fellow john hudk --hudak. following, roben farzad. all of that next on washington journal. host: is the washington journal, october 3. the u.s. supreme court resumes its work. hearings on abortion and gun rights. several members of the court made statements about the process stemming from the -- process. we welcome your thoughts on the u.s. supreme court. here's how you can call us with your thoughts. if you think the court and its decision-making is too conservative, 202-748-8000.

perhaps you think it's too liberal. 202-748-8001, you can make it out there. if you think the courts's dealings are about right, 202-748-8002 it's the number the call. if you want to text, 202-748-8003 is how you do that. you up -- you can also post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan and you can also send us a tweet at http://twitter.com/cspanwj. cases will include amongst others a new challenge to roe v. wade. a fight over new york's states gun law. aid for religious schools, a battle over alleged this donation against edge of a patient's. in the case of a claims that the fbi infiltrated a mosque.

that is just a summary of some of the court's dealings. several of the justices making statements, some of the statements coming out of the texas decision on abortion law saying that the date before the start of that term and after justices divided bitterly it was she warning students about the frustration in this matter. she said there is going to be a lot of disappointment in the law, a huge amount. that was posted by the american bar association. look at me and look at my the sent. -- look at mine --my s --dis

sents. speech at the university of notre dame reporting on that speech saying that the justice pushed back against criticism that a recent supreme court action had been done hastily and in the shadow. deciding important matters making those remarks. he said this. "-- i have no problem with fair criticism. my complaint concerns all media. the truth of the matter is there was nothing shadowy. we followed those cases. it's hard to see how we could handle those with any difficulty. >>

host: when it comes to the court itself, if you think it's too conservative 202-748-8000. if you think is too liberal, 202-748-8001. maybe you think it's about right. 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. it was a hearing on texas abortion while last week. the senate side with both the chair of the senate judiciary committee and the ranking member making comments about that process. >> the shadow docket is about a set of decisions that the supreme court issues outside of its docket. these decisions are often merit -- often on short time tables without full briefing, detailed

explanation or even signed opinions. the supreme court has started to use the shadow docket for more clinical and controversial decisions with results -- controversial decisions. >> it declined to intervene on exceedingly expedited basis while reserving judgment on complex legal issues. much of the talk about the case as referred to the courts so-called docket. -- so-called shadow docket. or a long time, the courts and its practitioners have called this the emergency docket because it is designed so the courts can provide relief and emergencies. host: that hearing is still available at our website, c-span.org. if you want to view, you could

do with their. in california starts us off. it says the court dealings are just about right. good morning. caller: we sent affordable care act decision i agree with. i have pre-existing conditions such as diabetes. because of the court's decision, that ensures that insurance cannot get rid of me because if i don't have insurance i would likely die. as far as abortion decisions, whatever people think i don't think it should be fair to analyze women seeking abortions across state lines or charging doctors with murder for performing abortions.

the supreme court seems to get it right on most issues most of the time. host: that's todd in california. tyrone in new york says the court's dealings are too conservative. caller: amy coney barrett was next to mitch mcconnell saying they were not political. there were two other justices that went to mcconnell running to mcconnell because they have him to thank for making this court more conservative. these people know that mitch mcconnell made this court what it is today and because of that these people are making these decisions that are not fair. they know they are not being nonpolitical because they understand how they got there.

what was done to be able to get these justices that are more conservative and more likely to make these decisions that are antithetical to what is fair. host: what decision would you point to when you say some of the decisions they have made are not fair? caller: the fact that they decided to got the voters rights protections. when they decided to do that and also the fact that they decided to make the decision that put unlimited amount of money into the politics of this country. they are buying these politicians and that is antithetical to how this country as opposed to work. not one industry is supposed to be able to control a senator, a congressman, presidential candidate. it should not be that way. they made it more able to be

able to dictate how our country is run by different individuals. they screwed us over royally. host: that's tyrone. amy coney barrett -- amy coney barrett did make a speech. she was making a speech about the makings of the supreme court. she said my goal today is to convince you that this is not composed of hats. the media report the results of the decisions. that makes the decisions seem result oriented. here's the thing. sometimes i don't like the results of my decisions, it is not my job to decide cases on the outcome i want.

if you want to read more the story there about -- reap more of the story there. gilbert, go ahead. caller: according to the people here in oklahoma, the courts rulings are just right. i want to say this about the court. all you have to do is look at anita hill and clarence thomas and you can see by the court has done what it is doing. i want to say this, they should have a ruling that every man in this country who has more than two children should get of a set of me. -- should get a vasectomy. host: why do you think the courts decisions are about right? caller: because anita hill helped to get it right. host: sue conservative, that's

what bought --too conservative, that's what bob said. caller: i feel it's a little too conservative because the many religious beliefs. it should be across the board on this abortion thing. i think we are guilty and hold our nose up to the people that believe abortions are right. host: when you say religious beliefs, what you mean by that? caller: they like to get the bible back in school and things like that. host: you think the court has been active on that front? caller: i think they should not put that in schools, you know. religion should be up to the individual. it should not be up to

governments and judges to tell you what you are going to have to listen to. host: that's bob in utah. some of the comments from our facebook page. sandra saying "the trump quote -- set precedent on women's rights. susan also from our facebook page adding that as long as they follow and uphold the constitution of the united states of america, i am satisfied. -- james from facebook saying it's too conservative. the supreme court should have term limits. each president gets to pick one per term. send us a tweet or text at 202-748-8003. taking a look at the supreme

court, especially as it starts its new term this week. you can talk about the decisions made in previous cases. this is from alabama. robin says the courts working just about right. hello, robin. caller: i think it's just right. i'm interested in this upcoming case in november about the gun rights. this will be a landmark case and i'm interested in seeing what they will say about it. host: when you say it's about right, what makes that decision for you? caller: more conservative justices, another on their two --to deliberate on gun laws the way i think it should be.

