later on the day to discuss monetary policy and the u.s. economy. that is live at 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies, and more. >> buckeye broadband supports c-span, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning on washington journal, we will discuss calls for expanding the supreme court with brian fallon.

more on the topic with mike davis, founder and president of the article three project. later, george mason university professor laurie robinson on the state and local efforts to change policing practices. ♪ host: that's "and biden addressing congress tonight where he is expected to elaborate on other parts of his agenda, including expanded access to preschool and community college among other things. coverage starts at 8:00 this meat -- this evening. you can watch on c-span, c-span.org, or the free c-span radio app. the cdc announced relaxation of rules when it comes to wearing an -- a mask those who are being given more flexibility not to wear one. we will show you the

recommendations in our first hour and we are interested in hearing from you on if you follow cds he and other state and local guidelines on wearing a mask. if you say yes that you follow the guidelines and want to tell us why, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, you don't, (202) 748-8001. tex us your thoughts this morning at (202) 748-8003. you can tweet us @cspanwj, and the facebook page is facebook.com/c-span. the headline from "new york times" in other papers this morning about the new relax nations from the cdc, relaxing use on mask rules outdoors for the fully inoculated. dr. richelle lewinsky spoke to reporters about the relaxation of these rules and here's what's -- some of what she had to say. [video clip] >> there are many situations

where fully vaccinated people don't need to wear a mask, particularly if they are outdoors, as shown by the graphic on the right. if you are fully vaccinated and want to attend a small outdoor gathering with people who are vaccinated and unvaccinated or dine at a restaurant with friends from multiple households, the science shows that if you are vaccinated, you can do so safely unmasked. on the cdc website we have posted examples of numerous outdoor activities that are safe to do without a mask if you are fully vaccinated. generally, for vaccinated people , outdoor activities without a mask are safe. however, we continue to recommend masking in crowded outdoor settings and venues, such as packed stadiums and concerts where there is decreased ability to maintain physical distance and where many unvaccinated people may also be

present. we will continue to recommend this until widespread vaccination is achieved. host: "the new york times" stop short of -- said the cdc stop short of telling the unmasked people that they could take them off altogether given the high caseloads in some regions of the county, cautioning people about going against masks in medium-size outdoor gatherings. if you go to their website this morning they have a listing and a map that shows state requirements when it comes to wearing a mask. you will notice that many states along the west coast, many in the northeast, saying that they are mandatory when it comes to mask wearing. many states in between with no restrictions and a few states saying that sometimes masks are required. those are just the states that were her that. whether it be federal

guidelines, state or local, we are interested to hear from you about whether you follow these guidelines and you can tell us why. again, call us at (202) 748-8000 to tell us why you wear them. if you say no, (202) 748-8001 and tell us why. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8002 -- text us, (202) 748-8003. here are some of the facebook responses this morning. when it comes to mask wearing and guidelines, nope, the masks can't stop a virus, i prefer fresh air and smiling faces. david says some of you are like no thanks some guy on youtube or my favorite politician call this bad. tom says that he follows the guidelines and got vaccinated in that it's what a good citizen does. tom from our facebook page says i'm a good -- grown adult and i

don't need daddy government telling us what to do. text us on twitter if you would like to make your thoughts known . yorktown heights, new york, ray is up first and says he follows the guidelines. good morning, ray, tell us why. caller: absolutely, this thing is far from over, better safe and sorry. host: what are the guidelines where you live? caller: the way you described it. i believe in keeping the mask on because, you know, like i say, the virus is far from being over. host: is that outdoors or indoors? caller: i keep it on all the time, indoors and outdoors. host: ray in new york letting us know his thoughts. mark is in new york as well. schenectady, says he doesn't

follow the guidelines. mark, good morning. caller: good morning. i find that wearing a mask is very inconvenient and i find that going to get vaccinated is an unwise choice because i have heard and i know several people that have had negative reactions, such as having to miss some work. granted they haven't had to miss a lot of work, right? my dad took the vaccine and he was sick for a day. host: when it comes to the mask wearing, you said inconvenience was a factor. can you describe that? guest: i can tell you many times where i get out of the car, i walk up to the door the business and realize i don't have a mask on, i have to go back to the car and get it. i also don't like how, you know, you can't breathe the fresh air, like the previous comment you made.

it's inconvenient. i don't feel like it will make a huge difference and maybe it does. i'm willing to take the risk and others don't have to, but i feel like it's better, it feels better to what -- not wear a mask. host: if you go out and -- in public and don't wear a mask, what is the reaction, typically? guest: typically, if i'm indoors it's full throated get your mask on, you can't be in here. outdoors, i have rarely had a problem. it's been no problem outdoors. it's been a tale of two worlds. indoors it's one, outdoors i never wear it. host: ok, leslie on our yes line. caller: yes, good morning. i think that it is very, very important to follow the guidelines.

i received my second vaccine shot over a month ago. due to the fact that i had been visiting someone in a nursing home every single day i went, i got covid tested and it was always negative so i feel pretty good about that, but i don't think we should be overconfident. there are variants out there and people who are resistant to following the guidelines and we all have to be vigilant in following these guidelines until there is a definite feeling that we have overcome this virus. we are far from having overcome it and i think we have probably got another year ahead of us. host: what do you base your comfort level on with not wearing a mask? what are you looking for personally as far as signs that not wearing a mask is ok? caller: you know, i'm not really

sure. i see what's going on in india and brazil. we are all connected globally. i think that we are all continuing to be vulnerable. host: ok. leslie, they are, in new york. we hear from iowa. this is ryan, who says no. good morning, you are next up. hello. caller: i'm ryan. the masks don't work very well if you are wearing glasses. you touch the mask and you contaminate yourself through the surfaces you touch. and now found she is wearing double masks? doesn't seem like the material the masks are made of is a good filter for the stuff? i just don't think it's very important to wear them. i'm vaccinated, so i'm getting my next shot in may. i just don't think that the information is very clear or

helpful. the masks just didn't seem like that convenient a solution to spreading illness. host: as far as your practice is concerned when you are out you generally wear, don't wear masks, certain places you can't go? what's the daily living like? caller: i go to the store and there are plenty of old people there and the only reason i wear a mask is because i feel that old people might be scared and feel vulnerable. i wear the masks in the stores but outside, generally around my family, meeting different family members, i don't wear a mask. host: the viewer talked about dr. fauci and the idea of what he said over a year or so, plus, unmasking. he was at a hearing earlier this month and asked about the masks and why they were still needed even among those who were vaccinated and here is some of that response. [video clip] >> the vaccine trials that were

done that showed a high degree of efficacy, the primary endpoint of the vaccine efficacy was to prevent clinically relevant, clinically recognizable disease. what we don't know right now but we will know as we gather more information is that you can get infected even though you have been vaccinated and because you are vaccinated, have no symptoms and therefore have virus in your nasopharynx and you can transmit it inadvertently to someone else. the wearing of the mask is predominantly, predominantly to prevent you inadvertently affecting someone else. even though you are protected from the disease by the vaccine. as we learn more and more, which we will and the evidence gets better and better, if a

vaccinated person has a much lesser chance of getting infected a symptomatically and even if they do the virus is likely low there nasopharynx, when that data becomes clear, the cdc being a science-based organization will use that scientific data to say now a vaccinated person can actually walk around without a mask. one other thing, let me say, there are variants that are circulating and we want to make sure that if you have full protection against one type of a virus that a variant might come along that escapes the protection, so if you want full protection and are out in the community where there is a lot of virus out there, that's why we still recommend wearing a mask and to answer your west and before, when you get the level of virus very low, that's all going to go away and you won't have any mother will be very little risk and therefore people

will not have to wear masks. >> got it. host: you know that dr. fauci gets a lot of reaction to this topic. among the people wrecked -- reacting was rand paul, on fox news last week who talked about the idea of wearing a mask and guidance from the government and here is some of what he had to say. >> if you want more people to get vaccinated joe biden should go on national tv, burn his mask on national tv and say i have had the vaccine, i'm now safe from this plague and if you get the vaccine you can be safe, too. instead they say the vaccine might not work in some sort of world we are not aware of. well, there's no evidence of that. the burden of proof should be on the government to prove that we are spreading it and then we will listen to them but instead it sounds sort of like fear mongering. host: that's one of the

reactions to wearing a mask now that the cdc has offered new guidance. we are asking you when it comes to that government guidance, do you follow it when it comes to mask wearing? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. you heard rand paul talk about the president. he's expected to wear a mask when he goes into the house chamber to address congress tonight at 9:00. you can follow along and watch it on c-span.org. we will have an hour before that to let you know and have you respond to it, but you can see the coverage live at 9:00. the presidential address to congress, those of the venues where you can watch it. sandy and columbus, ohio. you say yes, you follow the guidelines. go ahead. caller: yes, i feel safer

because of the variance that dr. fauci has been talking about. we are not through this at all. yes, it's not comfortable. my glasses get foggy, too. but seatbelts also wrinkle my clothes. there are things you have to do to maintain safety for yourself and other people. i just had a good friend die on monday of covid. everybody can't get the vaccine. children are coming in school, bringing it into grandparents, uncles, aunts, parents. yes, i think we need to follow the guidelines, social distance and continue. it's not over yet. host: sandy is there and columbus, ohio. jean in new jersey says no. good morning. caller: i say no because masks,

the level of filtration uncertain masks just don't work. hello? a cloth mask does not work to stop this virus. the government put out a mandate to wear a mask to filter out the virus as you spread it. a piece of cloth over your face does not work, that's why this virus keeps spreading. many masks that people wear that are not just a piece of fabric over your face is not strong enough to stop the virus. wearing a mask outside does not make sense. wearing a mask to walk into a restaurant and then go sit down at your table does not make sense. i think the government needs to reevaluate what they are doing to truly get a hold on the virus from spreading. host: didn't mean to cut you off there, but when you go out and about, then, how do you handle it? just don't wear it and what's the reaction? caller: i have to wear it when i

go into a store in new jersey. we have to wear it and i'm not that type of person to fight with store employees. i will put it on when i have to go into a store and buy things. outside going to -- going on walks, i wear it. i won't fight with people when they confront me about wearing it, i smile at people and walk away. i don't believe half the stuff the cdc is saying. i have worked in the medical field my entire life, i'm 40 years old. the filtration level on the masks don't stop the virus from spreading. host: shelton is up next in new orleans, calling in on the gas line. hello. you're on. you are on, go ahead. caller: hello, i have both of my vaccine shots. i always wear my mask and all that, too. host: so, what's your policy when you go out? on masks, you say you wear one,

tell us about that. caller: i follow the guidelines and all that, practice social distancing. host: so, you do that consistently, then? caller: yes. host: what are the rules in new orleans for wearing a mask? caller: i always wash my hands and that kind of stuff. host: ok, shelton, calling on the yes line. this is brad from kentucky saying i don't follow the mask mandate, it's silly and useless, covid hardly affects my age group and i engage in lots of what faucher would describe as risky behavior and i like it and ain't quitting anytime soon. this message says yes, masks work and i think it is because we have been wearing masks that

we need vaccine passports asap and i'm also fully masking it -- vaccinated and will continue wearing masks. lynn through -- lynn from massachusetts. matthew on facebook says no, the government can't even balance a budget. amy on facebook says yes, the guidance comes from public health experts. anyone who doesn't follow it is ignorant and selfish. the facebook page is facebook.com/c-span. john and bismarck, north dakota, saying he follows the guidelines . john, good morning. caller: i follow the cdc guidelines to appoint, but north dakota recently passed in this legislature a no more mask mandate. the governor can no longer issue a mask mandate. he vetoed that bill and then the house and the senate overrode

