they are not going to school board meetings. they are not covering the president. on delivering our content and monetizing around that content and if you don't do that anymore we don't have local journalism. the question isn't whether or not we want a strong and vibrant journalism industry. the question is how to get there and should we do it with an antitrust exemption specifically. we tried that in the 1970's when newspapers were last threatened by a new medium. the broadcast era. it didn't work. >> watch the communicators tonight on c-span two. former special counsel robert mueller at the judiciary committee on wednesday, july 17 at 9:00 a.m. eastern to testify in open session about his report into russian interference in the 2016 election. watch live coverage on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app.

host: this weekend on "newsmakers," carrie severino, who is the chief counsel and policy director for the judicial crisis network. thank you for being here. carrie: great to be here. host: alex swoyer, the legal reporter with "the washington times" and simone pathe with "rollcall." thank you both. let me begin with the final two decisions by the supreme court. the new york times court reporter called them stunning and proof that the chief justice john roberts is making this court his own. what is your view of the rulings and imprint he is having on this court? >> talking about the gerrymandering case and the census case, what we are seeing is the gerrymandering case was a wonderful opportunity for the justices to step back and say we are being asked to do something

that judges aren't entitled to do in the constitution which is second-guessed the redistricting going on. there is not a legal standard for that. it is political and judges shouldn't get into that. that was a great conclusion. majority, the chief justice and the other conservatives. we saw the court going the other way in the consensus case and the chief justice leading that. he seems to want to be chief justice marshall and give a little to each person and the less out. unfortunately, that is not the role of the judge and it worries me because it does show a political nature to some of those decisions. not every decision he had this term but it was disappointing in this case. he left the door open for the president -- the administration to put a citizenship question on the census. it is hard to come to another conclusion. it has been on the census for most of our history and continues to be asked by the bureau in spotcheck surveys. it would be shocking to say it is not constitutional but he

went outside the role of what a judge is supposed to be doing in reviewing this by saying let's try to start delving into their subjective goals. that isn't what the judicial legal standard is where such broad discretion is given. that was a real concern to me. however, overall it was a very successful term for conservatives in particular. great decisions on separation of powers, judicial liberty. i was very encouraged. host: i wanted to ask you about the chief justice. there was some outrage on social media over the census ruling and there was a tweet calling for the impeachment of the chief justice. i want to ask you, how would that even come about? >> i can't remember the last

time a judge has been impeached. that is not realistic, and again, i understand the frustration because this is something that unfortunately we saw with the chief justice in the obamacare case, as well and the recent biography of the chief justice laid out in very damaging detail, which if it is accurate, it looks like a political decision where you know what the right answer is and he seems to be trying -- i'll come to the right conclusion, the one that i think is legally mandated on the commerce clause but in case, trading votes effectively with kagan and breyer to try and get the result he taught was politically more feasible. that is not the work of a judge. that is how a legislator works and that is an unfortunate development we have seen. people were frustrated because they saw that has a pattern. this is why it is so important to stick with judges like gorsuch and kavanaugh, we need to just look at what the law says and that is the kind of reasoning we have to go for.

not what are the political consequences of something? that shouldn't play a role in a judge assessment of a case. simone: you mentioned gerrymandering, the court deciding that was a political decision that they didn't want to wade into but it is something a lot of americans are not happy about. you said it is ugly in our political system right now. is there a fear, especially on the right, that this decision could embolden democrats to do more gerrymandering in places they control the state legislature? carrie: sure, it is a problem that goes back to before the revolutionary war. that was something interesting in chief justice roberts' opinion. this goes way back. we get the name from a signer of the declaration of independence. he had districts that look like salamanders, hence gerrymander. they committed it to the legislatures.

the state legislatures and they recognized state legislatures might become politically captured. they then said the federal congress can also make rules to regulate if those get out of hands. kit is a political question that goes to the political process. justice o'connor spoke about this a lot in the cases that she heard when she was in the court. she had been a state legislator. she realized this is quintessentially political activity. when you get judges involved in it, it is a real danger because a, it is not their job. it is not a legal or constitutional standard. they shouldn't be making the standards up and it puts them in a position of every single time there is a census and redistricting, they will be called on across the country to basically pick political winners and losers. that would be a horrible outcome for the court and most importantly, it is a horrible outcome because it is not how the constitution has designed the system to work. justices are not there to fix everything.