feel like there's a good chance conservatively and not progressively. host: the court will consider it new york rifle and pistol association saying case challenging the restricted new york gun laws -- covers the rights to carry firearms outside of the home. certain restrictions on who can receive a concealed carry gun license. numerous other states have imposed similar laws. new york residents whose applications to carry guns publicly were denied. that's just one of the cases considered of several. from massachusetts, juliet says

just about right. good morning. juliet, massachusetts. good morning. hello. we will move to rich in virginia. caller: i believe the courts are about right, but one thing, when an individual presents to the supreme court it has the right to not accept that particular writ. i believe that practice robs a lot of individuals from justice. they it also robs them from

knowing the reasons why the writ is not accepted. i think the supreme court should accept every writ and if they are going to deny it, specify the reasons why they have denied it. that way it does not leave the average american citizen is -- i may need to go back and review to help me get a better understanding of what i might need to present the next time in order to get it accepted. that's my comment. i think one of the decisions the supreme court makes, they are about right. it's the access to that court for the average american citizen. host: what prompted your

submitting the writ to the court? caller: i got a decision from the circuit court, supreme court of virginia on a matter which did not agree with. and in those courts they did not elaborate on the reasons why they denied my submission. especially the supreme court, they can either accept it or not accept it without giving a reason. to me, i don't think that's fair to anybody. host: telling his story about his personal story without supreme court. rockport massachusetts also saying it's about right. juliet, hello. caller: i have a remark.

justice clarence thomas, he appeared at notre dame university for presentation. it was remarkable. people should go to c-span and view it. i think the court is about right only because there seems to be a little bit of a balanced since conservative that that balance conservative. when the election occurred and he lost, he tried to rally the courts to present to the supreme court thinking that perhaps they would vote in favor of him contesting the election results but they refused to take a standing. back to clarence thomas, he barely ever speaks in public. he's a very humble man, but he

has said, he believes the courts have become very politicized. he has explicit reasons for that. he believes that, look what they are trying to do with justice buyer. they said are you going to resign and he said no, i'm going to be there until i'm dead. one more thing about clarence thomas, his wife, they travel. they go to the rv parts and they love the people. -- harvey -- rv parks. host: let me stop you there. clarence thomas did talk about several issues concerning the

supreme court. he also included comments about he felt that about how he felt media coverage would shape the court. here's a portion. >> let's say this weekend that a referee makes a call at notre dame wins, people would say that's a find referee. but if the referee makes that very same call and it works against notre dame, oh my goodness. this guy can't even see. come on. exact same call. that's because we are fans. we are not acting as judges. we look at the outcome and that totally colors what we think the level and quality of the refereeing was. before us, -- for us, excellent refereeing. against us, absolutely horrible.

that's not what you can do when looking at cases. that's precisely a read any article about the cases and that is precisely what you have. if the outcome is what i want it to be, excellent work. another marbury versus madison. if it is against what you are for, dread scott all over again. this is horrible. --dred scott all over again. this is horrible. the few that i've read are excellent because they summarize the case. they talk about the arguments. they summarize and there may be a short paragraph on the locations. put that side-by-side with what you would get today. i think that's problematic and that encourages these preconceptions about the court. it's all just personal preferences. host: that's from a speech at

the university of notre dame. that speech is available at the website. we will hear from loretta in cleveland ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. the conservatives on the courts have ruined america. we have no rule of law. equal rights don't mean it will write. church and state, that don't matter anymore. they paying people to send their kids to religious schools. they are taking them out of the public schools, screwing with their money. and then you got tax law where all of the laws are written where it rewards the rich. everything is backwards.

you've got citizens united. citizens united is the dark law that allows all of the money to be funneled and they know it's wrong. have you heard of alec? it's this conservative, state ran, i kate even explained it. -- i can't even explain it. but what they do is use voters by putting things into law, they are giving to the legislators and they passed everything. i the time the people find out about it, it's too late. host: which court case would you consider a conservative ruling? caller: all of them. host: give me specific. caller: here we go. faye let the abortion law the

wind to effect -- they let the abortion law go into effect. if i become pregnant that's if i am raped and i become pregnant -- if i am raped and i become pregnant and i don't want to have the rapists baby, that is my work -- that is my right and i have the personal responsibility of fixing it. i cannot believe, there was a case not long ago where some guy sued the lady that he raped to have time with the baby. host: that's loretta in cleveland, ohio. one of the topics that come out at the source of a rally here in washington dc, it was on abortion and reproductive rights. one of this bakers that one of the speakers discussed the

events purpose. >> i am so grateful to be here today on behalf of women's march and i'm honored to be here fighting and marching with all of you on the rally for abortion justice. >> just one month ago we watched in horror as a supreme court extremist hit that sensate sledgehammer. -- sent a sledgehammer. criminalized anyone who even tries to help someone excess and abortion. all of this in a state that has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country. it is shameful. the yard that, it is dangerous. as a mexican-american, as someone who lives in texas, this

is personal to me. as a woman, this is personal. as someone who deserves to live her life on her terms, this is personal. it is personal to all of us. 80% of the people in this country believe that people who get pregnant should be able to access abortion care. one in four women in this country do have abortions. we outnumber them. white men elected to raise this to the united states supreme court should do their dirty work -- to do their dirty work and they asked the court to remove the 50-year-old constitutional abortion rights. we cannot and we will not let them win. host: that rally still available

on the website if you want to see those proceedings. you can go to c-span.org. that speaker said this today is really -- illustrates just how court rulings shadow docket decisions, that really is a great consequence. without any guidance from a court which is considering the same issues. only hastily, it barely bothers to explain. there's more to that. it's available at the website on the screen. we are asking your comments about the supreme court.

you can look at the decisions generally or specifically. overall, what you think of it. if you think the decision is to conservative, 202-748-8000. too liberal, 202-748-8001. about right, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. just about right, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i have time to go over this in my mind. i have paid attention to their rulings throughout the years and i'm getting up in my elder years and i think they do a good job.

