weekends on c-span2. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. there is a collection of c-span products. browse to see what's new. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations and your time to order the congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. notice c-spanshop.org. with the judicial crisis network. she has chief counsel and policy director. good morning, carrie severino. guest: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. you had a piece in real clear politics that said when did the supreme court to better and in that you challenged the naysayers and those critical of some of the conservative

naysayers of the opinions that your overall opinion of the term is it is the best in recent memory in your mind. correct? what are the cases that make your case, that make your point? guest: i think something that is really notable is in this past term, there was no major issue in wish the supreme -- in which the supreme court diverted from a contextual us understanding of the constitution. on both sides now, litigants before the court recognize what the court should be looking at is not their own independent views of what is best for america or how to update laws but what the laws actually say. that is a win for our constitutional government. that gets to those editing the laws our representatives and not judge -- justices on the court. that looks at the original meaning of the constitution --

that means judges look at the original meaning of the constitution. it is not judges that say we should change that part. that can be done and has been done dozens of times over our nations history, but that should be done by the people and by their elected representatives, not by the court. that is a huge win. i think it is issues like the first amendment we had cases in the free exercise clause defending that, in the context of covid, in the context of these catholic social services, foster care, the full kit, the property rights. there was a case that defended property rights from forced intrusion for about half of the year being forced to allow organizers onto their property without compensation. the separation of power, there was an sha having to do with the president having authority to dictate who are his executive

officers. and it can be something he gets stuck with someone who cannot he can -- we cannot fire if he believes he needs to. there was an interpretation of the case that rejected a very expensive interpretation of that act, wasn't based in the text. this is the kind of thing where congress can change the law but the courts cannot do so. so those are some of the cases that i saw that stood out as part of this trend really over the past few terms but it has really come to fruition in the last term. we are moving an direction of originalism. host: what was your take on the new bench strength, the trump supported pix during this last session? guest: they have been really significant members of the court. one of the things, and i said this in my op-ed, one of the things that shows the shift in the court is looking at last

term, for example, the justice in the majority most of the time, more than any other justice, was chief justice roberts, 97% of the time. that is maybe an historic high, and he that i've seen recently. last year, another 90 -- another 97% majority, brett kavanaugh. that represents a shift. chief justice roberts has developed a trend of in certain cases having decisions that seem to be affected a little more by fear of public reprisal than actual commitment to what the text of the law says or constitution says. there were several cases that exemplify that in the 2019 term if you -- 2019 term. if you look at the 2020 term, i think justice kavanaugh was in good company and frankly almost all these cases was with chief justice roberts with one exception of the covid religious freedom case having to do with

the right of synagogues and churches in new york's to meet and other similar -- when other similar businesses were allowed to do so. i think the court has shifted to a more originalist and contextual list stand. i think that's a great thing for our country on both sides of the aisle. if our elected representatives are the one in power to make laws, that gives us as americans the authority to do that. we don't have to wait for a justice to die, we don't have to try to force him out like some people are trying to do with justice breyer to have any impact on our laws. our laws should be impacted by the language passed by congress and signed by the president. host: former president trump not happy according to michael walton, an interview in his new book, the role of justice kavanaugh or lack of a role in the election. he voted the former president saying i'm very disappointed in kavanaugh. i told you something i haven't told a lot of people. he hasn't had the courage, you

need to be a great justice. i'm basing this on more than one election. i saved his life. he wouldn't even be in a law firm. who would have him? nobody. only i saved him. what is your view of justice kavanaugh? guest: president trump is right that his standing by the nominee was crucial to kavanaugh's success as a nominee and molly hemingway and i wrote a book about his confirmation process, justice on trial, that detailed that. i do think that was significant and a very important aspect. i think we now have an excellent justice in the supreme court as a result. so we have him to thank for that. however, i think his view of justice kavanaugh and jude jurists -- and jurisprudence is pessimistic. there cases where he haven't -- hasn't gone farther here. sometimes i come to a slightly