some things, unfortunately the political process has to be there to fix. there are states who have enacted either constitutional amendments or laws trying to create ways to get the partisanship out of that and that is absolutely an option but it has to be through the legislatures, not the courts. alex: could the court ever have another gerrymandering question if congress were to pass, or is this it? carrie: this is a very clear answer. for the last 45 years, we have had cases saying what about political gerrymandering? the court has a role, if it is racial gerrymandering, we have an amendment for that. they have to step in if there is racial discrimination but that does not mean every type of question on redistricting goes to the court. congress passed a law, they should.

they have put down that no, this is final. i predict on this question, that will be pretty final. could they consider it if congress passed a law? absolutely and that would be within their judicial role. simone: a lot of americans who might not have heard of the judicial crisis network heard from your organization this week during the democratic debate. you had an ad running on both nights this week. tell us more about what that ad was intended to achieve and how that reflect your political priorities going into 2020. carrie: we all saw during 2016 the significance of trump having a list of judges for the supreme court. a lot of people have pointed to that as a key reason he won in that election. people saw the importance of the supreme court, but this is someone not just giving platitudes and historically, we

get someone who is saying either i want some one who is going to support the constitution and that is vague enough to encompass a wide range of philosophies. in a negative extreme, i will appoint someone with a particular result. i will vote this -- appoint this way for labor or women or something else. but saying here are the people i would choose from. it is great transparency for the american people and they can make a judgment on one of the most consequential actions any president has. this is someone who serves for life. deciding how to interpret our founding document, our laws. that is a generational impact. when he put that out, that worked so well that now, we see some groups on the left and "the new york times" had reported a group called building the bench, we want to come up with a list, as well.

whoever is chosen to be the nominee, they will be ready with a list. it was a key difference and they said we are not going to disclose who is in this list. the point of our ad was to say that is something the american people deserve to hear. that transparency was a step forward in our process and if you are coming up with a secret list, what does that mean? if they thought that these people were going to be the principled constitutionalists that trump had on his list and which was what made it so popular, i think they would be putting it out for people to see. i am concerned it could be a list people are so extreme they are worried it would hurt them in the election to have those out. i would take with the names out there. let's have the americans able to debate what kind of judges we are going to see on the supreme court because that is one of the most important thing the president in 2020 will be able to do. >> what role will your group have in the 2020 campaign? do you have a strategy? carrie: our objective is for

people to recognize the significant of the court for the elections. it is something we did talking about all of the nominees on both sides and at that time, it was 20 republican contenders and only a handful of democratic ones. the same principles are in place. we think the american people are interested in judges and we saw in the election, more than 1/5 of the voters said the supreme court was the number one issue going into elections. we think that is important and people should know what kind of judges the president should appoint and we also have a perspective on the kind of judges that means. someone who is faithful to the constitution, not an evolving document that means what five judges say today, but the actual document that was ratified by the framers. the actual amendments as they

were written, and the laws as they were written and passed by congress and signed by the president. that is what the judges need to confine themselves to doing. that is what most americans want on the court and it is a debate worth having. alex: historically, which party has benefited the most? you talked about the supreme court in mind when they went to the polls. if there was another vacancy ahead of the 2020 election, is there a historical record about who is energized most by that? carrie: the received wisdom is it seems republicans are more energized by it. there are a lot of people on the left trying to get their base encouraged to care about it. it is something voters across the spectrum though are seeing the importance of, as our federal government has grown -- and i would say out of proportion where it should be constitutionally, it has more impact on every american's life and that means the stakes for the supreme court are higher. i don't think it is how it was supposed to be originally but if you have justices determining laws that will be for the whole country in some of the different areas, it is natural that the stakes become very high.

i think there are a lot of people realizing more and more have significant the court is. our goal is to make it that the court is operating within its constitutional structure so there is that representation. it is the people's representatives that make the laws because justices are not elected, certainly not reelected. there is no check on them once they are on the court. it makes them independent, but it serves as a reminder that these aren't the people that the constitution says are supposed to be making the law. >> how much do you plan to spend on the 2020 campaign? carrie: we don't have a budget right now. it is not about campaigning, but making sure this issue is recognized. simone: when we talk about the supreme court motivating voters, what issues are we talking about, especially on the right? is it abortion, free speech? when voters think about the supreme court, what are they thinking about in terms of issues? carrie: there are a lot of issues. on the right in particular, they feel the court has gotten very

wrong. people criticize the roe v. wade decision, there are people who criticize it on the left who are pro-choice but don't feel that is actually good legally. there are people who are concerned that historically the courts hadn't given the second amendment. its adequate weight. the courts haven't done as much on that in the recent times but that is something people who care about the second amendment think very strongly. you have people who are concerned about the overgrowth of government, particularly in the administrative state and that is an issue in the courts lately. making sure separation of powers outlined in the constitution -- we learned in schoolhouse rock -- that that stays in place. we don't have unaccountable administrative agencies who are left to basically write laws themselves. under current president, often can interpret the laws themselves. they are acting both as the legislators and the judges in