i think it's just about right. i do not approve of the way that texas, i don't keep up with it. but i don't even know if you can get an abortion in texas anymore. i don't think you can. when it came down and 73 or 74, roe v. wade, that was a wonderful thing for women. every body that i remember was glad that it had been ruled. i wish that the supreme court would rule on abortion and all

of the states would have to, whatever they rule, the states would have to adhere to that. host: the courts will take up a case taking a look at the issue of abortion. the story adding that the case focuses on the 2080 law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of -- 2018 law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. that line is generally seen at being around 22 weeks of pregnancy. the abortion law was tossed by the court of appeals that ruled

that it directly contradicts protections against states placing an undue burden. -- undue burden on abortion access. if you want to talk about a specific case, you can. if you want to talk about the court in general, you could do that as well. let's hear from ron in michigan. says the court is to conservative. caller: everybody seems to be talking about clearance. he was put on the court and is mentor was senator danforth. clarence thomas was an appellate judge and he had a ruling that was against -- in favor of purina. it was a quid pro quo the way senator danforth let him through

the hearings. thomas never had a ruling that did not favor white supremacists. plain and simple. his wife was part of the operation that brought hundreds of buses to the capitol riot. his many gifts that he has received from conservative tanks and such. let's talk about kavanaugh. he was put in illegally because would not allow president obama's pick. kavanaugh replaced kennedy whose nephew was part of the deutsche break which gave -- deutsche ban

k which gave france to try. host: the court takes up its term starting tomorrow. the rest of the justices meeting within the building of the supreme court which you see there. this is from perry who says the courts dealings too liberal. caller: i feel it's too liberal because while i agree that january 6 issue was a very horrible issue, this is a case that the supreme court needs to look at only because when we let things happen like people being held in prison without charges against them for such a long time, i don't know how the constitution reads but i'm pretty sure they have some rights. this just does not work.

when i think about what happened in the summer of 2020 and these people, there's nothing happened to them and they immediately got bailed out of jail and everything and they were no better. it just seems unfair. i don't know how the supreme court does not just take it up. host: that's a pair a in california. -- that's perry in california. the next comment, i can't imagine you don't think it's too liberal. there are liberal decisions, but the supreme court represents the powerful. sandy also saying too much in favor of corporations. ruth bader ginsburg is deeply missed.

-- it is our great injustice replaced by somebody like trump. activist judges from the bench -- judges legislating from the bench. if you think the court is too liberal, 202-748-8000 -- if you think the court is to conservative, 202-748-8000. if you think the court is to liberal, 202-748-8001. if you think the court is just about right, 202-748-8002. the text us, 202-748-8003. the case could shift the line of separation between church and state. it comes on the heels of the 2020 ruling espinoza versus

montana department of revenue. if a state decides to offer private at this private education, you cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious. the current case is set for arguments on the summer eighth. -- arguments on december 8. tomorrow, we will spend an hour taking a look at some of these cases with experts. lexington south carolina, says the courts is to conservative. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to implement the fact that it's too conservative and one of your callers called in and said about mitch mcconnell

who had appointed the conservatives in the supreme court. i go with him 100% on that. the republican party strategized and their mission is to steal, kill, destroy. they tell as many lies as they can think of. they are very hypocritical. when you think about abortion, they would apply the bible. when it comes to abortion. when the baby is out of the womb, they don't care about your health. they don't care about your welfare. host: you're saying it's too conservative. why do you say that? caller: it's too conservative because on their views when they push out pro-life, i'm trying to say the fact that they are not actually pro-life because-- host: are you referencing the texas abortion law? caller: yes, i'm trying to say

that it's a strategy going on with their party. they are hypocritical, but they are so concerned about prologue. when the baby is out of the womb, they don't care about your life -- concerned about pro-life . when the baby is out of the womb, they don't care about your life. host: ivan intimacy. -- ivan in tennessee. caller:-- host: mike a clearwater, florida says the court is to liberal. caller: they allowed -- wiped

off the books exist. people don't know that is, it's basically prior to the fugitive slave act a jury could decide on their own and you could argue the merits of the law. now you are not allowed to argue the merits of the law in your defense, which i think is an atrocity. host: you are basing your opinion that it is too liberal in one case? caller: you could argue the merits of the law itself to the jury. you could say to the jury, this is a stupid law and we are not going to follow it. if you say that now, you would be held in contempt of court. host: what do you think of the makeup of the court? caller: i think there are people

trying to do the right thing, everybody is. i think they are confused. i think the big schism about the future of slave act and we need to get rid of that. host: gallup corporation recently took a poll about opinions on the views of the supreme court. they recently put it out and they came up with this saying opinions of the court have worsened with what percent down from 49% saying they approve of the job the high court is doing. this poll was conducted shortly after the court declined to block and abortion law. the court allowed vaccine mandates to proceed. there are more details in this finding if you want to go to the

website, you can do so. we are letting you comment via calls, tweets and texts. david saying courts are middle-of-the-road. we are not perfect. ed from facebook saying the court is to liberal to suit me. there are other people commenting. you can do so. facebook.com/cspan. you could also post on our 20 feet -- twitter feed http://twitter.com/cspanwj. caller: i feel the courts are too conservative. the rights that they gave us an

roe v. wade, there was more to that. it gave women rights to themselves. now they have taken the rights of women to choose whether they want to have a child or not. they let men tell us again. before, it was our parents telling us. i chose to keep my children, but i was one of them that also took care of a woman who kept her child and then she could not take care of it. they do not go in there and take care of the children afterwards. they don't get better pay. they don't give us better things to help us with our kids. they just leave you out there stuck out there. the men, when they are getting us pregnant. host: don't you think the kids despot you think the courts have to take all of that into consideration? caller: yes, i do and i don't think they are doing that.

greg abbott just put a bounty on us. so we have to do what he wants. sometimes, that's not how it has to work. it has to work in the whole perspective. being too conservative of it, i'm very religious. i kept both of my children. but i do not think that everyone should keep their children. because they need to make the right choices. women should have the right. no man should be able to walk up to me in a walmart and tell me that i should have to not have an abortion. host: let's hear from kevin in michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is it to conservative. that was the whole strategy of mcconnell. on the flipside, host:host: -- ultimately the

president chooses. caller: i understand process, but we know the main goal of the republican party. if the roles were reversed, they would appoint individuals to their liking. at the present moment, absolutely it's too conservative. 100%. the judges that are picked were selected to hear certain issues that are dear to them and the republican party. guns, abortion, religious freedom. it's that you those -- it's the ethos of the docket. i know that these judges are picked based on political reasons. that's what i'm getting at. host: kevin in michigan.

