would like to know how many there were. and i am tired of democrat versus republican. it should be bipartisan. the best for the u.s., not for

each party. thank you. goodbye. host: sandra will be the last call from new york, go ahead. caller: i was one of those teenagers who hung out, we called it hookie parties back then. i can tell you about passing out. i only remember half of the places i went to. but i will saythe way judge kavd in that hearing, i don't think that he would take kindly to you or i or anybody else acting the same way. thank you for taking my call. host: that is the last call for this program. another one comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. ♪

>> coming up lot today on c-span, president trump will deliver remarks at the international association chief police convention in orlando, florida. life at 1:30 p.m. eastern time. then washington state democratic senator maria cantwell will debate stephen hutchinson in tacoma, washington. eastern, with30 29 days to go until election day, which are c-span is your primary source for campaign 2018. president trump will host a ceremonial swearing-in for supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. in the east room of the white house, life at 7:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span two, house speaker

paul ryan is expected to talk about a number of policy issues at the national press club in washington, d.c.. our press coverage starts at 4:00 p.m. on c-span two. you can also watch online at c-span.org or visit the c-span radio app. tonight on the communicators, jeanette macron, ace -- a homeland security secretary talk about cyber threats against the u.s.. and how the country is working to foil efforts to interfere in the 2018 election. day, everyngle system, whether it is the federal agency or the bank or the local government office, you are constantly battling, if you will, actors were trying to get into your networks. if you have sensitive data, if you have a system that has something important. you have everything from your

everyday activists trying to deface your website. , which i think is the majority of what people deal with, all the way to the nationstates, trying to get access to either information that is useful to them or trying to be in a position where critical infrastructure is at risk. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. debate between candidates for i will cover -- first -- for i was first congressional district. donaldtrict voted for trump in the 20 16 presidential election and for barack obama in 2012. the cabinets -- the candidates did it -- debated in a wide range of topics.