their own cases. that is a real concern because it is in great tension with our constitutional system. that has a lot of people concerned for impacted by the overgrowth of the regulatory state. i could go on and on. there are concerns, we had a great establishment clause case in making sure religious freedom is adequately defended, free speech is defended. you name it, i think there is a case people look to and i want to make sure the court is confining itself to its role. host: we have about 10 minutes left. alex: on abortion, i know your former boss justice thomas said the court will have to take a case on this. they decided not to hear challenges to laws out of indiana this year as well as -- announced recently. if they were going to grant a case, looking at roe v. wade,

what would that look like? would it be one of the six week bans? carrie: it is very hard to know. there is a range of cases, as we saw just this term. disposal of fetal remains, which they came to a decision on. and the eugenic law in indiana, which they passed on for now but the court said that is an issue that merits taking up that they wanted to wait for that for other states to weigh in and see what other courts have done before going on to that. that is a definite possibility. there is pain capable. it could be any of those but it is hard -- a lot is determined by timing, which courts decide things when, but it has been interesting to see the states get in on the action too because we've seen states on both sides saying this is what people of new york want to do. more liberal abortion laws, all

nine months, free for all, let's go. other people on the side are saying in our state, we wanted more regulated. we are concerned about having abortions at any point after the first trimester, etc.. going forward, states are seeing maybe we need to realize we have a role in this. if you look at survey results, we see most americans -- 75% of americans want significantly more limits on abortion than there currently are. even 61 percent of people who consider themselves pro-choice still think abortion should be limited to the first trimester. it will be interesting to see, i'm going to have a state of the law where things start to actually match where the american people are or how that moves forward. simone: how much do you think that president trump's record on judicial nominees, his commitment to keeping the supreme court conservative, is that enough to shore up support among moderate voters, independent leaning republicans who are a little fed up with this president?

carrie: this has been one of the most impressive accomplishments of his administration. having first come in right off the bat and having justice gorsuch confirmed. this is someone who had a huge record, was so widely respected by everyone and got into the court and time and again, showed why why that choice had been made. he was the originalist, the textual list he had been in the 10th circuit. going on to have record numbers of appellate judges confirmed and not just any old appellate judges, these are the cream of the crop supreme court litigators, top-tier professors, people who have incredible amounts of experience and we are seeing that group of judges now already on the bench really starting to make a mark. having a second supreme court vacancy with justice kavanaugh, that was another strong pick and we seen his first term on the

bench be one where he was taking a leadership role in many cases in terms of pointing out the importance of the original understanding, the text of the law, and shore up that bench. look to that and say you know what, this is an incredible success and it is not just a temporary until someone overturns this piece of legislation or until the next president cancels out that executive order. these are people who will be serving for decades on the court and are going to be a key -- have a key role in making sure whatever laws our elected representatives pass, they are being faithfully taking care of. i think that is a huge issue and one trump has kept his promise on very solidly and i think that is going to be one that encourages people. alex: on the president's nominees, i know the building the bench initiative, they talked about wanting to come up with a list that is more diverse than what president trump has offered. a lot of democrat senators have

said all they are seeing from this president is white men nominated. is that a fair criticism and would you like to see more women nominated to the bench? carrie: i think there have been incredibly strong women nominated. it clearly has not been just white men. you've had a district court judge on the short list, now really been distinguishing himself as an appellate judge. naomi rau -- maybe some of the same people say it is too many white men, when it is an indian woman, we don't want her confirmed. come on. these are standout -- on top of which, you've got judge will it on the fifth circuit, grew up in a poor circumstances and that story -- in some ways, he has more in common with justice thomas than an african-american judge who grew up in a wealthy background, not that that wouldn't be a great nominee, as well. i think we are looking at the

wrong thing and we are trying to come up with quotas and ratios. let's look at having great men and women across the spectrum and boy, his he found that. simone: i want to ask about susan collins of maine. more than any other republican up for reelection in 2020, she has a target on her back because of her vote for justice kavanagh. she had a rather high-profile democratic challenger announcer candidacy this week. whoever wins the nomination in maine will be the beneficiary of nearly $4 million in grassroots funding activists have pulled together in opposition of collins. tell me how you see that vote playing out in the senate race next year. carrie: i just finished working on a book on the kavanaugh confirmation and learning about senator collins's role there was one of the highlights of the process. i don't necessarily agree with all of her policy issues. however, i can say in terms of