minneapolis next, jonathan says the courts are too conservative. caller: good morning. i was listening to a couple of your callers and i kept my child. complained to us that we could not have an abortion. if you do not want your child, do not have unprotected sex. is everybody stupid? seriously, get a mask mandate. get a vaccine mandate. i'm sorry. this is the human race. host: what makes you say so? caller: there's too many republican judges on their. if you have too many of everything in one room, it's going to lean one way so we need

to add another judge. let it be hillary rodham clinton, whoever. seriously, we have got to add one more. host: if there was one more progressive, would you say the court was about right? caller: we have a lot of problems. the court is out of date with reality and what's going on in the world. thanks for letting me vent a little bit. people out there, be kind, be safe, be sweet to each other. host: the minneapolis start attribute profiling it's senator, tina smith, saying she is supporting -- senator tina smith saying she is supporting. say that republicans have been working to come up with donald

trump's help they stole two seats ensuring an ultraconservative court that is drastically out of step with the american people. allowing texas extreme ban on abortion to stand is just the latest demonstration that much of the current court has become dangerously unmoored from any reasonable principles of legal analysis. when asked about it, she is open to reforms to the size of the supreme court but right now is focused on her work with the judiciary committee to confirm various nominees across the country. president biden announcing the commission taking a look at possible changes to the courts makeup, no decision or apart from that.

your thoughts on. supreme court, especially as it resumes its work this week. if you think it's too conservative, collis at 202-748-8000. if you say it's too liberal, 202-748-8001. maybe you think the courts workings are just about right 202-748-8002. and you can text and tweet us as well caller: -- to this as well. one of the topics he engaged with the host was about the public perception of the court. here is some of that exchange. >> the public accepted is the court in jeopardy. >> i think people understand, to some degree, why it's a good idea. he thought the courts should be there because there should be

somebody, somebody who says when the other two branches of the government have gone outside of the confines of this document, who is that? the president? he was worried the president was say whatever he did was right. congress? some countries do have that. a member of congress knows what's popular. if you do not know what's popular, he will be there or she will be there for a long time. this document is made for unpopular people just as much as for popular people. >> do you carry a copy of the constitution? >> not just for tv. it's always in my pocket. and i hope i put the jacket on that has one in my pocket because you never know. host: that was from the fox news interview. you can find it online on our

facebook page. -- the new majority is interested in getting the court out of politics and wishing and agenda. i suspect that will prove to be. from kevin on facebook saying the court is too liberal. -- seems pretty balanced. facebook is one way you can reach out to us. you can text us and tweet. let's hear from clarence from new york. says the courts workings are about right. caller: good morning. god bless the whole world with this convert -- with this coronavirus. my reason for calling is because there is injustice in this country. i went to prison for dui manslaughter in 1997. the accident happened in 1994.

they turned around and i had six witnesses testify in open court that i was not the driver of the car and construction professionals testified i was not the driver of the car and they destroyed that car. host: how does that deal with the supreme court and its workings? caller: because i'm illiterate and i've been walking since 1997. i've been walking for a crime i've been to prison for and was never guilty of and somebody needs to reach out and touch me. host: ohio says the courts is too liberal. caller: i would like to ask the supreme court justices who seem to be pro-life or pro-death, are

they glad they weren't aborted? i want to ask your listening audience. host: why do you think the court is too liberal? caller: first of all, life is being diminished bias judging by who should be living and who shouldn't. if you, i wonder how many people would want to be aborted if they have the option rather than being born. host: is it your decision that the court is too liberal based only on pro-life issues? caller: if you're willing to kill your own people, what the heck is a difference whether you are liberal or not liberal? my gosh, we have to wake up to the fact that we are killing our own species. host: let's hear from massachusetts, says the court is too conservative. caller: i think it's too

conservative because first of all i was upset that a person like cavanaugh --kavanaugh was selected because of what the woman said about him. i think men should take much more precautions with birth control than just leaving the productive rights of the women only. host: how does that go to the courts being too conservative? caller: because six conservatives and three liberals. i think they are about to overturn abortion rights, roe v. wade. , roe v. wade. if they do that, i will be very upset because men should be -- doing birth control. why are women always expected to

handle birth control? the man is just as responsible for overpopulation on this earth and too many babies being born. host: diane from twitter saying scotus has moved into the legislative process and it seems , it's turned political instead of constitutional. from our twitter feed, when it comes to options he or she chooses her own. i wish i was free to give my opinion of the court, but i'm not. you just did though. you can do that on twitter. collis on our lines. send us a text --call us on our lines. send us a text. 202-748-8003. caller: good morning, everybody. and god bless america.

i think it's about right. first of all, when roe v. wade was actually made. i don't know how long ago it was. i'm sure it was more than 40 years ago. look at how far we have gone in medicine and what we know about pregnancy and the baby or fetus or whatever you want to call it, how much more in advance in medicine we've gotten as far as heartbeats. where the baby -- whether the baby feels pain. we have gone so far in medicine inside the womb, things have to be changed. we know more about the life inside the female. unfortunately, for the woman, we are born as a woman as i am. we have to do our due diligence and don't use birth control --

or don't use abortion as birth control. the court about right bottom line, would have happened and leaned their way. it just happened that trump was in office and he appointed people with more conservative views. that's going to happen. it is inevitable. host: tom in philadelphia says the court is to conservative. caller: i think you have people, they are the highest appointed people from a judicial standpoint. but i think it boils down to is when a decision is made, how do you feel that's going to be your

view on it? -- how you feel. that's going to be your view on it. if we limit their terms, we would have, i think, more agreement from our citizens on their service and their decisions. host: when the justices make a ruling, they write something that supports it. she was participating at forum honoring her school of law. part of that forum talked about her approach in writing dissents. you can find them online, but you can hear the philosophy. >> the question that comes out of listening to people for an hour is, how is it that i'm such

a great consensus builder but when people want to read from my opinions they are always reading from dissent. that's a pretty deep question for a judge, where you think consensus and where you get off and speak your mind and speak it in a powerful way that makes the majority -- takes the majority to task. every year on this court, i ask myself how to think about those roles of a judge and whether, over time, they change or how they relate to each other. and i continue to be thinking about that question. host: that's available at the website. one more call on the supreme court.