his veto. north dakota doesn't have a mask mandate. so, i follow north dakota's law as well. i do the cdc only because it makes people around me feel better, but there is no mask mandate in north dakota. very few people ever wear them. we haven't, i haven't seen anybody really wearing them that i know since probably march. covid cases are low here. the people who have contracted covid and were hospitalized have died. they always were elderly and people with pre-existing conditions. i don't want anybody around me to get sick or die, so i, i

personally wear mine. not outdoors, i'm not jogging. i've seen ridiculous cases of people wearing masks, being by themselves jogging. i mean that's just, that's just crazy. host: have you attempted to engage with people as you go from place to place and don't wear a mask? caller: oh yeah. i mean i social distance. when i come across someone not wearing a mask and might be, you know in the mall or something, i will come up to them, but i don't know, we stay, everybody is very respectful of each other from the social distance. nobody, it's the spittle, the spittle. that's why people wear masks so that when you talk to somebody you don't, you don't, i mean naturally people spit on people when they talk to them. even in the bar, when people talk to somebody else they always turn their head and they

have their say and they turn back to them and listen to the person's response. people are just getting used to it, not spitting on people. host: john there in bismarck, giving his thoughts. another viewer from pennsylvania coming in a -- calling in on the no line. hello. caller: good morning. to answer your question, i wear a mask because of what science teaches. not because of the government. people, you can't mix politics and science. i'm a devout atheist and have lived my whole life based on mathematics and science. to hear people talk, and you hear these opinions that come from politicians, it infuriates me. i try, i try not to be as nasty as possible, but the one thing i

tell people is that if you get your science from a politician or a religious leader over what a scientist tells you, you are a crazy idiot. i don't know how else to say it. host: to you, what's the most convincing scientific reason for wearing a mask? caller: i have been following faucher since the mid-90's. the man is one of many, many geniuses out there. these people develop their whole life to chemistry, biology, diseases. to listen to what politicians say, from our last idiot president, hoaxes in this, and the fact that faucher cheek, we are still over a year into this and we have to ask plaintiff people that the mask is not for you. it's for you to prevent from passing it to the last -- the next person just out of courtesy for the next human life.

to explain it to people now with the vaccine, i got the vaccine, i don't need it. you can still carry the virus and pass it to the next person. i feel like we are talking to kindergartners at this and it's so frustrating. i hear people, like host: -- -- like -- host: ok. a politician, ron johnson recently profiled in the journal, saying here, "he supports wearing masks but expresses skepticism about effectiveness and as more evidence comes and it's becoming harder and harder to say they actually work and said in a conference call that if they worked wouldn't have had as many infections and deaths as we did that be that as it may i wore a mask the entire time, i'm not opposed to them, but i think we should take a look at that and asked and whether we should make young children wear them.

legitimate questions to ask and we should follow the science." the story adding that based on research from public health officials, masks are effective at reducing the risk of spreading illness and many more deaths would have occurred without them. the tweet from johnson says follow the journal sentinel, the world health organization has changed guidance and is easing up on the value but you act as if it is out of line to ask questions. you can see more on the senator's twitter feed on federal guidelines or state guidelines and even local guidelines to wearing masks, do you follow them or not. that is what we are asking folks this morning. from oklahoma, william on the s line. -- yes line. caller: thank you for answering my call. i guess i support wearing masks. what's wrong with our country, our people? we so caught up in politics in

ourselves, man, we not worried about other people. we used to love each other. host: what convinces you to wear a mask? caller: it's supposed to save lives. if not only yours, the people around you. i'm around other people, i want to save lives. if you are carrying something, you could spread it to other people. i had my shot and i have my next one on the seventh and i support wearing masks. i support it because it not only , we got to beat this pandemic, man. that's the bottom line. we got to follow the guidelines. dr. fauci, god bless them, he did all he can putting positive messages out there saving people. i support people wearing masks and i hope people would stop putting it on politicians and getting into politics.

host: got you, william. eric, columbus, georgia, on the no line. caller: sir, how are you? host: fine, go ahead. caller: i don't agree with wearing masks. let me say this, i had the virus when it first came out in 2019 and i believe that once you get the virus you build up immunity and if you wear your mask, i know i'm not going to get it. three, they have changed their views on wearing masks too many times. i have something to ask all the people who wear masks and are against people who don't, how is it that you feel confident wearing a mask but you handle money? and then you touch your mask? i don't understand that. host: so, when it comes to going out or doing activity outdoors, what's the policy in georgia?

what's required? caller: basically the same as texas, you know, you do your own thing. you know? some stores will say that this store does not enforce any rule basically for wearing masks, people come in there they wear masks, some people don't. but i don't, i don't really trust faucher. he has changed his story too many times i also think it's just a control thing. again, i believe it's a virus and once you get a virus, you build up immunity. host: that is eric on the no line from columbus, georgia, telling us why he doesn't follow policy. a lot of people telling us yes as well, you can make your thoughts known. the next half-hour through 8:00, if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001.

there's a chart that you can find in many places, including "the washington post," where it says if you are fully vaccinated you can engage in a wide variety of outdoor activities, walking, running, biking, attending outdoor gatherings with fully vaccinated people. attending small outdoor gatherings with fully vaccinated and unvaccinated people and it only changes when it becomes less safe for the unvaccinated, dining at restaurants outdoors with friends from multiple households. less safe if you are unvaccinated. for indoor activities if you are fully vaccinated, it runs the gamut of activities you can engage in. visiting a barber, going to a not crowded indoor shopping center or museum. the unvaccinated category, when it comes to indoor activity, says it's less safe or least safe to engage. you can find more on the cdc website.

you can find their mask policy and watch the presentation of dr. walensky on our website. if you want more of that, we are asking your thoughts on wearing masks. georgia on the s line, hello. -- yes line, hello. caller: how are you. thank you. 25 takeover until 2028. they have all got it planned. it's sad. host: meaning what? caller: there's another camp -- another pandemic coming called spars 2025 to 2028. there's no getting out of anything. this is going to continue. host: what convinces you that there's a pandemic like the one you described? caller: they have

videos on the corporation and it's all planned. host: what convinces you those videos are accurate? caller: why would they say it, if it isn't? host: that's dennis calling us from georgia, one of the people talking about the revised mask guidance was the president himself on tuesday, using got to make the push for more vaccinations from those who haven't got one yet. [video clip] >> earlier today the cdc made an important announcement. starting today if you are fully vaccinated and outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear masks. i want to be absolutely clear, if you are in a crowd like a stadium or a concert, you still need to wear a mask. even if you are outside.

beginning today, gatherings with groups of friends, in a park, going for a picnic, as long as you are vaccinated and out doors , you can do it without a mask. the cdc is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low. if you are both fully vaccinated and out in the open air. the cdc also clarified which outdoor activities are safer or less safe, depending on whether you have been vaccinated. the bottom line is clear. if you are vaccinated, you can do more things more safely outdoors as well as indoors. so, for those who haven't gotten there vaccination yet, especially if you are younger or think you don't need it, this is

another great reason to go get vaccinated now. now. yes, the vaccines are about saving your life. but also the lives of the people around you. but they are also about helping you get back to closer to normal , a more normal living. getting together with friends. going to a park for a picnic without needing to mask up. we are back to that place now as long as you get vaccinated. host: president biden from yesterday, he will more than likely address the situation of masks and other efforts when it comes to the response to covid-19 in his joint address to congress and we invite you to watch it on c-span. the speech starts at 9:00. we will give you an hour before that to call in to give you -- give us your thoughts on the

address to congress. more information at c-span.org. here's some congressional reaction to the announcement from the cdc yesterday. representative mike quickly of illinois, each day we get one step closer to putting an end to the virus things to our communities coming together and so many americans being vaccinated, if you are fully vaccinated outdoors and not in a large group, you don't have to wear masks. cindy axne he, saying this is new from medical experts, it's your ticket to seeing friends and family without a mask. republicans giving thoughts, nancy may, masks are performative, nonfunctioning science-based trash in this update is the cdc acknowledging it to be the case. even among those unvaccinated there's a less of zero chance of transmitting covid outdoors. as vaccination rates rise, summer approaches, americans ought to be able to go outside without restriction.

scott gottlieb makes the case for revisiting the mask edicts. this from colorado, no more mask mandates outside for anyone and then dr. roger marshall adding that bureaucrats cannot keep us from worshiping, gathering, traveling, and enjoying life mask free and i hope you will join me in choosing to receive the vaccine so that we can throw away masks and live life free as we did before. let's hear from tara in brooklyn, new york on the s line. you are on, go ahead. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i do wear a mask. i believe in science and don't get my news from facebook or fox. to substantiate it further, it's a pretty clear line in the sand. people on one side, given a 10%

chance of saving someone else's life, would you slightly inconvenience yourself? the people on the other of that are the ones that are not wearing masks. but furthermore, if there are people going around, jogging, doing their own things in their own day and wearing a mask, why is that to anyone to jug -- judge them? they are not the people forgetting it when they walk in the store. host: lori, or carolina. calling on the no line. you are next up. caller: i don't wear a mask in the summer hired to buy a business. i live in a remote location. there's not a lot of people here. so, i don't wear and i haven't been since the whole pandemic even started unless i have to, you know, like i'm required to

buy a business to enter a business. then of course i will comply with the business's guidelines. host: what convinces you not to wear a mask? caller: i'm outdoors in a remote location, i'm not exposed to a lot of people. host: lori from north carolina giving perspective. this is ruth, indiana, saying that mask wearing is purely political. she texts us that this morning. donald from north carolina saying i don't object to people wearing mask less, do they object to people wearing hats or sun visors? carol from missouri says she's 68, has copd and heart problems and has never won a mask and is never -- not going to start now. from minneapolis, carly saying that the objective is to make it a little more difficult from a microscopic -- for a microscopic virus to make it into your mouth

and nose. the mask will decrease the risk, the virus is scary but we have to get our lives back. this is supposed to be the home of the brave, let's start ask -- acting like it. if texting is your preferred way of reaching out, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. twitter at @cspanwj, facebook.com/c-span. alan on the s line. allen, good morning. caller: yes, i do wear a mask when i'm around other people. i have been vaccinated. i live in an area that is very high risk and have just recently, since i have been vaccinated, when i go outside and i'm not near anybody, i do not wear a mask. but every other time, since i am in a high risk area, i feel it

is important to wear a mask when i'm around other people. i just came back from california about two weeks ago and the difference between when i was in southern california and miami was striking. there, there is a greater sense of community with signs that say something like my mask is for you. your mask is for me. i son nobody not wearing a mask. -- i saw nobody not wearing a mask. if there were people outside walking -- walking without a mask and they approached me, they pulled up there mask. that was a courtesy to me. i'm elderly. perhaps they were hoping not to pass anything on to me and i appreciated that so much. it seems like it's just a caring, kind, generous thing. back in the eighth grade when i

learned about rights, we learned that with every right there is a responsibility. so, to me during times of great danger, it is my responsibility to wear a mask. host: host: that is -- host: it a related story out of miami, a private school there recently asked its staff members who had yet to receive the vaccine to hold off until the end of the school year and they made mention of a policy not to employ anyone already vaccinated . the station there obtained a copy of the letter sent to parents, sharing inaccurate information about the covid-19 vaccine and called it experimental, mentioning that tens of thousands of women all over the world are reporting adverse reproductive issues from being in contact with someone who is vaccinated and that the currently available vaccines in the u.s. have been authorized

for emergency use by the food and drug administration and are safe and effective according to the centers for disease control and prevention. head to their website to find out more. when it comes to what covid vaccine treatments might look like in the future, in "the wall street journal" they reported that pfizer is working on an oral treatment, saying that in march they began that early strip -- early-stage trial testing of the drug and that it is being evaluated as an intravenous treatment and the separate trial started last fall, potentially filling a key treatment role by helping people who are sick and not yet hospitalized, the story adding that the drug is known as an inhibitor because researchers believe it locks a key enzyme that helps viruses replicate. more of that at "the wall street journal."