the way she comported herself during that nomination process, there was maybe no other senator who put the amount of time and effort into really researching and reading his opinions, actually delving into it. let's not just stick at the talking point level, she really read the decision down to the footnotes, debated them, put together an additional team of people who could inform her. she's not a lawyer but she took it seriously. she should probably get an honorary law degree after the work she has done on that and other judicial nominations. a lot of other people saw that, as well. even if they didn't get the chance to learn the details i learned in this report for this book, they could see it even in her speech from the floor. the incredible detail with which she meticulously and methodically went through the evidence in the case, but through his own judicial record. this is clearly someone who took the process incredibly seriously. i think that is something the people of maine will really value. i know there are a lot of people

who maybe didn't agree on every policy issue but understand she is a woman of principle and she took this nomination very seriously, so i think that is something that will go down to her benefit. >> tell us about why you decided to write the book. >> it is called justice on trial. molly hemingway and i are co-authoring. we started writing it because we knew there were other books coming out that were being written effectively by people from "post" or "the times" that had been part of the opposition to him in the first place and people involved in the confirmation process coming to us and saying there is an amazing story to be told. a lot of interesting things weren't reported but we want to find someone we can trust to tell the story. we don't trust them to play it fairly given how the reporting was done during the process. we said, well, we will try doing it ourselves and we were able to get amazing access. we talked to over 100 people from the president and vice president to multiple members of the supreme court, dozens of senators.

we talked to people on the outside effort to get the kavanaugh confirmed. we talked to people he had known his whole life, people who knew christine blasey ford in high school, as well. it was a large effort to get this together so we could have the definitive story of what actually happened and i have to say, i learned a ton in the process. i thought i knew everything there was to know about the confirmation and it was fascinating learning the details of how the opposition coordinated against him and also what were the keys to how his confirmation did end up succeeding. it is going to be exciting. susan collins plays a very big role, yes. simone: what are other keys to it? carrie: an interesting thing we found was how significant the role of women was in different places. susan collins is a big one.

his wife, ashley, was an inspiring person to learn more about. she was under an incredible amount of stress during this process but was really a bulwark for her husband and friends through the process. that was fascinating. another character i think is a strong woman was lelan keyser. she was someone who felt she had such a duty to the truth in saying not that i know this did or didn't happen, but i cannot be a witness to say it did happen even though she wanted to support her friend but wanted to make sure she was being faithful to only saying what she knew to be true. that was an incredibly crucial moment in the process. there are lots of interesting personal stories like that that go throughout and that was really fun to get a window into several of those characters. host: a couple more questions?

alex: speaking of justice kavanagh, i know this is his first term. were there any opinions you noticed or questions he asked or oral arguments that stood out to you that speak to the type of justice we can see in the future? carrie: i think it was interesting -- this is someone who had been on the bench for a dozen years before this but his questions during oral argument fit with the same pattern he had in the d.c. circuit. he is interested in making sure he is doing justice to both sides, not just -- some justices use questions to attack one side and make their point. i think he was really trying to delve into the arguments on both sides and also, asking questions that sometimes will help them in the way they are writing the decision to make sure they are writing it in a way that is clear because lower courts will have to be able to follow it and apply these laws later. how can we write this to make sure it is readable for the agency or the courts that have to carry this law into effect. i thought it was great to see

his opinions going back, and he had several great concurrences in separate writings on religious freedom cases, cross case where he went into the history of some of the problems with the lemon test, the current standard which is now out there but all but evaporated in terms of being used. some justices said we should get rid of it and it has been a recurring model in first amendment jurisprudence because he went through the history of cases in saying, lemon isn't even what is working here and let's go back to the actual history and understanding of this. i thought that was valuable. he's had several opinions like that which were -- concurrences that added a real controversy -- contribution to the final opinion that made sense of what it was. simone: the senate is obviously

the crucial body in the government when confirming judges. how optimistic are you republicans will hold control of the senate in 2020? carrie: i think they will because we have seen the senate elections in 2018, for example -- justice kavanuagh's confirmation was a major factor in it and conservatives have been happy with what is happening in terms of the success in the senate. having the incredible work of mcconnell, chairman grassley, now chairman graham has been a role point many people have looked at and say this is a great success. i think it is something the democrats were looking at as something they need to look at. joe manchin voted for kavanaugh and that was key for his success. it is something cross spectrum, having support for principled judges is something that is a winner in the senate elections. host: carrie severino, thank you for being this week's newsmaker.