different conclusion, and i can find that with every justice on the court. however, when you look at the core of his base is contextualism. that is what president trump talked about in his campaign rallies, in his statements about who he wanted to appoint to the supreme court. i think that is what the mandate from the american people was, to put on supreme court justices who are not necessarily going to pull to the political and do like every time but who are going to be faithful to the text and original understanding of the constitution of the law. host: you touched on the case in the past term, fulton city versus -- fulton versus the city of philadelphia. a unanimous decision. in that, the judgment in 2021, the court ruled the city of philadelphia was wrong to end the catholic group's contract to provide foster care services. that was a unanimous decision. did that surprise you? guest: in the religious freedom area, that is an area we have

seen some surprise but it should not be a surprise. in 2010, the hosanna case was a case that started a trend that recognized we have a k that is very pro-religious freedom and that is totally appropriate because we have a constitution that is pro-religious freedom. it is represented in the bill of rights and protected by the bill of rights. i think as in any case, in order to get unanimity, the case ended up having a narrower result. there were some justices who wanted to go further. i think that is also a common theme you see in many supreme court cases, but it did send a very powerful message that justices across -- not just spectrum of the political appointees but how they interpret law all agreed that in this case, philadelphia could not simply exclude catholic social services from foster care

contracts because they were not willing to abandon their religious belief. i think it is also noticeable that all the justices, on the right and left, found it significant there were no families that were denied access to foster care services because of catholic social services religious position. so this illustrates maybe a path forward for this country. we are in such a time of turmoil and political polarization yet here is an example of where you can have people with strongly held religious beliefs who are able to participate in this program according to their belief and then you have a gay/lesbian couple that want to adopt that also have access to other state licensed organizations, so there's an ability to live and let live. it doesn't always have to be either/or. in terms of these clashes that

we see on hot social issues. host: we are talking about the supreme court and our guest is carrie severino with the judicial crisis network. we welcome your comments at (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats is (202) 748-8000. and for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. carrie severino, remind us what your organization does and how are you funded? guest: i work for the judicial crisis network, we are a 501(c) four organization, a public interest organization, and we work for encouraging courts and justices faithful to the constitution and rule of law. most prominently at the federal level, supreme court level, but also interested in ensuring the state have courts that are accountable the people of the states and will also be faithful to the law in that state as well. host: look at the washington

post and their review of the past term and how frequently each justice was in the majority. the chart tells the tale, the conservative bloc. not surprisingly with justice kavanaugh, 97% of the time in the majority. justice roberts, the chief justice, 92% of the time. also in the 90's was amy coney barrett in the liberal block in terms of the majority. breyer at 77%, kagan at -- from what you can tell for the new justice on board for the full-time this time, did the role of the chief justice change at all over the course of this term? guest: yeah, well i think it is a significant difference from the last term where the chief justice was in many cases the swing vote, kind of the kingmaker deciding how it held -- how the court would shift. in some cases, it fell into the

category of is this something based on what is going -- what the law is directing him to do or is this something that maybe the public opinion polls are leading the way in his reasoning process? in this way, the chief justice is no longer the swing vote in most cases. i'm trying to think of a case where he play that role. so it does change that position, and in some ways, this might free chief justice roberts to return to his role that he talked about in his own confirmation hearing, simply being an umpire and trying to call balls and strikes as he put it. i think it was a lot of pressure for someone who really feels the weight of the institutional interests of the court on his shoulders, and i think is very concerned about how the court is viewed publicly. i think there is maybe some

correctness to that approach. we do want the court to have a positive respect from the american people, but i think his way of going about it, unfortunately, was wrongheaded. i think the thing that gain the most respect from the american people from the court is not the idea of a court going to come up with a result i like or dodge important questions which is sometimes the way his decision seems to look like, i don't want to decide an issue is a hot button issue. the courts decide the issue, which is why we have a supreme court. i think the thing that will bring the most legitimacy to the court and the most respect is maybe a grudging respect from the american people when we know we have a court that on good times and bad, day in and day out, wilson call the law as they see it -- will simply call the law as they see it. this is not a result i would vote for if i was a legislator,