donna, wisconsin, and i saying -- if i'm saying the town name correctly. go ahead. caller: i don't believe anything found she says. number one, he's not elected. he shut down the whole country. why do we give that man this kind of power? no, i don't wear a mask. you must remember, harris and biden both refused to get the shot because trump was behind it. you may not remember that, i do. they said it, i watched it on tv, they refused to have anything to do with any shot trump had anything to do with. how ridiculous was that mark host: is it only his -- was that? host: was it only his recommendation that caused you to not get it or were there other factors? caller: i think the shot is not safe. host: are there other reasons you won't wear a mask besides

dr. fauci? caller: i don't care what he says, it's ridiculous. why would you need a mask if you are standing outside? going in my yard to wear a mask? host: do you think that changes when you go indoors? caller: yeah, i don't wear it indoors, i don't wear it outdoors. found she has changed it how many times? don't wear a mask in the beginning, don't wear a mask. what's the point of having the shot if you still got to wear your mask? it's ridiculous. host: that's donna in wisconsin. you will remember in a recent hearing at a coronavirus subcommittee hearing, dr. fauci was going back and forth with jim jordan of ohio and the topic was masking and public health restrictions and here is some of that exchange. [video clip] >> we will be here two years from now wearing masks? >> you

are ranting again. >> i'm not ranting. >> yes, you are. >> here's how it works, i get to ask you the questions. you are giving us your advice on dating apps, cruise ships, zero masks, one mask, two masks, back to one mask, i'm asking you when it's going to end. you say i'm ranting but i'm asking the questions, my name goes on the ballot. your name has never been on a ballot. the citizens i represent want to know the answer to when they can get their liberties back. you call it ranting? i call it standing up for the constitution that i take an oath to uphold. representing the fourth district of ohio. it's defending the first amendment. we would like an answer. or your best guess, since you have an answer for everything else. caller: when we get the people

in this country vaccinated, the overwhelming majority of the people in the country, we project that that will likely be sometime in the beginning to middle of the summer, because as the president has said, when we get to the end of may there will be enough vaccinations to vaccinate everybody in the country. the reason i can't give you a precise number is because i'm not 100 sent sure how many people will want to be vaccinated. host: that hearing took place on april 15, but on c-span.org, you can watch that exchange. you can watch the president's address to congress tonight there. talking about his agenda and what he wants to do going forward, coming up on those first 100 days. c-span is where you can watch it tonight. you can follow along at c-span.org if you want and you

want to listen to it rather than watch it, you can do so courtesy of the free c-span radio app. vicki joins us from polasky, tennessee. on the no line. go ahead. caller: high. i don't, i'm not believing in this stuff, ok? i have been around people who have been exposed to never got it. i live alone. i live in the country. i don't have to wear a mask. i don't go to the stores. i don't go to my doctor's office because mainly where do you get germs? the doctor's office. there are a multitude of things i don't believe in. another thing, found she is directly connected to these vaccines. he is making a one doll off of our government. why would he want it to end? host: if i'm hearing you correctly only reason you do not

wear a mask is because you limit your interaction with other people? caller: i interact with my family, my close family. i have taken care, my son and my daughter-in-law both work in factory settings. they are around people all day long. they have been exposed, never got it. i have been there taking care of their kids, never got it. host: have you ever been forced to go into an indoor situation were you have to wear a mask? caller: i go into walmart with one, that's the only ways i have to have one. -- the only place i don't -- neely place i have to wear one. i don't go into my doctor's office because i know that is the number one place you can pick up the germs. it's not, i just don't believe that it's going that far. i have a nephew who they said had it.

but he was around my sick mother and my sister and nobody got it. nobody wore masks in the house. nobody got it. host: ok. vicki there in tennessee. there's a front page of "usa today," talking about the mandate and it comes to shop and vaccinations, out of indianapolis saying that as the government works to make vaccines available, lawmakers in 40 states have introduced legislation that would for bid the mandates requiring people to get vaccinated often advanced by vaccine skeptics and sponsored by republicans they prohibit businesses from requiring employees though most of the bills have gained little support in few if any are expected to become law, efforts begin -- reveal lines between those opposed to health measures and vaccine advocates. if you want to read it, you can

head to the website, usa today. matt is up next on the yes line. caller: yes, i support wearing the mask. i was wearing the mask since december of 2019 and i watched a program on the science channel where the, they vaporized saliva. some people just enjoy eating other people's saliva. if they were up-to-date on how it travels in front of you, you are eating other people's spit. how can you think that's correct? host: do you think you will change your personal policy for wearing a mask as more people get vaccinated or is it something you plan on consistently doing? caller: i've been consistently doing it now that i know how it travels. i have the pfizer shot in february and had no side effects, but i wear it to protect others, not myself. host: rudy and douglas, georgia,

on the yes line as well. rudy, high. caller: i wear a mask because i have over 20 personal friends who have died from the virus. i wear my mask to protect others from me and ask others to wear their mask to protect me from them. i support dr. fauci. i'm a local pastor and we have not had service since march because our numbers prior to the vaccine being available are older senior citizens and they were afraid, with good reason. i think it's kind of really sad for people to ignore the virus when we have over half a million people dead on record and people are dying all over the world. i don't understand this skepticism over masks. host: what will convince you as far as what you need to see to

stop wearing a mask or feel more comfortable not wearing a mask? caller: when the numbers are many fewer. like i said, i had a pastor friend who was 53 years old, big healthy guy, weighed about 250 pounds. he did a funeral on saturday, came to his church on sunday, breathing problems on monday, in a coma the next 17 days because of this virus. he went from 200 and 75 pounds down to 100 pounds and it just ravaged his body. i don't understand how people can ignore the obvious. host: to clarify, did your friend recover? caller: no, he was a pastor. he was in a coma for 17 days from that virus. young, healthy strongman. a popular pastor out of st. mary's, georgia. he died from that virus.

i have about 20 close personal friends who have died from the virus. not virus complications, but the virus itself. it's real in my life. host: ok. lee in virginia from the twitter feed saying i have been wearing a mask since february of 2020 when the cdc told the population not to. i made my -- made my own and i rely on my good sense. jodey on twitter saying that if you are not wearing one in public, prepare for cancel culture coming for you. you might be told that we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, that means you, people who refuse to wear a mask. ben smith on facebook saying i don't look for the government to guide me in anything, so no, how can anyone who has ever been to a dmv, they don't know how incompetent the government is. if i'm feeling sick i will wear a mask, otherwise i will go on about my day.

kathy and arkansas saying that our state does not work ira mask. if a business requires a mask, i don't use that business. these are just some of the people commenting. aside from the phone lines, pounding mill, virginia on the no line, we are hearing from john. caller: i don't wear a mask and haven't worn a mask since this started. i have copd, i'm 70 years old. but i follow the science and if you pay attention to the news, most of the people getting this other than pre-existing conditions, diabetes and overweight, one of the reasons they found is that they are low in vitamin d. if you take vitamin d, zinc, vitamin c doses every day, chances are you're not going to get it. they have even done autopsies on the people. it's higher among black people.

they are finding out that the ones that died of the covid were very low in vitamin d. that's why florida had lower rates than new york. the people don't want to look at it, they are outside in the sunshine more than people in new york over the winter. also, dr. fauci i trust about as much as a timeshare salesman. if you look at the news, i know that fox's people to a lot of people, but they had a series on obama, obama back in 2014, banning research on this virus. giving in order, no more research on the way that they were doing this coronavirus. it was dangerous and he banned it. dr. fauci farmed it out to the wuhan labs. host: ok, ok.

we will just stop there. when it comes to investigating the origins of the virus, the united dates landing on doing more investigations of their own, a new face of the probe saying the u.s. is expected to recommend a review of medical records and that international scientists be granted records to strains of the virus and in a january 15 fact sheet they said the u.s. government has reason to believe several researchers inside the institute became sick before the first identified case and that symptoms consisted both of covid-19 and common seasonal illnesses. yonkers, new york, on the no line. caller: are you hearing me? host: yes, we can. caller: i don't wear a mask, the simple reason i don't trust dr. fauci any at all. until the u.s. is able to tell me exactly what the origin and

cause of the virus is, i don't think anyone should be wearing a mask. we go to war for less than this. we have lost half a million people. we have not known how this virus originate, and what we know from dr. fauci, not an elected official, wear masks inside and outside, get vaccinated. i don't understand why this guy can run the lives of millions. host: how do you go about daily activity without wearing a mask? caller: i put it under my chin. i don't wear it every day. cover my nose and mouth 24/7? host: from ron on the yes line, hello. caller: good morning. hard for me to believe what i'm hearing. first of all, going back to dr.

fauci, he's been in the business for 30 years. the man is extremely intelligent. following his guidelines is a way to protect society as a whole. not the next-door neighbor in particular but society as a whole. and for jordan to criticize faucher in the manner that he did shows me what a politician who is excuse my language, ignorant and arrogant as to the constitution of the united states. i was a teacher for 32 years. the constitution, i taught the constitution. constitution doesn't give the right to people to be irresponsible. it gives you certain rights but you have to understand what is correct in terms of what your rights are. you can't just go around and say well, i'm not going to do this or that. host: when it comes to your personal policy on wearing a

mask, what guides it the most? caller: dr. fauci. the reason why is would you expect me to go to my doctor and say to my doctor, well i don't believe what you are telling me, doc. i think i will just go about my business. so, that's why. i feel that. let he's tell you what to do. -- these people tell you what to do. you want to play the ignorant game, go right ahead. host: one more call from terry in st. petersburg, florida, go ahead. caller: i'm not even sure if our state has any policies at this point. i wear a mask when it's appropriate and i guess i just leave it at that. i'm not really sure why so many people in this country have issues with it. you wear underpants. it just seems like the right thing to do. a mask seems appropriate if there is airborne risk of illness.

host: st. petersburg, florida, we are finishing off the hour hearing you. two perspectives on the discussion on expanding the justices on the supreme court. first we will hear from brian fallon, who supports such a move. later on in the program, an opposing viewpoint from mike davis, founder and president and those questions are coming up -- guests are coming up. ♪ >> five a president biden's judicial companies testified today. live coverage begins 10:00 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. sunday night on queue and day,

-- q and a, lawrence roberts talks about his book, mayday. when tens of thousands of anti-vietnam war protesters, came to washington ec -- washington, d.c. in an effort to shut down the federal government. >> the story tells a larger one. it's a story about how we, as a nation, dealt with one of those periodic emergencies in american democracy. does the justice system deliver justice? do people stick by their principles or are they caught up in their on self-preservation? it's a story between the clash of an embattled president, richard nixon, confronting a social movement on the streets, in this case, the antiwar movement, just as he's trying to get reelected. what constitutional lines did he

cross in an effort to stay in power? >> lawrence roberts, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span q and a. >> washington journal continues. host: on our discussion on efforts to expand the spring -- the supreme court. brian fallon is with demand justice, a cofounder and executive director. good morning. guest: it's great to be with you. host: can you describe your organization, what it does, and who financially back sick? guest: we were founded in 2018 in response to donald trump and mitch mcconnell's maneuverings to confirm more than 200 judges to federal courts that we believe will move the country dramatically to the right. we support fair and balanced courts. we are urging the biden administration to nominate

professionally diverse, young judges that have backgrounds as public defenders and civil rights lawyers and legal aid lawyers to help restore balance. we are supported by an array of foundations that fund our work on the 501(c)(3) side, and on the 501(c) four side where we do grassroots lobbying. on that side we have lots of grassroots supporters. host: when it comes to the topic of expanding the number of justices on the court, where do you and your organization fall on that perspective? guest: are grouped, since 2018 has supported a range of structural forms to the federal judiciary. including adding to the supreme court. we believe a growing share of the public, public polls also show, that the supreme court is broken. its legitimacy has been called into question. it's trust with the public has been broken.