this is dave from florida says the workings of the court's just about right. caller: pink you for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. they would want it 9-0, all justices liberal. all they do is lie that's all they do is -- all they do is whine. they just want it their way. they want the court packed in their favor. unless they get it, they are not happy. i also believe that abortion should not be used as birth control. host: is it the current court makeup that makes it about right in your mind? caller: it depends on the

people. the chief, what's his name? justice roberts, he's the swing vote. it in line and keeps it -- i guess fair could come to mind. host: that's dave finishing off this hour. two guests joining us throughout the course of the morning. first up, brookings institution fellow -- senior fellow john hudak. he will talk about how democratic efforts to impose limits on executive power. later on, npr's roben farzad will talk about the state of the u.s. economy. he is the host of the "full disclosure" podcast. ♪

>> tonight on "q&a," on the eve of the supreme court's new term, we look back at the life and legacy's of a major figure in the court's history, justice john marshall harlan. peter canellos joins us to discuss his biography of the justice, "the great dissenter." >> he dissented in all the cases that the away the rights of african-americans, because he knew that the postwar amendments and were ratified as price of reentry into the union for the south -- that was intended to preserve the rights of african-americans. and when his colleagues, for reasons that were very suspicious, basically trying to keep peace with the south, when

they began to retreat from that as though it was the right of the supreme court to say that this was not really in the constitution, was not really what was intended, harlan stood up strongly against that. >> peter canellos tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen to "q&a" and all of our podcasts on c-span's new app. ♪ >> weekends ring you the best in american history and nonfiction books. on big tv on "after words," "american happiness and disconetents" on what author george will cause the unruly torrent. then, on "in-depth," a conversation with historian and activist roxanne dunbar-ortiz.

she is the author of several books. she talks about native american culture and history, the women's liberation movement, and the founding of the united states. watch book tv every weekend, and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online, anytime, at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest is john hudak, senior fellow at brookings institution. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me back. host: to the center you involved with, what does it involve itself with? guest: we focus on good governance in the united states at the local, state, and federal level, understanding checks and balances, how we can get policymakers to do better work for the american public.

host: and our topic on executive power by a president, has to fall into that. is there a main concern about how that power is used, no matter who the president? guest: no matter who the president is, there is always concern about the extent of presidential power, how it is exercised, and how each successive resident tries to expand his own power and pass it on to his successors. host: isn't the point that every president expands power, there is no trying to reverse that? guest: there is no desire for a president to return power to the legislative or judicial branches. regardless of party or ideology, regardless of how much two presidents disagree, the one thing they typically agree on is expanding that power is important and returning that power is off the table. host: then what is the role of the legislative body in curbing that? guest: the legislative branch

has been complicit in this over the course of decades, really over most of the last century. the congress is almost constantly feeding additional authority to the president himself or to executive agencies, and they create this system in which that power is slowly slipping away. granted, sometimes presidents do this themselves, but congress has played a role in strengthening their presidency. at then rests with congress to take that power back. host: we have seen an effort from house democrats to curb that, called the protecting our democracy act. we have some specifics for our audience -- what led to the development of this act and what is its purpose? guest: members of congress or both parties have had an interest in trying to take power back from the presidency. typically, those initiatives fail pretty miserably. presidents do not want to do and it is hard to get members of

congress agree on it. but in the wake of the trump administration, in the wake of two successful impeachments but failed removals, house democrats are looking to do something about what they consider the excesses of the presidency that existed during the trump administration but did not necessarily go away with the end of trump's term. the ability to behave in ways that president trump did that irritated house democrats still exist, so there is a desire to do something about it. host: john hudak talking about executive power. if you want to call and ask him questions about that, (202) 748-8001 for democrats. -- (202) 748-8001 -- (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. here is representative adam schiff about the act. [video clip] >> today, we are taking an

important step forward in the fight to safeguard our democracy for generations to come. it is a day long in the making. the protecting our democracy act, a landmark package of sweeping democratic reforms will prevent future presidential abuses of power, restore a system of checks and balances, and protect our elections from foreign interference. this bill is a crucial part of our democracy agenda. like the for the people act and the john lewis voting rights act, it will allow our government to function as intended, so we are not focused on the unscrupulous behavior of a president bent on subverting our democracy when we are meant to champion the good work of the american people who sent us here to accomplish on their behalf. donald trump made this legislation a necessity, but this is bigger than about any one particular president. it is about our values, our ideals, and our future. it is about our democracy and creating a system of justice and

government that works for us. the former president trampled many of our sacred norms and institutions, violating laws and breaking long-standing precedent with shocking ease. it demonstrated just how vulnerable our democracy was, how dependent we are on norms p of office andrecedent -- on norms of office and precedent. that cannot happen again, no matter who was in power, whether a democratic president or republican president. the protecting our democracy act will make sure no president can abuse their power or weaponize their office for personal or political gain. it will bar elected leaders from placing personal financial needs over the needs of the nation. it will include the protection of whistleblowers and inspectors general. it will provide an enforcement

mechanism for the emoluments clause. it will strengthen the independence of the justice department and ensure no president can violate the law with impunity for violations of law either before or during office by a president of the united states. host: on its face, what do you think about what is being proposed? guest: i take chairman chiff -- chariman schi -- chairman schiff at his word. i think the challenge is that this is so clearly a response to the trump administration and president trump himself that it blurs what is within this legislation a reality, and the reality is that presidents of both parties come over the past several decades, have engaged in behaviors that this type of

legislation would correct or seeks to correct. like i said, the challenges republicans in congress will look at this and see it as just another attack on president trump and step away or lose interest in what could be very powerful reforms of the executive branch. host: a couple of specifics -- one would prevent the abuse of party power, but one that would suspend the statute of limitations for offenses committed by president before or after his term. guest: that is exactly right. that is clearly an effort by chairman schiff and house democrats to address what was a concern all along during the trump administration, that the president's tenure in office would allow him to avoid prosecution for crimes committed prior to his term in office. that is not something we have seen other presidents having accusations about. the pardon power is something that president bush had concerns over, president clinton famously had concerns over -- those are