alex swoyer, let's begin with where you began with the questions to carrie about the chief justice. what are you hearing from conservatives about chief justice john roberts? alex: a lot of them have said they think he is trying to take over that swing vote role that justice kennedy had played for so long but since his retirement, the chief justice might feel he needs to step into that role. i think there is also a little bit of hesitation because they don't know necessarily which way he is going to go and i think that is why they sometimes are fearful about his affordable care act ruling and what we just saw in the census case. presumably, what he could do in the future -- i know the court has granted review of daca. that could be on their minds as well. host: the reaction from his most recent rulings, what could they

-- talk of impeachment -- but what is there to do when the chief justice is in the position he is in for these conservatives? alex: right. you have to wonder -- they talk about sometimes wanting to have a judge that just follows the law, that you don't know which way they will come out just because that is the outcome they want. i think to be fair, some people can argue that is with the chief justice does. we saw the two major cases issued this week. he was a swing vote for both. that can be -- i know within the republican party, you meet people who are critical of him and you meet people who are supportive of that type of justice and it will be interesting next year watching how it shapes up with justice kavanagh, where does he fit in. we've seen justice gorsuch also be the swing vote and side with the democratic appointed

justices. we haven't seen that so much yet with kavanaugh so it will be something interesting to watch there, as well. host: simone pathe, you asked about the role the judicial crisis network will play in 2020. what role do they have in 2016 and how big are they compared to other grassroots groups on the outside that are trying to push the campaign one way or the other? simone: they are primarily focused on lobbying and what we call an electioneering communications. these are not necessarily specific super pac adds you see for an individual candidate but trying to shift the conversation politically one way or the other. you saw that last fall in the heat of the midterms after the justice kavanagh vote. they did run ads thanking senators for their votes and

pressure at before the vote saying tell so and so to vote. i think they will play an important role, as you heard with the judiciary being such a motivating factor for a lot of voters going back to 2018. i remember there were a lot of competitive senate races, especially in red states where democrats were up for reelection and places trump won. polling for them was looking pretty good, maybe about even, and in october, there is a 10 point drop in many states. indiana, missouri, claire mccaskill or joe donnelly, they took a hit -- not only from the way the conversation went down, but here's democrats had been overreacting in a way they had treated kavanaugh in those hearings. alex: it is funny she mentioned that because i saw on social media this week, someone had run into joe donnelly and he said something to the effect that i had it until kavanaugh.

there was a comment from one of those senators who had lost the race had it was very close. it speaks to the impact of those ads and how much pressure was put on the senators. host: how is susan collins looking at this point? simone: her popularity has dipped. collins is a popular senator so relative to other senators, that is not saying much. in approval rating terms, she's doing better than most incumbents but it is worth noting there were a lot of people in maine who were upset with the way she voted even if they would have liked to see a conservative justice on the court, they like her to be the independent moderate namebrand republican who does her own thing. the fact she went along with party leadership will certainly be a source of attack from the democratic party. host: alex swoyer, tell us what the court will take up next year that we need to watch for. alex: daca is one of the main immigration cases. there are several cases on title vii defining what sex is. is it orientation, gender? does it also deal with the trans

community and their rights in the workplace? that is something we will have to pay attention to. host: alex swoyer of "the washington times." simone pathe, "roll call." thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> join c-span for more roads to the white house coverage of the 2020 democratic presidential .andidates this evening, candidate and minnesota senator amy klobuchar will hold a meet and greet in iowa trade live coverage starts at 6:00 eastern. tomorrow, the mayor of south bend, indiana, pete buttigieg, will address the rainbow coalition chicago. 9:30begins live at a.m. eastern. and remarks by former congressman beto o'rourke in iowa. live coverage tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. eastern. you can also watch our roads the white house coverage online. or listen with the free c-span

radio app. tonight on the communicators, we talked about the future of journalism in the age of big tech firms with news media alliances david chapman and matthew shares with the commuter -- computer and communications industry association. >> facebook, google, apple. they employ exactly zero journalists. the amount of journalism they are doing is zero. they are not going to city hall. they are not going to school board meetings. they are not covering the president. they rely on delivering our content and monetizing around that content. if you do not do that anymore, if you do not have local journalists, the question is not whether or not we want a strong and vibrant journalism industry. the question is how to get there. should we do it with an antitrust exemption? we tried that in the 1970's when newspapers were last threatened by a new medium.

it did not work. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. former special counsel robert mueller at the house intelligence and judiciary on wednesday, july 17 at 9:00 a.m. eastern to testify in open session about his report into russian interference in the 2016 election. c-span3,e coverage on online at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app app. ♪ brian: heather mcghee, what is demos? heather: demos is a public policy organization ths