that's happened for two reasons. in the last five years we have seen republicans in the senate engage in a lot of maneuverings to shift the court to the right and assure themselves of the republican super majority which now exists on the court. most probably remember in 2016 after antonin scalia had died. republicans refused to consider any nominee from barack obama in the final year of his presidency. last year, we had a spring court nominee confirmed closer to a presidential election that has ever happened before in our history so republicans could through a conservative successor to ruth bader ginsburg. also the rulings have shown the body to be rather partisan. one that is increasingly cannot be trusted to call balls and strikes as john roberts said in his confirmation hearing about 15 years ago. you've seen the court since 20's -- 2006 rule 70% of the time in favor of the chamber of commerce, the main lobbying arm

a big business in the country. and you see this with republican political interests when it comes to cases regarding elections and voting rights. everything from the shelby county decision in 2013 that got of the voting rights act to the decision three years ago to allow states to continue to engage in partisan gerrymandering. a lot of cases where the roberts court is consistently siding with republican interest make it harder for people to vote. so when the set of rulings and in the way that people have been confirmed to the court, you are to see public polling show and erosion -- an erosion in the trust of the spring court. as an institution, cannot be viewed as judgment. we think term limits, adding seats, and a code of ethics are necessary. host: our guest is with us to talk about the issues of expanding the supreme court. republicans call in at (202) 748-8001. for democrats (202) 748-8000. for independents (202) 748-8002.

you can text us also at (202) 748-8003. hugh: wrote an op-ed -- you cowrote an op-ed, proposing adding four seats to the courts which would consist of a chief justice in 12 associate justices, equal to the number of federal judicial circuits. what do you think of the proposal? guest: in the fall of 2020, when ruth bader ginsburg died. democrats, in earnest, started talking about this proposal to add court -- seats to the supreme court. a lot of people said we don't want to have to pursue this path. but if republicans are going to obliterate the last remaining norms when it comes to confirmation processes around supreme court justices then this will be the only appropriate response. you even have republican and independent commentators, people like joe scarborough, lloyds from the next -- lawyers from

nixon and reagan administration's saying that democrats would be wise to pursue this. susan collins opposed the confirmation a days before the election but they went through it. you have ed markey on the senate side, and mondaire jones, as well as jerry nadler who happens to be the chairman of the house judiciary committee, they have this proposal to add four seats to the supreme court. it's not in the constitution, the number of justices on the court rate it's up to congress to set that number. congress has changed the number seven times in our nations history area it's within congress's power tomorrow -- move in a straightforward unconstitutional constitutional way to achieve balance to this lopsided 6-3 super majority that exists. so i wrote that op-ed the other

day. and new polling came out that the proposal introduced to add four seats is supported by a plurality of the american voters by six points. more people support adding seats than don'ts. host: since you mentioned delay justice bader ginsburg -- you mentioned the late just escape -- justice bader ginsburg. what do you think about members of the court itself who had this idea? guest: i have been asked about this whenever i am, i say they are on the court, what do you expect them to say? as sitting justices, they are going to say there's nothing illegitimate about the institution. that their power should not be called into question. it's not completely apples to apples, but a lot may have followed the controversy in georgia around the voting rights law.

in response to the voting rights measure, wrote a suppression measure that their legislature passed and brian kemp signed. a lot of businesses have taken positions against the law. major league baseball pulled the all-star game out of atlanta and response. -- in response. a lot of democratic politicians in georgia are saying we disagree with this law. we don't want the economy in georgia to suffer. so people like stacey abrams and senator warner have said that they don't support pulling out of georgia. because they live in georgia. of course they say that. that's not to say that corporate america or other outside voices are wrong for making a stand against voter suppression. ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer, it's their job to keep confidence up about the court as an institution. but it's the job of those of us

on the outside to have enough common sense to know that the court has been irreparably politicized to make proposals like this. host: the president has made announcements on this, talking about forming a commission to take a look at the issue. we heard speaker pelosi and the senate majority leader saying we are going to hold off on making an effort until they hear from the commission. is that a good move? guest: the commission is something that by its existence is a knotted to the surge in interest and out -- is a nod to the surge in interest and outrage by democrats and independents. so at the apec of attention -- the apex of attention with the just -- the death of justice ginsburg. this was a rather big step. during the primary campaign, there were a lot of candidates that expressed openness in adding seats to the supreme court, joe biden was not one of them. for him to say that he wanted a

commission to look at this, to me, was a testimony to how much outrage there was in the public. it's been about six months since he promised to commission. the composition does not inspire confidence in terms of how progressive it will probably be. it's about 36 members, including a lot of people who contributed to the pledges asian of the fed -- political nation -- politicalization to the federal judiciary, it's hard to imagine that those members of the commission will be open minded to reforms that would mitigate the 6-3 conservative super majority. the other feature that does not inspire confidence is that the president literally said in his instructions to the commission that he does not want them to make formal recommendations. he just wants them to study the

issue. that's why a lot of observers are saying this looks more like a classic washington blue-ribbon commission. where ideas go to die. the attention that the commission will bring is to the good and we will try to leverage that to bring more attention to the conversation but i doubt the commission itself, and anything that issues, will move the needle. host: we have called lined up, first up is john. he's in elmo, california. the republican line. go ahead. caller: we are talking about expanding the supreme court. i taught government at the community college level out here for number of years. if you look at the three documents, the virginia plan that madison put together before the constitution. if you look at the the journal

of the federal convention, the minutes to the constitutional convention. something that i didn't know about until my masters program, that that was available. and also the constitution. you will find that the court is able to advise on legislative matters and legislative powers per the powers to make the rules we live by. that's article one section one, that the congress has allegedly to power on that. host: to the topic of expanding the court, what would you like our guest to address? caller: the idea that the court should not be doing what it's doing. it can advise. the congress has total power over making rules. so they can make a rule that we live by or destroy it. but the court can advise. that's their relationship to article six. they can support. the president has a unique position.

he the only [no audio] host: anything to that? guest: one of the things that the caller is hitting on is that the court's disproportionately powerful compared to the other two branches nowadays. this is a problem that has been identified by a lot of scholars that have proposed other ideas to try to reduce the court's influence. in addition to the idea of adding state -- seats. an outspoken professor at yale has floated the idea of having a requirement for the supreme court to overturn acts of congress it needs a super majority vote of 6-3, instead of just five to four. bob bauer, one of the cochairs of the president's commission has also expressed openness to that idea. other proposals known as jurisdiction stripping, blocking

off certain areas of the law from supreme court review. all these proposals are being expressed because there's a deeply held view with a lot of court watchers that the court influence has far surpassed what congress ever intended. you see congressional hearings on the so-called shadow docket, referring to rulings that the supreme court now routinely issues in the dark of night without any oral arguments and without having to issue signed opinions so we know how the justices voted on the rulings. that's becoming the norm. a lot of high-stakes cases involving covid safety precautions that governors are implementing in certain states, and voting issues that came to the surface in the run-up to the election. there is a feeling that the court is acting in an unaccountable manner. which is fueling the push for reform. the last thing i will say on that point, to some extent, the

court is power welded to other branches. this is in part due to the failure of the legislative branch to carry out its functions. we have seen the courts power rise as congress has become gridlocked the -- to the point of not being able to resolve the questions of the debris some people, including myself, think that's by design. one of the republican party strategies and mitch mcconnell in particular has been to make congress dysfunctional, to steer the courts and to achieve the outcomes that they wish their political agenda through the courts while making the legislature neutralized. host: from the democrats line, lance, fort lauderdale, florida. morning. caller: i would like to challenge you on your basic premise, the idea that the courts are out of balance. as if the courts are proposed of democrats or republicans. the courts are composed of judges, who leave their personal

opinions at the door when they put on the robe. i challenge you to tell me what the democratic law, with republican law. i have yet to find a judge that has let their personal opinion influence the law. the law is the law. if the law says $25 fine for something, that's not a republican or democrat law. if you want to change it that's the legislature. what you are doing is setting up a situation to talk about credit ability on the court. -- credibility on the court. in four years will have republican credit -- president to could decide we need four more and then the democratic that -- after that could decide we need more and it goes item. justices -- ad infant item --

ad infinitum. my uncle was a judge in an avowed republican and he never allowed it to influence his opinion. this chose by you saying you want to balance it. host: you made your point, we will let the guest respond. guest: the caller raises the example of if you get $25 for parking ticket, that's pretty black and white. i agree, some statutes and statutory interpretation arbery clear-cut. -- interpretations are clear-cut. but a lot are not. especially ran constitutional interpretations. -- it's that -- especially on constitutional interpretations. we have had raging debates about this that have lasted for decades. the matter constitutional interpretation is politicized. you don't have to take my word for it.

the conservative movement that has achieved this significant accomplishment of having the 6-3 majority on the court, that's the capstone of an intentional project that the political right launched to swing the courts to the right. the republicans that started the federalist society got fed up with nominees of republican presidents getting onto the court and then surprising them with how they ruled on cases. some of the most liberal justices of the last 50 or 60 years were appointed by republican presidents. john paul stevens for instance. that bothered republicans. they said we are not going to allow this to happen. if we get republicans elected to be president and we control the senate and can confirm people of our choosing, we want to make sure we know they will be with us on our core issues like gun rights and abortion rights and worker issues with their employers.

they did not want anymore david sooners, which surprised conservative voters by being with the liberal faction on the court. so they put in this process that imposed a bunch of litmus tests and it reached its apex in 2016 when donald trump literally said i will only pick from a list of these individuals and make sure that anybody that i pick is going to be committed to things like overturning roe v. wade. i want to know that they will rule to overturn the affordable care act. he campaigned on that, openly. it was cheered and celebrated and viewed as an act of political genius. because he was no longer putting any guile to it. he was being open about his intentions. i don't begrudge the republicans that mitch mcconnell and donald trump so stope -- so openly stated their ambitions.