this might not give the results giving great headlines in the next weeks or months for the course, but this ultimately is the court that is in keeping with the constitution, and that i think ultimately would make people respect the court. i think this gives the opportunity of the chief justice to not feel like that is on his shoulders. he can sibley be the justice he was confirmed to be. host: termite our viewers and radio listeners that c-span covered many of the oral arguments. we have for years and those are all findable at c-span.org. the oral arguments this year happening virtually in teleconferences. carrie severino, more notably is decisions from justice claire thomas. howdy think this change -- and this was the first term done virtually -- how do you think or has it changed the court proceedings at all? guest: i was fortunate to get to

listen to the arguments on c-span from the comfort of my home rather than have to wake up early, stand in line, go to the supreme court like one would normally do. the tickets are free but you have to stand in line. so there a convenience but at the same time it does feel like something is a little lost in terms of the opportunity to see the justices, to kind of gauge their interaction in that way. however, there were a lot of silver linings to this process. justice thomas's comments are a real example. i clerked for the justice into thousand 7-2008. he didn't ask questions in that term and there was probably a decade or more where he did not ask questions. he talked about how frustrated he had become with the way the process gotten. this year, we are celebrating 30 years of the justice on the court. when they first came to the court, they heard almost twice as many cases but they had less than half as many questions.

you could go a whole morning of arguments without hearing justices interrupt a litigant to ask questions. there was much more expectation that these lawyers had prepared and understand these cases and we want to hear what they have to say. there is obviously a role for questioning attorneys, but it is really ramped up in -- up and dramatically so in the last 30 years. whereas now, a recent change to the process, before covid, was the idea of the attorneys just have two minutes uninterrupted. that was something the supreme court try to institute. they would have that uninterrupted two minutes and then into this legendary back-and-forth, sometimes justices interrupting each other, the litigant would get one -- half of a sentence out and someone would interrupt that never got to answer that one question. that is not productive. you can't actually hear an argument to completion effectively in that way and the justices might have been using it more as a sounding board with

each other and playing to the crowd there themselves, talking and looking for laughs or looking for moments in their questions rather than listening to the answers. justice thomas in his new format really has been a great window, i think, because the litigators can hear his questions and perspective, which is important. you only have nine votes that you are trying to win and there is one that you actually -- that you actually now have a perspective that's interesting to him because they were asking questions so he had a turn and it was very orderly. i'm not sure how well that could translate to the courtroom scene. the success of the wait two minutes ask questions did not last long before there were justices interrupting before the two minutes were done. it is hard when you have a bunch of people with life tenure, you don't have a lot of power as a chief. i think it would be valuable if we could continue some of that

systematic and more calm and reasoned approach to the arguments rather than jumping back in. host: has the court indicated they are going back virtual sessions in the upcoming -- going back to virtual sessions in the upcoming terms? guest: i'm not sure. i think the justices for long time have already been vaccinated or had the virus so there is not much concern there. right now, it is a question of what would be permitted by washington, d.c., because we are looking for what the regulations are on that. i'm not sure how they will move going forward. host: we will definitely get to cases for you to preview in the upcoming term, including the mississippi abortion case. let's first catcalls and go to george, a republican line in auburn, new york. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. go ahead. caller: i think clarence thomas

would have a much more conservative record. i was quite shocked by that. i recall in the 1990's in school watching these hearings, and i think i want to see more from the latest judge, justice barrett, because i have not seen much of her. i will be looking forward to that. host: did we hear, carrie severino, and these oral arguments a lot from justice barrett? guest: one of the interesting features of the current system is you heard almost equally from every single justice. so it will be interesting. she has only had this virtual type of arguments so far because she obviously took over in 2020, so now it will be interesting to see if eventually they can get back this year to the in person