ones that spanned administrations. but the statute of limitations in particular is clearly and at one president. host: because this is a legislative effort to curb power on a president, is there concern about separation of power? guest: there are always concerns about separation of power, but this effort itself grows out of concern about separation of power. the idea the president has the potential or power to ignore what our proper legislative subpoenas issued by congressional committees, that the president is misusing budget funds or impounding budget funds the congress said were required to be spent. so anytime a branch is trying to battle another branch, separation of powers concerns rise. but congress is the first branch. the legislative branch. the legislative branch has a significant power to affect the way that the other branches relate to each other and to the congress itself, and that is what is happening here. host: one of those other things,

just to go down the specifics, deals with the emoluments clause of the constitution and forces the foreign and domestic clauses. what are the emoluments clause is and how does that refer to presidential power? guest: what it says is that principal officers of the federal government, including the president and vice president, cannot receive gifts or benefits or some type of gain from foreign governments. there is, for course, domestic clauses related to it as well. the purpose for this insertion into the constitution was, early on in the republic, a concern that we would have a resident beholden to another country and essentially substitute that country's interests for the interests of the united states. we saw several lawsuits and investigations during the trump administration of the president and other advisors' connections with foreign governments and the

potential that they were receiving a fund or benefit from other types of foreign governments or entities, and that has given rise to these in the proposed legislation. host: john hudak talking about the legislative efforts to curb executive power. if you want to call in, republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. on our line for independents, matt union, pennsylvania. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning, pedro. my question is does he think the forefathers were so shortsighted that they did not establish the executive powers correctly? that is basically what i want to know. guest: what we know about the

history of the power of the executive branch is, early on in the republic, the united states government was not doing as much as it is today. the united states was not a world power. the united states was not an economic power in the late 1700s. as the country grew in population and size and then grew in terms of power and economic force as well, more fell to the feet of the federal government. not all of that could be done by the congress, and so, naturally, the powers of both the congress and the presidency group. while i think the forefathers certainly designed a much weaker executive branch than we have today, they were operating in an environment that was drastically different than 21st century america. host: this is from gilbert in raleigh, north carolina, republican line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to respond to john's comment that he felt that

adam schiff's agenda is nonpartisan by saying that submitting this bill is to protect our democracy. this has been an issue with executive powers and powers of the presidency have been an issue for terms that -- when bill clinton was president, george bush was president, and obama was president. by schiff mentioning trump's name a couple times during the press conference, clearly, this is a partisan effort. it will die on the vine and is a distraction from the disaster zone of joe biden's policies. so why schiff decides to move this forward now and why congress did not move this forward during obama or clinton, it shows they are trying to take our eye off the ball and take the focus from joe biden's policies, because he is a disaster. guest: quickly on the beginning of your point, it is true that the types of abuses that have happened, of presidential power

and the expansion of presidential power, is certainly not unique to president trump. these types of reforms are long overdue in our system. i agree that i think the politi cization by chairman schiff will likely make this effort die on the vine, but it should not distract us from the fact that these issues are much bigger from donald trump or one president and that these issues really need to be addressed, at least some subset of them, for the health of our democracy. host: let's take you back in time. february of 2020, just after he was acquitted by the senate in his first impeachment trial, president trump talking about efforts by congress to curb, or the perception there of. let's hear from him and then get your comments. [video clip] >> but a tremendous thing was done over the last number of months. but really, if you go back to it, over the last number of years. we had the witchhunt. it started from the day we came

down the elevator, myself and our future first lady, who is with us right now. thank you, melania. [applause] and it never really stopped. we have been going through this now for over three years. it was evil, it was corrupt, it was dirty coips, -- cops, it was leakers and liars, and they should never, ever happen to another president, ever. i do not know the other presidents would have been able to take it. some people said, no, they would not have. but i can tell you, at a minimum, you have to focus on this, because it can get away very quickly, no matter who you have with you.

it can get away very quickly. it was a disgrace. had i not fired james comey, who was a disaster, by the way, it is possible i would not even be standing here right now. we caught him in the act. dirty cops. bad people. if this happened to president obama, a lot of people would have been in jail for a long time already, many, many years. i want to start by thanking -- and i call them friends, because you develop friends and relationships when you are in battle and war much more so than, gee, let's have a normal situation. with all that we have gone through, we have done, i think, more than any president and administration. and, really, i say, for the most part, republican congressmen, congresswoman, senators, we have

done more than any administration in the first few years. you look at all the things we have done. host: that is the perception of the president back in 2020. i suspect his followers will have the same, especially when they see pieces of legislation likely see going forward. guest: i think that is right kate it goes back to using democratic reforms in a politicized environment or manner that retracts from the importance of those reforms. but in president trump's comments, there was actually a moment early on that i thought really informative. what he said something -- was talking about the investigations into him and the first impeachment could happen to another president he that is how the presidency operates. president obama disagrees dramatically with president trump, president trump disagrees dramatically with president biden, but one thing presidents typically agree on is this effort and idea to protect the office and the institution.

most presidents will do that and pass that type of protection onto his successor. and we see it is incredibly rare for a president to feed power back, because that is the connection among presidents, the idea that you may disagree on policy, but you are one with the institution. host: let's go to lee in cleveland, tennessee, democrats line. caller: i just want to say i have not always been a democrat, by also have to say i think the supreme court is overreaching when they go "it is already law" -- host: if you are returning -- referring to our previous segment, we are done with that now. we are talking about executive power. do you have a comment about that? caller: yes, i do. joe biden is really trying. and on joe biden's agenda, you have mr. john there, i would

like to ask him, with all we have been through, do you actually think president biden is overreaching? host: go ahead. caller: i also think president biden is trying. he inherited a mass. -- a mess. but my question is, with the percentage rates and all that going up, the price of asked going up, price of groceries going up, how is the average american person not making $15 going to make it -- host: we will have to leave it there because i think it is off topic. but as far as the average american, it is a thing for us to talk about in washington. but what is the public perception, though, for everyone across america about this topic? guest: it is actually an interesting one. we just commemorated the 20th anniversary of september 11. september 11 was a clear moment of a strong exercise of ticketed

power, both in that -- on that day and in the months and years following it. what happened september 11 was a rally behind the flag and a rally behind president george w. bush. that moment was actually dangerous for the united states, not only because we were under serious and direct attack from foreign terrorists, but because when you have that amount of support for a leader, you are willing to accept certain behaviors that, under normal circumstances, you would not accept. for the public, there are moments they look at the presidency and think that praise -- that president is abusing power, that president is too powerful, and at the same moment, we have moments where americans are more than happy to allow their presidents to stretch the limits of that power or go beyond the limits of that power if they feel it is important to advance a certain cause, policy, or idea. host: from michigan, on our republican line, catherine. hello. caller: hello.