but i think we have to do something to respond to it. we have a 6-3 majority on the court. it even the democratic candidates have garnered more votes in the last four presidential elections and seven out of the last eight. that seems out of whack and it will be politically untenable. i think her publicans will have a problem soon with the so-called dog that catches the bus. they have the ultimate prize, a 63 -- a 6-3 conservative court. they will start issue rulings and they will be highly unpopular with the american people. the supreme court just accepted a case that could have the potential to dramatically expand gun rights in this country. overturning restrictions of concealed carry permits in states like new york which have very crowded populations that do not want to allow people to pack heat and bring it into times square and increase the potential for a mass shooting

event. the supreme court is poised to strike down the proposal last year. it will not be greeted well by a public that has grown weary of mass shooting after mass shooting. host: brian fallon, our guest from demand justice. derek on the independent line from minnesota is up next. caller: good morning. this is a fun topic, congratulations on your new paycheck. i don't like the word demand. it sounds so immature. when you talk about balancing the court, you don't balance the court by putting four new ones on so that it's unbalanced. the other way in which you are trying to swing a court. your expectation. but i will say this, one of the happiest things for me as somebody who believes in the court and not politicizing the court, is that donald trump got

a -- host: go ahead. guest: i don't know where to go with that. the growing popularity for this proposal to add seats to the courts reflects the mood in this country that is shifting. 2020 was the first election in a long time where the democratic candidate for president, joe biden, won the majority of voters and said that the supreme court was the number one issue. hillary clinton lost those voters to donald trump. the reverse was true in exit polls this year. as i mentioned, you're seeing a surge in support for proposals like the ones that congressman jones and senator markey introduced. that's going to increase in the months and years to come as more rulings come down from the supreme court that show why republicans fought so hard to achieve this extreme majority in

the first place. 1.i should respond to -- the one point i should respond to is that you do not balance this by adding four seats to tilt to the other way. what if the proposal was modified? amended to say we will have adding two now while joe biden is president and the next two to be decided by the winner of the next presidential contest? or what if we passed it in combination with a term limits proposal which my group also supports and would set a limit so that each president and any given window can only appoint two justices and every justice has to step down after 18 years? that would regularize the process and eliminate the ability for justices to game the system by timing strategically based on the president being in power from the same party as them. these are proposals that my group supports in her perfectly

fair and will restart balance. but the number 13 -- will restore balance. but the number 13 has some precedents. the court changed seven times due to the act of congress created in every instance where congress has added seats, it did some to bring it into alignment with the number of circuit courts, the number of courts below the supreme court. the number has historically matched the number of federal circuits. that's because every justice on the supreme court has a jurisdiction that it's in charge of to hear last-minute appeals. so you frequently hear about cases they get to the supreme court on appeal and there's a decision from the supreme court about what -- whether to stay executions or not. the judges that issue those opinions are the ones that match up geographically with certain federal circuits that they are in charge of. because there are nine justices

and 13 circuits, certain justices have multiple circuits they are in charge of. that's because we never had a surprise at the -- the size of the supreme court the adjusted to match the size. host: when was the last time an was made? guest: after the civil war. in the 1860's, the court changed three times, the radical republicans, thaddeus stevens on the republican party supported abolition of slavery wanted the reconstruction effort to have real teeth. they added a 10th justice to the court because the court was being unfriendly to president lincoln's prosecution of the civil war. and when lincoln died, the radical republicans in congress did not trust president johnson who succeeded him to oversee reconstruction in the manner that they thought was necessary to heal the country. they prevented him from filling seats and reduced the court size. and they up to size when the

grant -- when grant became president. the idea that the court has always been immune from partisan back in forth, and reminds me of the fact that people would act horrified people got rid of the filibuster, not realizing that it's the thing that existed until 1917. getting rid of it would not go against the vision of the founders. likewise if we change the size of the supreme court it would be befitting our history, not running counter at all. host: here's diane, from ann arbor, michigan, on the democrat line. caller: i feel the supreme court has become a legislative body. especially since the last president, trump, which so many times just throw things to supreme court to decide on and circumvent, get around the

legislative process. also, in 2010, chief justice roberts voted for citizens united. and for that point on it was just game over. no more democracy. it was just money. money. money. money. who has the most money? as far as justice barrett, you would not believe the money spent to get her in office by lobbying groups. so it's not as, it takes the shine off the supreme court. i'm not questioning anyone's integrity, but a body they lost a lot of trust in the american people with how they are voting. host: let me leave it there and let our guest address which you

brought up. guest: the caller has a number of points which you will not surprise you, i agree with. to take a couple, one at a time. the court is acting like a legislature. for years, conservatives dried so call -- derided so-called judicial activist judges, people who legislated from the bench. that's what the 6-3 majority on the supreme court is doing now. in the last 10 days you had a ruling come out from the supreme court that expired -- inspired some fiery dissents from sonia sotomayor and the other liberal justices. they removed the ability for juvenile defendants that get sentenced to life in prison to ever have their sentences reduced. there have been two rulings from the supreme court since 2012 which have set a precedent which counts as cruel and unusual punishment to rate to automatically sentence juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of reduced sentence if they can show that they have

been reformed. and a ruling that came out last week that brett kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion on that said no matter if someone has the ability to be reformed and can demonstrate that, it is ok for judges to impose mandatory life sentences with no possibility of shortening them. that overturns two precedents that was set when anthony kennedy is on the court. that happens with this midst -- with this conservative majority in terms of overturning precedents. there was a major force arbitration case that overturned a 40 year precedent of the court. clarence thomas is openly saying that he thinks that the notion of the deference that supreme court differences are supposed to get to long-standing rulings in the past, he things it's bunk. that the president should not be

controlling and the free -- the court should feel free to overturn rulings it disagrees with. that's a radical notion that deviates from the institution of the supreme court as we know it. and that legitimates the fear that the caller raises. this is acting like a super legislature preach she also reference to the amount of money spent on -- legislate -- like us legislature. she also reference the amount of money spent on amy coney barrett. one was the coke brothers group, americans for prosperity. they have court case in front of the justices this week, they are challenging a california law that requires americans for prosperity and other groups like it to disclose donors to the state attorney general. there were a lot of calls, including from the senator from rhode island for amy coney barrett to recuse herself because she was a beneficiary of so much spending by the americans for prosperity.

it stands to reason that there would be the appearance that she could not be neutral in deciding a case about a group that supported her. she declined to step down and recuse herself. that fuels a lot of concern about the legitimacy of the court and the lack of ethics that supplies -- that applies to the justices. host: brian fallon of the group demand justice. you can go to their website if you want to see more about their work, especially on this issue. thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. and thank you to the callers. host: we continue on with our discussion, taking look at the effort to expand this up in court with mike davis. he's the founder and president of the article three project. good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's talk about your group, your activities and how you are funded. guest: i run the article three

project, or a3p. we fight for a judiciary that follows the rule of law. for judges to interpret the law as written, and as understood by the public at the time of the law's enactment, or originalism. we don't like judicial activists on the left or the right. we think judges have a limited but critical role in interpreting law and not writing the law. we are funded by small donors. you could go to article three project.org and that's how people can make small dollar donations. host: where you fall on the idea of expanding the number of justices? guest: we firmly oppose court packing. we see this as a power grab by democrats. as a radical assault on judicial independence.

we have had nine seats on the supreme court since 1869. more than 150 years ago. right after the civil war. we saw in 1937, during the height of president fdr's presidency, he tried to pack the supreme court's. it failed. he lost support, even among his own party. they saw it as a power grab. you saw late justice ginsburg come out and make the highly unusual public announcement of court packing because it is so extreme and so clinical. and recently, just aspire -- just aspire -- justice beyer opposing it. so you have two the last appointed supreme court justices from democrats making announcements of court packing. host: the previous guest made the case that back in 18 six to nine that the number of seats expanded -- 1869 expanded and

made the case that it was to expand to the federal circuit courts. guest: that argument is wrong. the courts of appeals were not even established by congress until 1891. the supreme court justice had the circuit and the federal courts of appeals came along to assist the supreme court with appeals. so no that's not applicable at all. if you look at the number of circuits, we have had 13 circuits for a long time. where were these democrat operatives calling for court packing when we had 13 circuits for long time? this is purely political. what's happening is that you have the first true constitutionalist majority on the supreme court more than 80 years. president trump appointed a justice gorsuch, cavanaugh, and

barrett. and now we have a 6-3 republican aborted supreme court. another judges -- republican appointed supreme court. the judge will follow the lawn set of rewriting it. democrats do not -- the judges will follow the law instead of rewriting it. democrats do not like it. they have the white house, the senate, the house, the one thing keeping them in check is an independent supreme court and federal judiciary. they want to change the rules. host: you're probably aware of the legislative effort by representative markey and others to expand the number of the court. they made their case, i want you to listen a little to what they have to say and get your response. [video clip] sen. markey: the republicans stole two seats on the supreme court and it sucked -- it is up test us to repair that damage. our democracy is in jeopardy

today because of the supreme court standing, it is sorely damaged. the way we go is straightforward. we undo the damage that the republicans have done by restoring balance. we do it by adding four seats to the court to create a 13 member supreme court. these four seats could be filled by president biden, and will reconstitute the united states supreme court. this will then rightly reflect the values of the majority of the american people on whose behalf they serve. expanding the court's constitutional. congress has done it before. congress must do it again. we must expand the court and abolish the filibuster to do it. the word etched above the main entrance of the supreme court building behind us express to ultimate responsibility of the court.

equal justice under the law. but how will there be equal justice when seats on the court have been stolen? how will there be equal justice when republicans have purposefully blocked and weaponized the highest court of the land for their own partisan gain? host: mr. davis, your response to those arguments question mark -- arguments question mark guest: -- arguments? guest: the american people don't support this. displeasure has been voiced about this. you have senator joe manchin, senator sinema, as well as nevada senator, and tim kaine. you have six senators who have come out and said that this is a bad idea and there is not

support for this in the senate. there is not popular support for this -- you have to remember that ryan fallon -- brian fallon and his group brought the me too allegations against then judge kavanaugh in 2018. and four democrat senators went into early retirement. over the me too fight with judge kavanaugh. we saw brian fallon pushing to defund the police in 2020. that cost democrats several very winnable seats in the senate and all over the country. and now brian fallon of demand justice wants to pack the courts. so republican should welcome this because it will not end well for democrats. host: our guest is with us,58 --

our guest is with us, for republicans (202) 748-8001. for democrats (202) 748-8000. for independents (202) 748-8002. to text (202) 748-8003. you can also post on facebook and twitter. one more argument from an aaron, she wrote that the majority of justices were nominated by the president who lost the popular vote. we saw two seats stolen with conservative justices packing the court with a partisan agenda and expanding the number of justices and seizing the opportunity to nominate the first four thinking jurists to occupy the highest court in the land so we can properly uphold the rights of all americans pay what do you think about those thoughts, particularly the last ones? guest: the constitution is such that the president is the person who nominates the justices. the senate confirms. it doesn't matter how they one.

whether it was -- how they won. weather was a landslide or a majority. or less of the majority. that's how the constitution works. you have to understand what the democrats are trying to do. they don't like that these judges are a check on their power. saying that we pack the supreme court and if we politicize the supreme court, not democratize, politicize, then everyday americans need to worry about our first amendment rights to speech, to associate, to worship. the second amendment rights to protect ourselves those will be on the line if we have a politicize supreme court filled with liberal judiciaries. host: let's start with mary, fort myers, florida. you are on with our guest. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have listened to both of the

gentleman speaking about the supreme court. personally i don't think there's any supreme about the supreme court. there's no separation between church and state. nothing like that. and they are always in hiding. they should be like every politician, from local all the way up the line. they should be punching a clock like every other taxpayer. and they should be accountable for the hours that they spend. they should not be paid. i would like to see a total of how much of our tax dollars pays all of these people, their health care, their vacation, all this other stuff and their security. host: 20 think about the idea of expanding the supreme court? caller: --host: what do you think about the idea of expanding the supreme court? caller: i'm against it, the

supreme court doesn't do anything. guest: it's unfortunate that we have these groups like demand justice attacking the legitimacy of the supreme court. there's a lot popular support in this country for the supreme court, or judicial independence and the rule of law. it separates america from banana republic's. we know that we have a judiciary independent. court packing return the federal judiciary. it would destroy the federal court. maybe that's their plan. i don't now. -- i don't know. host: a couple of times, there was references that the court is acting like a legislative body. would you agree? caller: if you look at how the spring court has -- guest: if you look at how the supreme court has ruled, you would see the supreme court rewriting statutes and creating

rights out of thin air when it was a liberal court doing this. you did not hear groups like demand justice and brian fallon. it's only recently that president trump appointed justice gorsuch, kavanaugh, and justice barrett who brought the court back into alignment of what the constitution says and what the public understood the constitution to mean. if you are bringing it back into that alignment, you're getting these radical left groups call for radical change. host: on the democrats line. good morning. caller: there has always been efforts to politicize the supreme court. they denied barack obama's nominee. host: what you think about the

idea of expanding the supreme court? anything you wanted to respond to? guest: i think you're talking about judge garland's nomination by president obama. i would say that in the senate, they followed the rule. when the senate is the same party as the president, 90% of the time they will confirm supreme court justice during a presidential election year. when the senate is the opposite party, 90% of the time they won't. that is historically how it happens. with judge garland, you have president obama, a democrat, the senate republicans have said we are going to let the american people vote with the election and decide how they want to fill that supreme court seat. and during that election, the american people voted for president trump and her republican-controlled senate. the american people spoke and now we have justice gorsuch.