or oral -- in-person oral arguments in terms of how she is jumping into the makes there. she does have experience in the court of appeals judge and she had very good insights and questions in that context i heard. she is used to being able to jump in in a more free-flowing thing. most justices have to learn that on the first down the job. she had an easier time where you waited for your turn, which with her as a junior justice, she got to be the last one to ask questions. i hope you have a list of questions in case someone didn't ask them one you are interested in. host: about the justices, dan johnson says this on twitter, sound like justices have become lawyers themselves, arguing a case. we go to michael in oregon. michael, wrong one. there you are. go ahead. caller: hello. i take it you clerked for

justice thomas? guest: yes. caller: would you consider yourself a conservative? guest: i would consider myself certainly -- probably a political conservative and legal conservative, but i would distinguish between those two. i think there is politics and policy side of things but on the legal side, it is about how you interpret the law. that is something i really admire about justice thomas' jurisprudence and i share his approach. caller: i've been watching c-span for many years, and i agree with justice thomas. thank you. host: ok. to felix in north carolina on our democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. c-span, america, how are you doing on this wonderful day? host: doing good, thank you. guest: great. caller: i have three quick points i hope you can touch on. you indicated conservatives read

it the way it is written. does that mean dred scott was an original intent question? second of all, and it has to do with you had mentioned about the adoptions in the catholic organization, which i understand that, but how many of the justices are catholic, and you think that might prejudice their feelings? thirdly, most people talk about packing the cord. we know republicans did that, they have done it, but they still packet. i think they should reduce it because they only entertained about 75 cases per year. i'm going to law school now at 69 and i have to read a lot more than per month average on that. finally, to all those who protect and serve this great country, godspeed on all of your adventures. host: thanks, felix. several things there, carrie severino. guest: i will see if i can keep track of them. on dred scott, i don't think

anyone considers that a contextual listed decision, so i don't think -- frankly i don't think you would find any judges that would agree with that. it's true the majority of the justices are catholic, but it is also interesting they have fallen on both sides of the political spectrum. justice thomas, arguably the most conservative justice in the court and also catholic. i think if you are doing your job correctly as a judge, your personal views about what would be the right policy answer, for example to a specific case, should not affect your legal conclusion in that case. justice scalia spoke eloquently about this and justice barrett wrote about it as well as one of his clerk in her early years, and it was one of her first papers, pointing out if eyes i catholic for example, she

disagreed. i think she was a law student, but if the judge disagreed with a decision, in this case talking about the death penalty, saying and -- saying i could not impose the death penalty. they should simply refuse. a justice should not say on the contrary to my religious beliefs but they also mustn't impose their beliefs instead of the law that they are tasked with for an oath of upholding. i think that is the best conclusion. finally, to packing the court questions and the number of cases, and terms of packing the court, republicans have certainly filled the spot available to them, and i think that is what every president has a right to do. however, there's a difference, when we talk about packing the courts, we are invoking the language used by fdr in 1937, talking about a politicized changing of the number of justices to change the outcome

in cases. that is something i don't think we can ever stand for from either party. i think joe biden was right when he called it a bonehead idea in 1982 and thought it was an overreach of executive power. i think that is something the american people agree would be inappropriate. there's nothing written in stone about the number of justices we have but the one thing that is clear is we should not have that number chosen and changed simply for political benefit. i think that would open the door to a huge problem with quid pro quo. in terms of the number of cases, i am with you. we certainly ought to be able to have the court to hearing more cases. i got the impression when chief justice roberts took over he was frustrated on that and would lean on the courses -- on the courts to take more cases. we have only seen the numbers go down. 20/20 was an unusual year but maybe if they had more cases on their plate. it's important for the court not to wait for an issue that has percolated through every circuit in the country before they lay