good morning. i do not know how people with a clear conscience can say that biden is doing a good job. and then the last lady said gasoline is going up, food is going up, all this -- how can we look back and look at him and said he is doing a good job? i just cannot figure out people's comments. it is just mind-boggling to me. host: thank you. let's go to john in new jersey, democrats line. hi. caller: we have been dealing with these issues of constitutional conflicts that have been going on since the 1960's. and i think we still have not -- i think the real problem with dealing with trump is i think trump has taken on some of the ideas of -- part of the issue of

dealing with it is like packing the court after garland -- i think that has hurt us also. and i think we are not dealing with those issues. and i think a lot of things that the democrats are dealing with, i think a lot of it is them trying to deal with the issues from when obama became president and the tea party and those issues around them. host: that is john in new jersey. thank you. guest: if i could add quickly, i think one of the points in what john was saying is an important one that surrounds this topic. that is a loss of trust in government and trust in our governing institutions in our country. that decay has been happening for decades.

it feeds to this type of disappointment that you could here in john's -- you could hear in john's voice. when we take a step back and think about how are institutions are governing, how they relate to each other, with a limit of power for each is, it takes a moment of reform to pump some life and trust back into those institutions. and i think the proposal on the table right now potentially could help build trust in congress and the presidency in a way that we have not had happened in quite some time. host: was there any historical parallels, say after president nixon and watergate, or something akin to that, that could give historical context? guest: the post watergate era was an important 1, 1 in which, as a nation, we were thinking about how to deal with the potential of a president committing a criminal act while in office and abusing his office. there were bipartisan efforts in congress to rethink this. eventually congress, in the wake

of both watergate and the vietnam war, past the war powers act, one of the biggest efforts, successful efforts to take power back from the presidency. but even in those circumstances, in that post-watergate, post-vietnam war era, those were limited, often needed to pass over presidential veto, and shows us just how difficult it is to take these types of reforms in the system we have today. host: john hudak from the brookings institution our guest. we will go to paul, shreveport, louisiana, republican line. caller: yes, i am in dallas, texas now. i had to move here because of jobs and stuff. you know the old school america has morals and everything in america -- we better get it together in america, no matter if your democrat, republican,

independent. we are all americans. and we are letting people come into this country without identification, it is scary. it is a nice country, very good country -- host: i hate to interrupt you, but the topic being executive power, do you have a question for our guest? caller: yes, the power is letting china overrule us, really. it is so sad, because they are controlling us with their product and stuff. it is so sad that the power to stand up and say no, we can't take this no more -- host: ok, that is paul in louisiana. let's go to akron, ohio, independent line. caller: yes, i had a question on tax returns. i believe he needs to reveal tax returns like mixing back in the 1970's -- like nixon back in the

1970's. i couldn't hate anybody after that, george bush or dick cheney or anyone else in the white house after nixon resigned. but if all trump is worried about that he paid taxes, the american people are very forgiving. just pay and move on. i believe there is a lot more behind it. i hope the state of new york gets into his tax returns. i do not care what party you belong to. if you're running for the oval office, you await to the american people to reveal your tax returns. host: how much of the process of mexico power relies on disclosure of information? guest: disclosure of information is a very important part of the conversation we are having. and one of the proposed adulation involved includes a presidential and vice presidential tax return

disclosure. but it is more than just personal disclosure like taxes. for some, though not included in the legislation, concerns about presidential candidates having disclosures over their health. but -- involves the disclosure of information in oversight investigations in congress. presidents are constantly trying to either muddie th -- muddy the waters over what congress has the right to receive or outright block congressional requests. part of the proposed legislation draws firmer lines between what is allowed and what is not. it clarifies the extent of executive privilege and when and if presidents can use executive privilege in defying subpoenas or other document requests. and that ability of congress to do oversight over the executive branch is fundamental.

it is one of the primary powers the congress has in terms of making sure our system is running properly. the proposed legislation seeks to do exactly that. while that conflict certainly was in existence and in high-profile during the trump administration, these type of battles happened during the obama administration, bush, clinton host: one of the aspects is enforcing congressional subpoenas. guest: that's right. congressional subpoenas are oftentimes difficult because once the congress issues a subpoena, if the president or some other executive branch actor simply says no, congress doesn't have a law enforcement agency. congress doesn't have a military. it is very difficult for congress to enforce those subpoenas. typically they go to the courts. courts typically have deference toward the executive in a lot of areas, though not exclusively as we have seen over the past couple of years. but what we know is that

presidents can very effectively run the clock out on these types of investigations during their administration, and it's a strategy the presidents of both parties have done. host: if i may sidestep to the current investigation to the events of january 6, we have seen the chairman issue subpoenas for certain members specifically connected to the trump administration. give a sense of what we might see play out now that the subpoenas have been issued. guest: there are a few important questions from the january 6 committee. first is whether executive privilege is going to be continued after a president leaves office. that is to say, will some of president trump's advisors be able to say -- to claim executive privilege because the questions arising in that subpoena involved behaviors while the president was in office, while president trump was in office, and while they were advisors to him. the next question is whether the