host: from riverside, california, david, on the republican line. caller: alaska said that there conservatives are a 6-3 super majority but john roberts is not consistently voting conservative and gorsuch changed the 1964 civil rights act to include homosexuality in the workplace which was way off for 1964. but they would have never thought of that in 1964. the only dependable ideologues are liberals. if democrats can do that, why won't republicans do that? this is a constitutional crisis because we keep messing with everything like the filibuster and routing the great traditions of our country. what are we if we change everything that we are? democrats say we love the constitution, let's change it, not through amendments, but through liberal members on the court. roosevelt did this in 1930, as your guest mentioned, no one liked it. he inspired a constitutional amendment's and you can only

have two terms as president because he had four. host: that david, in california. go ahead. guest: this notion of the court is politicized is wrong. there's a lot of demagogues out there pushing this notion. if you look at the supreme court, they hear an argument less than a hundred cases per year. these are the hardest cases in the country that have split federal courts all over america. they get the supreme court and there are nine justices of different backgrounds from different parts of the country with different judicial philosophies. i would have to go back and look at the numbers. 90 plus percent of the time, there is near you to meditate -- near unanimity. we hear about high-profile cases, but the day-to-day operation, i worked for just of gorsuch on the supreme court.

it's not political. it's not a super senate. there's nine good people trying to figure out what the law is with the judicial philosophy and do what's right. host: here's a viewer off of twitter who suggests, that the supreme court should never again have lifetime appointments. i don't care what congress thought about of the topic. they did not think about voting rights for black americans were women and life expectancy was way lower. it's time for an overhaul of the i -- archaic institution. host: what about -- what about the idea changing lifetime appointment question mark guest: data -- appointments? guest: there's a reason for it. we are all supposed to be equal under the eyes of the law. if you have a political judge worried about his next job or

congress, you have lifetime tenure and pay protection. we don't want judges to curry favor getting their next job or worried about having their pay cut if they ruled along -- the wrong way. the founders were smart. the reason is that you don't want your case decided based upon political considerations. you want a case decided based upon the law. if you have judges who are worried about job security or pay, it's an assault on judicial defense. we don't want to do that. that's what court packing is so wrong. it's so against everything that we have stood for as a country. we want an independent federal judiciary. court packing does the opposite. host: what does your former job involve? were you involved with president trump's nominee? guest: i work for then senate

judiciary committee member chuck grassley. i was one of his lawyers in last congress. it was my job to help make sure that chuck grassley backs president trump's judicial nominees. we were certainly not a rubberstamp. there were five nominees who chairman grassley sent packing and did not get through the process. it's a vigorous process. and they were not a rubberstamp. senator grassley helped president trump set records for the number of judges that were appointed under the president's term but it was because president trump did an especially good job of picking and nominating highly qualified nominees in the senate and made it a top priority. host: jack, from maine, on the democrat line. caller: good morning.

it's nice to get through. i love the show. the gentleman was talking about court packing and the first comment i have is of course that's exactly what president trump did. i'm sure you want to debate that with me. i could stay on the line for that. but also still talking about liberal judges and conservative judges. the last time i called and about the subject, i was saying there should not be either. they should all be neutral like it said in the constitution. but of course, they are not. why would the republicans be trying so hard and why did they succeed in packing the court if they believe that it's all supposed to be neutral. i have about three hours i could discuss this, but i will go for now. i'm just glad i got through. i love the way you run the show. thank you. host: jack, in maine. go ahead. guest: on court packing, filling

existing vacancies is never court packing. democrats are trying to change the definition. it's radical and they know that the american people don't support it. they know that even democrats in the senate do not support this. when you are feeling existing vacancies, that's not court packing. i should make that clear. i agree with jack that we should not have conservative judges or liberal judges. we should have judges who look at the law, the plain text of the law, textualism, and look at what that text meant to the public at the time that that law was enacted. and then let the chips fall where they may. if it's a liberal law, you get to a liberal result and if it's a conservative while you get conservative result. you have elected officials and congress writing the law. we could throw them out of office if we don't like the laws that they write. the unelected judges lifetime

appointment federal judges should not be writing laws. host: on the independent line, from los angeles, california. caller: anybody that's in government or controls or has some type of say-so should have term limits. period. if they are worried about work, they should do a good job of what they are doing. under that philosophy we should not have term limits for any of our politicians if they are scared for their next job. but this is the thing, the supreme court is not supposed to bring emotions, political, religious, all their supposed to do is say two words. yes or no. is this constitutional, yes or no. whatever your theory, your thoughts, that's personal. yes, or no. instead they make law. that's wrong.

think about the political divide, democrats want this guy -- listen, the words are just no motion. follow the words. host: thank you. guest: i agree, judges just should follow the words of law. i think that's the problem. you have the judicial activists on the left, but also on the right, you politicize. this is a very modest job at critical job, to say what the law is. to be fair, to be impartial, don't take political science. just figure out what the law is, apply the law. host: what is the likelihood of this actually happening. i only ask because to our last guest, he talked about how there's already been hesitancy with the commission being

formed. guest: the fact that we are even considering such a radical assault on judicial independence like court packing is extreme. it's amazing to me that there are democrats in the house, and democrats in the senate who are mab on this. this should be an oak -- a maybe on this. this should -- this will politicize the supreme court. the job of a judge is to protect everyday americans with their individual rights from government overreach. if you destroy the supreme court by packing it, by politicizing it, that's going to harm our individual rights. like a first amendment rights to speech, to associate, to

worship, the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. there are many rights, the fourth amendment rights, due process, criminal procedures, many are on the line if you politicize the supreme court. we don't want supreme court justices just going with popular opinion. a good example of that is brown versus the board of education. school integration was not popular back when brown versus the board of education was decided but they made the right decision and they did not have to worry about their job. they did not have to worry about having their pay cut. they just needed to understand that the separate but equal doctrine was wrong and the brown -- and brown versus the board of education fix this. host: tina, from pennsylvania, on the republican line. caller: hello. i'm not any type of professional , by any means. i want to say a basic comment to some of the callers i have heard

her what donald trump did when he was president of the united states was not court packing. he filled vacancies. a totally different thing. justice is supposed to be blind. if we start packing the supreme court, and we start getting all of these -- look at what's happening in minnesota and chicago. i sat and watched last night a livestream from north carolina. and i called the police down there and said they are talking about bringing guns. if we would just get rid of our labels as democrat, republican, and start acting like we did on september 12 of 2001, we were americans. we need to come together, put the bs aside, and save our nation. we all live by god's rule and that's the constitution. i will not have my rights

infringed upon because someone is misreading the constitution. just like they miss the bible. host: let's let our guest respond. guest: i would frame made this way for you look at what democrats are trying to do. they won the white house and the senate with kamala harris breaking the tie. there's not a mandate by american people for radical change. resident biden did not campaign on that. the american people did not elect democrats to bring about revolutionary change pay look at with the democrats are trying to do. they want to pass hr one, which would alter elections all over the country, and make it where democrats are almost certain to win and keep our forever. we have things like court packing where they want to add justices to the supreme court so they can blitz -- jam through political agenda. they are talking about adding dcs estate, maybe puerto rico --

d.c. as a state, maybe puerto rico. where does it end? do we have ad do we -- we have five new states? the court packing, hr one, the new states, this is a political power grab. this is ensuring that they have total control and win elections forever and there's no check to their powers. it's dangerous. it's a radical assault on judicial independence. it's a threat to our rights, our liberties, and fortunately the american people do not support court packing. unfortunately, six democrat senators have come out and voiced strong concerns about it. host: let's hear from thomas, in washington, d.c.. caller: really quick, two questions. is there anyway way to hold mitch mcconnell accountable and

up the ante to prevent this polarization between the partisan sides? is there any way to prevent the court from being politicize going forward? guest: mcconnell, remember back in 2013, democrats makes the filibuster, they lowered the vote threshold in the senate from 60 to 51 so they could add four obama second highest court in the land. -- four obama appointees to the second highest court in the land. they were following historical precedent. my boss, chuck grassley, followed the norms. we have democrats who say it's unreasonable to require 60 votes

to confirm president obama's nominees but you have groups like demanded justice and brian fallon out there, telling democrats to >> political gains that we are hearing about and how do you depoliticize and let judges do their jobs. you don't threaten to impeach them. you don't threatened -- you don't threaten to take away their there is diction. you let judge do their job -- you let judges do their job. >> coming up we are going to change topics and talk to laurie robinson the discussed efforts by states and localities to change policing practices. that conversation coming up on

washington. >> here's a look at our live coverage today, a confirmation hearing for several judicial nominees including those picked to serve on the d.c. circuit. at 230 p.m., senate judiciary subcommittee holds a hearing on gun violence -- invention. at 9 p.m., president biden of this first -- gun violence prevention. at 9 p.m., president biden with his first state of the union address in front of a joint committee. labor secretary marty walsh testified on the president 2020 two budget request. federal reserve chair jerome powell holds a news conference later in the day to discuss monetary policy and the u.s. economy.

that's live at 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> c-span's online store with a collection of c-span products. go there to order a copy of the congressional directory with contact information. see our newest apparel. you will get a special discount on your purchase. go to cspanshop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: professor of criminology. she served as the cochair. thanks for joining us this morning. guest:good morning. host:reform efforts posttrial.

at the headlines says the terrain going forward will not be the same. can you tell us why? guest:it's helpful to step back and think about the terrain before this as well. if we look back to michael brown's death in 2014, and the death of eric garner and tamir rice and others in the aftermath of that, the institute of justice did a study and showed that 34 states and the district of columbia passed 79 laws on police reform in the two years after ferguson. there was a flurry of activity at that time to pass laws on things like body worn cameras, training for police, what's called crisis intervention team

training on handling individuals whose -- who have mental health problem to read that has -- mental health problems. in the aftermath of george floyd 's tragic death, there has been movement forward. national conference and state legislatures have said that 30 states have passed 140 laws or a little more than that in the policing area just sent last may. the terrain has shifted now because despite all of the attention that has been focused on this area by states and local governments in changing laws. the attention with the verdict last week of not only our country but the international,

global community has been fixed on why policing, in their view, is still broken and what more can be done to fix it. i think that attention will continue to be mobilized around what steps can be taken to move forward in this area and that's why it's important. host:you talked about this idea of what's broken in american law enforcement. what would you say are the top elements? >> what i also said was the importance of leaders within policing to carry the banner forward on this because i think there are strong leaders within policing particularly on the management side. i think police unions are also

important to help in building corrective action. i think the two areas where we need to change particularly are, perhaps i'd say three, but substantively use of force and police accountability. that's kind of two buckets, two areas. the broader area is, one would say, police culture. the way things are done. we need to recognize that institutionally, changing institutions is not an overnight task. work will proceed over a. of time. we need to recognize that policing is -- work will proceed

over a period of time. in britain, there are something like 35 police departments. here we have 18,000 state and local police departments, police agencies and they are not federally controlled. they are all controlled at the local level. mayors, county commissioners, locally elected sheriff. that means you don't, for example, order change from the top. i was surprised when i -- i was surprised how many people including some members of the washington press asked me after the report was concluded whether president obama was going to order police chief in the united

states to implement some of those recommendations. the president of the united states does not have the authority to order any police chief at the local level to do much of anything. our decentralized system means that institutional change and policing is a longer process. guest: -- host: this is laurie robinson. if you want to ask her questions, (202) 748-8000 . -- (202) 748-8000 and the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8002 if you are in the mountain and pacific time zones. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003.