down the authoritative interpretation of the statute or constitutional provision. it is important for our country to have a consistent understanding across the nation and not simply leave the appellate courts to do their job. i worry that it is the court not wanting to open itself up to criticism from either side for coming up with decisions that -- decisions, but you know what, we give them life tenure so you can come up with hard answers. host: on expanding the car, from a viewer, they say i'm in favor of 13 or more justice so balance and diversity can be achieved. as it stands now, they say this a preen court is too conservative and not mainstream enough and does not reflect the majority of our country. guest: i think the challenge is, again, i don't think there's a magic in the number of nine. we could have five justices, 10 justices, but if you are changing the number of justices because you want to political end, then the next time the

other party guess the reins of power, i don't see how they wouldn't do the same thing. i don't think we want to see that in our country. even bernie sanders said if you keep going like that you will get 86 justices. he was opposed to that. justice ginsburg was opposed to it, justice breyer on the court has had similar things, it would only politicize things. i think that is the concern, it would turn into a political football more than it is. host: let's hear from john on the independent line from wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. some of the previous guests [indiscernible] but i agree with you as far as the supreme court is concerned, just becoming a political football. when it comes to some state supreme court's with the election of 2020, i understand a lot of things got changed for

that election and now they are trying to put it back to where they were at before. what is your take on state supreme court's? possibly changing election rules and things like that? guest: thanks. that is one of the reasons i think it is important to focus not just on the federal court. even though they are the most prominent, they get the most national news, but the state court is incredibly significant. 90% of cases and laws decided have to do with the state court. it is something we often forget about. we saw the courts in the middle of the pandemic that the courts to get a lot more prominence because they were making important decisions and they were the ones tasked with that. i have the same concern with state courts as federal courts. our elected representatives are the ones supposed to be making the laws. in some cases, you had the state version, state legislature making laws and it wasn't a situation necessarily where they

made along not realizing it would be a pandemic and suddenly it hit and the court had to say how would they have changed things if they had known? in some cases, you had state legislatures that already passed laws in the wake of covid-19, recognizing what was going on and said this is how our state will respond to it. there are different things you could have done to allow for the election or in the wake of that. when you had state courts stepping in to change laws, that strikes me as a real concern. it is not respecting our elected legislatures who are the ones that are supposed to write the laws. you can come to a range of policy conclusions about what the best response is but the people making those key policy issues, especially on the most important issues today, should be the elected representatives and not the court. host: was the california religious assembly case the only covid related case that made it to the court and the past term? guest: no. there were a whole host of them. i think the last caller alluded

to, there were election related cases but particularly religious freedom related cases. because of the timing of things and because of the length of time it takes to bring a court to -- a case to court, none of them coming to mind offhand came up in the process of regular, all the way to or arguments into a decision. they came up to what is coughed -- what is often called the shadow docket. it would be a case decided by a lower court, either a state or federal court, and there was not time to appeal it up. maybe there would be a stay of the law in the certain case or request for an emergency stay in the court would have to deal with it that way. in the wake of the election, you would not have time to litigate a case. it takes months and months. all the way to the supreme court at that point, the case would be moved. there was a disagreement among some of the justices, now it has moved and we can at least give an authoritative interpretation of what courts should be doing

next time. maybe it will be better if it is not super relevant because we are not deciding the outcome of an election. we are setting ground rules so everyone plays by the same rules in the next election. the court did not take the case, so maybe if we have this kind of thing, hopefully by 2022, we will not be dealing with some of the emergency measures from covid-19. if so, i thing that opens the door for more frustrating last-minute appeals to the supreme court. host: let's hear from rick in virginia on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, terry. -- carrie. does chief roberts have more pull as to what cases get heard from the supreme court or do they all decide what cases to take? when it comes to the election, do you have any insight as to why some of the cases did not get taken up by the supreme

court, especially the one in pennsylvania where five democrat pennsylvania supreme court justices ruled in favor of the rule changes that happened in that state against the state's own constitution. thank you. host: thanks, rick. carrie severino. guest: so that is interesting about the chief justice. in one sense, the chief justice is the first among equals affectively. he has the same vote in deciding a case as every other justice and you need the majority to win. he is the same vote in terms of taking a case for -- when the case decides to take a case, you need for cases to take the case. he has an equal vote in that sense. he has other ways he can exert pull. i think his colleagues respect him as a leader so he does try to, i assume, i haven't worked in the courts for over a decade, but he is able to talk to them

and negotiate and maybe try to suggest a direction he would think the court would go. ultimately at the end, it is not a matter of him having more votes. he does have some ability to choose who writes an opinion, for example, to direct the direction the court will go in those ways. he may have plans on timing of when cases get heard, but i think other than that, it is really just the power of his own convincing them and power of his arguments to say i really don't want to take this case, let's wait for another case or group of cases in the same topic, maybe this is the best one. in terms of the pennsylvania case, i think that is the one i was alluding to wear i believe the supreme court should have taken that case, even though the 2020 election was behind us by the time he got all the way to the supreme court. i think that may have made it a perfect vehicle. the court does at times take cases that are technically moved but are what hours called

capable of repetition, cases by their nature that tend to be this exploding timeline that you would never hear a supreme court case in. in situations like that, it is helpful for the court to lay down a law before you get into this exploding timeline of the same set of facts arising again. and unfortunately, i know it seems to be possible that kind of playing around with the rules after they have already been laid down in legislature could recur again. host: next is our caller in georgia, democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning? host: fine, thank you. caller: high for one have no respect for mr. thomas. with that said, how do you feel about a judge going to a party and scott a case before him and got to rule on it, running

around the country making $1 million listening to people so she can sell his vote. thank you, ma'am. guest: rights, so the justices, if they were at and -- i think the laws on recusal are not as strict as people imagine. i think there are justices -- the justices have to make this decision themselves in terms of what is recused. if there were a justice that had interest in a case, justices regularly recuse themselves if they have interest in the case or stock in the company before the courts. even if they own one share, they would recuse themselves. if they were involved in the facts of the case or ruled on it below, or even commented specifically on a publicly -- justice scalia recused himself from a pledge of allegiance

case. all of the justices are familiar with and attend events for people who might be related to cases. justice ginsburg accepted awards from planned parenthood foundation while they were filing a breese and cases. that is not normally something that would trigger role -- trigger recusal. attending an event where the coat brothers were in attendance, i don't think there was a case where they were personally involved in a case before the court. perhaps an organization affiliated with them took a position on it but that has never been something that would trigger recusal. that is something very common in justices on both sides of the aisle, so that is something that normally the justice would say hey i am able to step back. they all have personally held beliefs, obviously, that run

much deeper than something -- someone that they may know at event -- at an event they attend. and they have to set those aside whenever that comes into conflict with an actual law in the case. i think we have to trust them to do that. host: one of the cases they hear in the upcoming turn, the announce the mississippi abortion case, dobbs v jackson women's health organization, a taste that will test the constitutionality of a mississippi law prohibiting abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies and fetal abnormalities. it will challenge the court's decision in roe v. wade. carrie severino, what is at stake? obviously challenging those important supreme court decisions but how does this argument shape up in the court this fall? guest: it will be an interesting one to watch. the states brief was strong --

state's brief was strong on this issue. they were clear when you look at typically with the factors that a court looks at to determine am i going to follow a supreme court case that i think is incorrectly decided or the reasoning of which is incorrect, even if the result you might agree with, do you follow that reasoning or go a different direction? the supreme court from time to time always does overturn cases and every justice in the case has done so at times. the factors they way, the brief went to do them and said this is a case people on all sides of the aisle view does not actually -- isn't very legally rigorous, even if it comes to rid the -- comes to the result many people would agree with and has undermined historically over the years and has caused distortion in our jurisprudence. it is also part of the problem with the politicization of the court, by taking such a significant issue that was kind of a third rail issue in