you talked about the amount of influence the federal government has on this issue. i want to play a little bit about the why, the why they are doing that. >> we are uniquely aware of the challenges faced by those who serve as police officers. we see their commitment firsthand every and we recognize the complex issues that make their already difficult jobs already -- already difficult jobs even harder. also charged with ensuring that the constitutional and federal statutory rights of all people are protected. as i explained last week, congress has authorized the department to conduct practiced investigations to help it fulfill that response ability. those investigations and the

recommendations and actions that ensue not only protect individuals civil-rights, they also assist police departments in developing measures to increase transparency and accountability. host: those investigations, minneapolis and louisville, what you think about the justice department role. guest: first of all, i would say that i worked very closely with law enforcement over my career. i was with the justice department for 10 years as an assistant attorney general. worked with state and local law enforcement across the country and with the international association of chief of police. i was one of their committee chairs and i agree and -- i agree with the attorney general that law enforcement have extraordinarily challenging jobs that call for very difficult

incisions frequently made in difficult terrain and kind of split second required decision-making. at the same time, the justice department an important role in that think attorney general garland is making a correct decision and reinstituting the pattern of practice of lawsuits for investigations -- short investigations i should say in this case that he has done in the minneapolis case and here in -- and the announcement this week in louisville kentucky. these investigations and lawsuits were authorized by the 1994 violent crime control act, so-called crime bill. represent a measured response by

the federal government to ensure as he announced yesterday the constitutional rights are not protected and police departments are not interfering in appropriate ways with that sharp interfering -- are not interfering in that are interfering in inappropriate ways. in some of those cases of federal judges overseeing monitoring agreement under which the police department agrees to a set of measures that are changes. under those agreements there is then a tracking of whether or not the department continues to implement those measures.

baltimore, seattle as examples of those measures underway. host: for our guest, this is jim in missouri. you are on with laurie robinson. caller: good morning. i would say the fault is police are not supposed to kill people. defend yourself. defend somebody else. the same as any other citizen carrying a gun. if i make a mistake and i shoot somebody with a phone in their hand, i will go to jail. treat the police the same as everybody else. legislating use of force, they

talk about training. it was written in the bible somewhere. training results in bad results, change the training. i lived in south florida for a long time, and the people and the traffic, the tension and me. i was ready to go postal. i moved to a rural area. i cannot imagine a policeman in the same environment that i lived through not developing a bad attitude. they never get to move to the country like me. they do it every day. host: ok, joe. thank you. guest: i think that you point

out that training is important and the stresses -- the stress is therefore police officers to deal with. there are certain situations, though they are very limited, and which police officers do need, unfortunately, to use lethal force. if there is a hostage situation and a hostage is about to be killed and there are a number of offenders with guns and somebody has a chance to rescue that hostage, we can think of situations with violent drug gangs or whatever it might be. there may be the need for legal force. that's why it is authorized by

law enforcement or police officers to use. the problem is those events should be extraordinarily rare. host: gary in orlando. you are next. caller: hello. my name is gary. i grew up in new york city. my first actual encounters with police was my father's first cousin. he works for new york city transit and i always assumed the police were good. in 1977, the summer third, i had went to church, came home -- december 3, i had went to church , head came home. as we got to the store. i turned to my brother and said be careful. it's slippery. as i open the door, a police officer reached out me up and threw me into a metal container.

a big dumpster and split my head open. as i landed on the floor, i asked him why would you do that. he kept looking down at me saying you people always cause problems. we kept repeating to him who are you talking about. who are these people? i don't know what you are tapping about. he kept yelling at me you -- he kept that i don't know what you're talking about. he kept yelling at me you people are always starting trouble. he took out his night his nightstick -- nightstick and jabbed my brother in the ribs and shoved him on top of me. we helped each other home and got into the house, we helped each other on the second floor and barricaded ourselves into a room. my mother was on the this was outside the door crying -- my mother was outside the door crying. host: what would you like our

guest to address? caller: it's not the training. the training is right. the training is working the way it's supposed to be. we are targets. i live in hunters creek in orlando and i have been stopped 11 times walking through my own area. i have been stopped in front of my house and asked for a green card. host: if you want to address that. guest: racial profiling and similar kinds of actions of police brutality of any kind cannot be accepted. this goes to my earlier comment about police culture. it's got to change. it cannot be excepted. it's not true, i would say, for the fact that for the vast majority of law enforcement in

this country who are dedicated, honest and not embracing of those actions. it certainly, sadly is true of some. -- it certainly, sadly is true of some. they still occur today. it is those types of occurrences that far too many people in this country have experienced that have sadly given law enforcement a bad reputation. one of the things that does an -- that does encourage me is so many of the leaders in law enforcement are committed to changing this and we need to

support from within law enforcement to make this change. i think that support is there. we need to join hands to make this happen. host: there's a story in the washington post that talks about efforts in albuquerque i federal authorities investigating issues there. issuing civilian oversight is one of the recommendations. it says the police union sued and demanded the resignation of a board member that pushed. guest: i thought that story, which i did read this morning, is very revealing and very discouraging. research by the council on criminal justice, which is an important new criminal justice think tank, has shown that

civilian review boards and civilian oversight groups have frequently not been effective because they have not been given sufficient power, subpoena power , oversight tools, ability to go in for it -- for internal records. to play a meaningful role in oversight. that was a critical piece of that article. that made them vulnerable to the kind of attacks and bullying that the article describes about police unions. i think that police unions,

sadly, have been obstacles to change that is needed in law enforcement. that is not true of every leader and individual involved in police union work, but overall police unions have served as a barrier to needed change. host: tom is next. caller: yeah. i would just like to make a comment about how, it's not so much a place of reform. i'm two-time felon, anytime i get pulled over they already know who you are. anytime you think you're going to run from them, you are going to get that reaction.

when they cry and get shot, handed over. you are already there. you are in custody. you are not going to win. just like the man was telling norge floyd. just give it up. i don't think it's -- telling george floyd. i don't think it's all reform thing. law enforcement is going to do their job no matter what. add things happened when people don't comply. guest: i regret to think that a properly operating law enforcement would not be a bullying law enforcement. i don't know that i would agree that that's the way you should operate. it may be the reality in many jurisdictions. host: when it comes to the topic of qualified immunity, i want to play a little bit of lindsay graham.

he talked a little bit about police reform efforts. i will play you his perspective and get yours. >> police reform in the last congress, but chuck schumer and kamala harris made an effort to block tim scott's reform bill. they filibustered tim scott's bill because i did not want tim scott and president trump to get credit for it. we will try again. mollified immunity is a very big bill. -- qualified immunity is a very big bill. there's a way to find qualified immunity reform. take the cop out of it. my idea along with tim scott is you cannot sue the police officer. sue the police department. we can solve that problem. we can solve the issues if there is will to get there and there is will to get there. host: that's his perspective and

what you think of it? what would be yours? guest: the qualified immunity has been the sticking point and is sticking point right now between the house and the senate that is the nub of the negotiation. our white house task force back in 2014-2015 did not address this issue. i've looked into it and i can see arguments on both sides. i think that a compromise may end up with something like ability to sue but the possibility of the department or the local jurisdiction covering the cost rather than an

individual officer. i don't know where that will end up and i have mixed feelings about it. there does need to be some ability to hold individual officers accountable. as for holding an individual officer making him or her pay large sums of money and losing their home, i don't know. perhaps it has to do with the severity of action that they took. i would have to think about that. accountability is an important issue. host: kevin in richmond, california. go ahead. caller: i come at this from an hr point of view. it's true that police officers jobs are very stressful as are other classifications which

require ecological evaluations on an annual basis. why is that not the case with police officers? >> that's a very good question and not only psychological evaluation but mental health more broadly. one of the issues that our white hearts -- white house task force took up was officer wellness and safety. on the officer wellness side, we encourage that there be as well as a general wellness check which does take place as far as physical health for officers every year. that there be a mental health wellness check as well. one of the challenges for officers and agencies right now

is that with all of the stress that police officers experience in the macho culture of law enforcement, it's in the culture frowned upon to go from mental health counseling. that's not unusual. it would be the same in many other types of settings like firefighting and other in the military. one of the good developments has been pierced support groups -- peer support groups. more needs to be done broadly in this area. i think this would benefit the

profession broadly. host: let's hear from paul. he is in kansas city, missouri. caller: good morning. thanks for this segment. in america, the police, i believe, should always be backed in a gunfight. in a gunfight, requires that there be a gun present on the other side too. i'm not saying, that's not a gunfight. one of the things that we see too often is police using deadly force rather than trying to apprehend someone. if i shoot you in the back

within 10 to 20 feet of you trying to run away, that's me saying i would rather kill you then try to stop you or put in the effort to chase you. that, i see as a few -- as a huge problem with policing. host: we will let our guests respond. guest: your post are -- your points are very well taken and the supreme court has said in -- the supreme court has said that it is not constitutional to shoot as somebody -- to shoot at somebody who is retreating and that is well taken. one of the positive developments is, one of our callers was skeptical about training. some training, research has

shown, can reduce use of force. that is de-escalation training if done correctly. what de-escalation training can do to your point is diffuse the situation using distance and good communication to lower the temperature of the confrontation. try to lower the adrenaline of both participants. try, particularly if substance abuse is involved, if the individual has mental health issues to just lower the temperature and slow it down. this has proven, again, rigorous research to have a real impact. host: laurie robinson at george

mason university. also served as the cochair of the white house task force on policing. they queue for the connotation. guest: thank you. host: president biden will address his first joint congress. that's at 9:00. c-span's coverage starting at 8:00. we want to find out from you if you plan to watch tonight and what you are watching for. here's how you can let us know. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000 . independence (202) 748-8002. we watched the president address to congress? call us right now read we will take those calls when washington journal continues. >> as he approaches his 100th day in office, president biden will give his first address to a joint session and conference --

joint session tonight. ♪ >> labor secretary marty walsh testifies this morning on the president 2022 budget request before a house appropriations subcommittee. watch live at 10:00 on c-span

three. online at c-span.org. or on the c-span radio app. >> washington journal continues. host: president biden making his address tonight. the biggest visible visual difference will be apparent when the president steps up to the podium. house speaker nancy pelosi and vice president kamala harris will be behind him. both women. all four caucuses were set to receive the same amount that republicans and democrats. the senate received 58 seats which were evenly divided between republicans and democrats.

there will be a few or amount of people this year than in previous years. it also highlights the fact that william walker will become a feature of tonight. he will be in the spotlight when he escorts the house -- when he escorts the president. that's just some of how this presentation, this address will differ from others. we are asking you if you plan to watch tonight and what you are watching for. you can let us know. (202) 748-8000 four republicans. (202) 748-8001 four democrats -- (202) 748-8000 republicans.