american psyd -- american society, you now may the supreme court the focal point of the issue rather than leaving it in the legislature of the states. it will be interesting to watch that play out. i do not know whether we will be listening to it on c-span or whether we will be able to -- at least some people will be able to see it in the courtrooms but it will be a significant case for how the court looks at this issue -- these issues. we know the court will sometimes on major issues even where ultimately there's a real concern about the president and the president ends up being overruled eventually. there's also a step by, wait, how did that happen? i don't think this would necessarily have the supreme court overstepped the -- overturn the steps of roe v. wade. if that happens, you have many states, and i think what we would see is across the

political spectrum of the country, a different regime in many different states. you have the georgia's, the mississippi is in the middle, maybe where they would prohibit some abortions, really getting closer and lined with most european countries who prohibit abortion generally speaking after the first trimester. so even earlier than mississippi does. you have states like new york and california that offer unrestricted abortion along the lines of what places like china and north korea do. you have something that reflects a spectrum i think, if i did happen. host: i want to get one more call here but a quick question on voting rights. the court upheld the arizona voting law. is there anticipation there are voting cases coming up in the 21-2022 term? guest: i'm not familiar with any taken so far, but we are seeing so much rhetoric about voter id laws interestingly where there

was a case that came up in the 2007 term when i clerked and the supreme court already said that is clearly constitutional. i don't know if that will come up. we are seeing so much talk about it, maybe something like that would be brought before the court again. host: let's hear from kelly in kentucky. caller: hi. the things going on in america these days is minute and small compared to what is coming, the coming judgment from god for the over 50 million unborn babies that have been murdered and killed, but aside from that, there is a book that i highly suggest people get called vatican assassins. host: we will let you go there. carrie severino, we look forward to hearing from you as a new term gets underway. thank you for

announcer: every day we take your calls live on air of the news of the day and discuss policy issues that impact you. friday, climate reporter arianna seibel discusses action by the biden administration to curb vehicle emissions. former congressman steve israel talks about state efforts to battle covid-19. new york governor andrew cuomo. former -- thomas koenig on president biden's economic policy. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern friday morning. join with phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweet's. >> sunday, january 6: views from the house continues. three more members of congress share stories of what they saw, heard and experienced that day including new york democrat hakeem jeffries. >> we didn't really have the

highest degree of information, particularly being on the house floor, we really didn't see the images and the real-time footage of the ongoing assault on the capitol. however, once we arrived in a secure location we were able to get some understanding of that and could have only imagine how our loved ones were feeling watching it unfold in real time. it was certainly great comfort to myself and every member to be able to communicate with our family members back home. one of the communications i received that was disturbing was my brother reached out to me to indicate that -- to check to see if we were ok. i responded to him that i was ok. and as an aside, by the way, he

and his family had received a threatening message from someone indicating that they knew where my brother and his wife and his three girls lived and that they had people in the neighborhood and that if me didn't stop telling lies about the election, something bad was going to happen. announcer: we will also hear from two texas representatives. republican ronny jackson. "january 6: views from the house," sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org or the c-span radio app. announcer: sunday night on q&a, helen andrews, the american conservative magazines editor talks about her book, boomers:

the men and women who promised freedom and delivered disaster. >> one line i didn't come up with, is they are the generation that sold out but would never admit they sold out. it is a combination on one hand great deal of idealism and a sense of themselves as morally noble, noble idealists liberating humanity, but on the other hand selfishness and narcissism. a blindness to the ways that their liberationist agenda knocks down a lot of functioning institutions and left a lot of people worse off. announcer: helen andrews did sunday night at 8:00 eastern. you can also listen to q&a as a podcast wherever you get your podcasts. ♪