(202) 748-8001 democrats. (202) 748-8002 text. >> historic investment in childcare. he will use this opportunity to talk about his other priorities including police reform, gun safety, his ongoing to get the gun epidemic under control. he was in senate for years -- he was in senate and recognizes that important opportunity that this office. in attendance, there will be the secretary of state and secretary of defense as well as i think the supreme court port -- the supreme court. there will not be a first lady box as there has been historically. while the speech will look and feel different, the president will preserve the future -- will

preserve tradition. he will be wearing a mask. he will remove the mask when he delivers his speech. he will also be meeting with men and women who are at that who were at -- men and women who were at the capitol on january 6. host: saying it's 200 billion dollar program offering universal prekindergarten for all three and four-year-olds. 85 billion to increase pell grant's benefit low income and minority students and larger scholarship certification and support programs for teachers. the plan would bill upon -- would build upon the american rescue plan and make the earned income tax expansion permanent. it would make the child tax

credit to lower income families. that's just what to expect of the president address tonight and we are asking you if you plan to watch it. i will -- let's start with burlington, north carolina. independent line. this is edward. caller: i plan on watching it. it has great benefit. should we draw a line on fiscal response ability in some areas? also as a republican side, i do want to be compassionate because all of those benefits for childcare and everything. with my wife by my side, we made great sacrifices. host: that's edward in north

carolina. it's the first speech in front of both houses of congress. it's not a state of the union address. the president is unable to speak about the state of the union after a few weeks of being in office. typically the annual speech from the president to congress takes place in february but it was following the genworth six capitol riot and continuing covert restrictions. albuquerque, new mexico. -- continuing covid restrictions. albuquerque, new mexico. do you plan to watch? caller: yes i plan to watch. i will be looking for more of the interesting details of what he might be laying out and how that would affect and benefit the people of new mexico. i must confess that when i heard you asked the question what will you be looking for, i have been

-- i've become so disillusioned with republicans that i will be watching to see if they can control their bad behavior or if they do something disgraceful. host: a few or amount of people in the chamber tonight. john roberts expected to be there. no designated survivor. let's hear from kingsley in jackson heights, new york. independent line. caller: i will be watching tonight. i'm an independent. i will never in my life vote for another republican for anything. democrats and biden, they come in to govern. they are governing. they are not looking for spots on fox news media to be media

star. i want to hear from biden talking about student loans. taxes that i pay, $50 in taxes. this is what i want to hear about reforming the tax code, reforming student loans. i'm a social worker in new york city. it's a very difficult life trying to take care of your children, wife, family. i don't need, i need someone that wants to work with other people to solve problems. biden has showed me and showed me that there is a way forward without republican. he has the bipartisan support of the american people. i don't care about politicians. he has the american people are partisanship and that's what i'm interested in. host: we will head to atlanta,

georgia. -- he will head to atlanta, georgia. it was on the senate floor talking about the various programs and proposal from the biden white house and how to pay for it. republican from south dakota talking about those efforts, particularly what it might do when it comes to taxes. >> they want to heighten the tax rate. putting american businesses at substantial disadvantage next to their foreign competitors. democrats impose president biden's tax height, the combined average top tax rate would be higher than that imposed by everyone of our major trading partners and competitors including china. it's difficult to understand why democrats think it's a good idea to put american companies at a disadvantage next to chinese

companies and to reduce companies and japanese companies and french companies and the list -- and british companies and japanese companies and french companies and the list goes on. our economy is trying to recover from a serious hit we took from the coronavirus. the democrats are either incapable of grasping or don't care about the economic consequences. democrats are fixated on imposing a host of new government programs and they are ready to tax americans and american businesses to pay for them even if ordinary americans suffer as a result. host: this is steve in pennsylvania texting us. he said he plans to watch and simply listen. lynn says she does not plan to listen.

when you dig into them, you see that most of them go into socialist type actions. we are going to be so in debt that our grandkids are going to have a los -- a lesser quality of life. as the president presents his joint address to congress. you can find more out next you can find out more about that at the website. fred, go ahead. caller: i'm going to watch the show. it's going to be a good laugh. i just don't care for his socialist type ideas. i believe in the american way. i was a democrat for many years and i'm a republican now and proud of it. the american people have to get together and start working together. i would like to say one thing and make it quick. on the police reform bill, these people who cry about working as

a police officer and see what they have to put up. host: we're going to wait there. independent line. michael. caller: i will definitely be watching tonight. i am very interested to hear about president biden's future for our country and america as a whole especially in regard to the immigration at the border and undocumented minors and a stabilizing the countries in central america. i also want to comment in regard to the guest you had earlier. host: we are going to keep it at the president's address. i stopped the other person from doing the same. we will go to carolyn. she hung up. let's go to ruth in maryland. democrats line talking about the president address. caller: i'm interesting in hearing the president speak about the mail service. i'm 92 years old.

i have never seen such rotten service. we cannot even get our mail, business leaders -- business letters. they are not even arriving. why is he letting dejoy destroy our mail service? host: do you think he is going to bring up the postal service tonight? caller: i don't know. it's about time he does. nobody's getting their mail. i know i'm not. we can't even get a letter that is mailed from the bank in town. it goes somewhere else and it whole week letter that whole week later. my medicine -- a whole week later. my medicine was parked in another state for 17 days. the mail, postal service traced it to south carolina park and then they started coming back to

north dakota and turned around and went back south again and if i would not have had a tracking number i would never get my medicine. i'm waiting for my business letters to come. a month later, it's still not here. that's not the only one. host: that's ruth in north dakota talking about mail and hoping the president will bring it up. diddly what happens, you get a response from -- usually what happens, you get a response from the other party. tim scott is often happy to dark past capitol hill without saying much. -- happy to dart past capitol hill without saying much. now the lawmaker is giving his party nationally televised response saying when it comes to

the address, you think -- you figure out who your audience as that audience is. -- figure out who your audience is and lean in to who you are. you will also hear another response if you are watching that a progressive group has decided to deliver a formal response to the president's first address. it's traditional for the opposing party to give the address, but when the -- but it's less common for the party to deliver a rebuttal. speaking about half of the left-wing working families party response to the president after he gives the address. eugene in massachusetts. democrats line. if you plan on watching the president's speech tonight? caller: delighted. it ready to watch it. because i feel that biden's

governing and i like to see the women behind him that made history that represent the country. the immigration, i know he's going to mention about that. i do have friends that are republican. it is a shame to be a republican nowadays. biden is trying to reunite his country. have humanity and see where this country is going. to them, they never see a party that is so sick that is divide even when he is trying to unite this country. biden is not trying to make this country a commonest country. i think he is trying to unite the country -- to make this country communist country. i think he is trying to unite the country. caller: i'm hoping that biden talks about health care. the co-pays are extremely high

and we are paying to an half times more for health care than any developed country in the world. the second thing he needs to talk about is misinformation. fox news puts out stuff about kamala harris being in charge of border. she's not. then they put out false information about covid-19. we need a strong federal communications administration. stop these cable companies and television stations from lying to people. if they do, they should be fined or taken off the air. host: partly talking about the president address and normally 1600 people attend this event. a new number, 200 people will be in attendance. the capital itself will be emptier than it's ever been. the house sergeant at arms says

anyone that does not have a ticket to attend to leave the building by 5:00 today. the unusual preparations are likely to lend a surreal mood to what is usually an elaborate ritual. a of the union address by sworn in president. -- state of the union address by sworn in president. from richard in nebraska, democrats line. caller: i will be watching with my wife. as an american, i feel it is my duty to watch the president's address at such a time as this if possible. what i will be looking for tonight is possibly can our adult leaders sitting in those chairs out in front of the president of the united states stay put in their chairs and not be jumping up and down ridiculously. host: why is that an issue for

you? caller: they go on and on and half of them are not jumping up and down. it's a statement from that group that says we are or we are not for what that man just said. this is an address to the public and them to become part of the positive or negative show business i find ridiculous. host: the vice president kamala harris will be sitting find the president because she serves as president of the senate. nancy pelosi, one of the things you can watch out for. democrats on capitol hill trying to push the extension of the child tax credit saying the democrats expanded the tax credit for 2001 only as part of the $1.9 trillion relief package.

-- tax credit for 2021 only as part of the one point $9 trillion relief package. funding for community college and universal pre-k. jerome, democrats line. you are next. caller: i will be listening tonight. i will be interested in his proposal for changing the tax deal. i am a tax preparer and i have noticed that the majority of my clients used to be, 10% withheld they would know. now it's up to 12.5 and i'm interested in what biden is going to do about the plan because working americans are paying more now for their income. host: jerome talking about when he is watching for. this is kathy from washington

state texting us saying "-- techno saying she would not be will that she will not be watching because the president -- texting us saying she will not be watching because the president is using this propaganda to make people believe that he is a unifying president. -- the president is not worthy of american time. another view is saying that plan that another viewer saying they plan to watch -- another viewer is planning to watch. i want a speech to make people comfortably and safely not off. you can call us on the lines. let's hear from brenda from virginia, democrats line. caller: i want to watch biden

tonight and everything but i would hope and pray that everybody sitting in that audience listens to him speech tonight and have respect for him. he is our president of the united states and i tell you what, i have never been so upset and aggravated with some of these republicans. i don't know what to do. let me tell you something. if the republicans don't get their self straight, they are going to lose in 2000 with the two. there are so many people out here that are going to protest against them because they are disrespecting president biden ever since he got into the white house. host: this is kirby in indiana, republican line. caller: i'm not going to watch

this speech tonight. i just think that he's not the right president. he's not a unifier. he talks about racial division all the time. if he is wanting a race war, he better be careful. thank you. the program. host: producer craig kaplan says this about tonight. no interviews. the u.s. capitol due to covid safety. is usually packed before and after the per that -- the president address. interviews will be taking place at alternate hill locations. if you want to watch it tonight, c-span is the place to do it. uninterrupted, gavel to gavel. you can do so. our coverage is at 8:00. you can watch it at c-span.org and the radio app is available. if you want to listen -- when it

comes to those plans the president will propose, there's a story in the washington post how the irs becomes a part of those plans. this is the headline that the president plans to boost enforcement saying that the single biggest source of revenue in the plan comes from dramatically expanding the clouds of the nations tech -- expanding the clout of the nations tech. raising as much as 700 billion, although the precise amount of the plan remained in clear -- remained unclear. sam in asheville, north carolina. independent line. caller: hello. yeah. i was calling about the coronavirus. host: we are talking about the

president's state of the union tonight. what the expected here tonight? caller: i don't know. host: missouri, democrats line. caller: i was calling about. going on with the republicans. i they got something to do with everything that is going on. host: we are talking about the president's address tonight, do you plan to watch? caller: yes. host: where you watching for? caller: i'm watching because he's trying to help the poor to get into the middle class. and the republicans are denying, denying the poor folks to get

anything. and they don't ever pay any taxes. host: let's hear from don in des moines, iowa on the president's address tonight. caller: yeah, this is don from iowa. i got a couple things to say. biden needs to get things straightened out. host: let's start with the address, what are you listening for in tonight's address? caller: i'm listening for what he says, what they say to tell him what to say. you should read in that paper that's the wrong paper. host: let's stick to the address, what are you listening for? caller: i'm listening for him to say -- [indiscernible] when he opens his mouth that's when he lies. host: that's don in des moines,

iowa. 8:00 you can start tuning in on a clock you can start watching the address, cease plan -- c-span is the place to do it. we will take you to the senate side, five of the president's judicial nominees are set to testify at a confirmation hearing before the senate judiciary committee and you can along not only on c-span, but if you're interested in judicial politics when it comes to this administration this is the place and the event to watch. we'll take you to that event just about to start. >> good morning. this meeting of the senate judiciary many will come to order. the senate judiciary committee will hold its first