sitting president can effectively turn over documents that the previous president would not have wanted to be turned over. courts have dealt with questions about executive privilege for quite some time, but there will be renewed life in those types of questions in the unique situations we have had surrounding january 6 and its aftermath. host: let's say they actually show up. could they just at that point plead the fifth and let things go on? guest: typically that wouldn't be a strategy in this circumstance unless they were potentially committing a crime. what they're more likely to claim is executive privilege and to say that those were privileged conversations between an advisor and a president that are obviously important. that type of relationship to be open and honest with a president as an advisor is an important part of our system working well and a president being able do his job. there is significant deference

in courts for executive privilege claims. but questions arise about whether that can be done. those executive privilege claims can be effective if you are advising the president to do something that is unconstitutional or illegal. i think we are going to see those claims be made and the courts begin to dig through the details of all of this and we will have rulings in the coming years. host: chairman thompson says for those who may not decide to answer those subpoenas they can be issued criminal referrals. guest: the way this would work is if an individual came to capitol hill for a hearing or perhaps did not come to capitol hill and just refused to show up. the congress can then make a referral to the justice department and the justice department can make a determination about whether to press charges against the individual for whether it would be contempt of congress or if they appeared and lied, perjury, things like that. so that can work fairly

effectively when the congressional majority is the same power as the white house, the person who appoints the attorney general. so i think it would be disappointing if it came to a point where we needed to have criminal referrals for congress to do its own oversight job, but that potential is there if witnesses are unwilling to cooperate with subpoena requests or witness appearance requests. host: we will hear from archie in michigan, democrats' line. you are on with our guest, john hudak of brookings institution. go ahead. caller: i was wondering one thing. when obama became president of the united states, was the republican party afraid of the browning of america? that is why they felt that the supreme court needed to enforce laws that were done in the past that are now coming back in the present. guest: i am not exactly sure the

relationship there to our conversation about presidential power, but what i will say is the beginning of the obama administration shows us something unique -- i shouldn't say unique, interesting and telling about the continuity of presidential power from one party to another. throughout the 2008 campaign, president obama criticized president bush and his exercise of executive power, whether it was the use of signing statements, whether it was the continued use of gawn tan mow bay for -- guantanamo bay for detaining potential terrorists. when president obama came into office he continued many of the same behaviors that president bush did and the same behaviors candidate obama criticized president bush for. it shows us two things. one, presidents are part of an institution that protects itself. two, once an individual comes into office, they recognize that the challenges that they may have criticized as a candidate are more difficult and more complex once you are president. host: let's go to tommy,

sarasota, florida, republican line. caller: mr. hudak, what do you think about term limits for congress? most of these people have been here longer than most of the people have been alive in america. when they have judicial hearings or whatever, why ain't congress held to -- host: executive powers is the topic. what would you like to address? caller: congress is overreaching their powers. they lie in judicial hearings. they think they are the controller of the country when they're not. host: ok, that's tommy in florida. any response? guest: sure, on the point of term limits, i think your question about the relationship between the branches is an important one and one that we are talking about today and this proposed legislation around presidential power deals with. to the point of term limits, i am a political scientist by

training. term limits with an absolutely disastrous idea. what we have seen in countries that have instituted term limits in their national legislatures is that the incidence of corruption can increase significantly once you know that your term is about to end. you can have arrangements with businesses or other types of organizations. so the idea of term limits, of extrabting people from the -- tracting people from the legislature after a certain point of time, has appeals but term limits can be disastrous in terms of corruption. we also know it vacuums out institutional knowledge from a place like congress. if you think congress is dysfunctional now, wait until you see a bunch of people who have never been there before trying to run the place and get things done. then you'll see absolutely true dysfunction. host: it's a nuanced look at our topic. this is a viewer from twitter. can you explain how war powers

have changed over time? go back in time as far as you are able to. guest: initially the power to declare war -- that is true still under the constitution -- rests with the congress. congress was in many cases the initiator of foreign conflict. typically in consultation with a president or because of a request from a president. over time, however, we came to understand that the need for a president -- for the government to respond, either in defense or in some cases offense, in a very short period of time meant that the ability of congress to hold all of the war powers was a bit outdated. so presidents began to act unilaterally, in many cases while congress ok'd, most famously during the vietnam war and in conflicts since then, and as i mentioned before in the 1970's after vietnam, the war powers act was passed, which

required when the president took some sort of military action around the world, that he would then notify congress that this was happening and congress could vote to stop that action after a certain period of time. that was the effort of congress to pull some of that war power back. it has largely been a failure to do. the congress has not told a president they need to stop continuing a foreign operation and in fact in many cases now through the norgses of the use of military -- authorizations of the use of military force which initiated the iraq war, these were in many cases blank checks to president from the congress. congress has been complicity in this type of behavior over time in empowering presidents and there is no better example of that than in the case of war powers. host: from our republican line in pennsylvania, carl, imoom. -- good morning.

caller: good morning. i agree that congress has really ceded its power, but what hasn't been addressed and isn't addressed by the legislation is the power that's wielded by the bureaucratic state. these are the people that really have so much control and influence over all of our lives. they're the people that write the regulations and the rules. i never voted for anyone in the e.p.a. or f.c.c. or any number of bureaucratic agencies. years ago on c-span, you had a guest who said if he could change the institution, one of the things he would put in there is automatic sunset provisions on acts of congress, acts of regulatory agencies, that they would have to periodically be renewed and approved by congress. i thought that was one of the best ideas.

these bureaucrats, they can do what they want and they're part of the executive branch. what can congress do about these regulations? host: thanks, carl. to clear up a few things, the federal agencies do have quite a bit of power. that power is granted to them by congress. they don't have unfettered power. there are statutes that govern their ability to regulate in certain areas, so spend money in certain areas and on certain things and the missions of those agencies are typically set by congress as well. it is true that there are civil servants, bureaucrats, who are involved in rule making, in the regulatory process, but rule making in the united states is a highly political process. it typically runs through the office of management and budget which is part of the white house. they are signed off on by political appointees both in agencies and in the white house. so the concerns about the behaviors of agencies, i think,

oftentimesburgh carats -- bureaucrats become the targets but the reality is the president and political appointees that the president puts into place wield suggestly more power than the average bureaucrat would in affecting policy change and effecting the regulatory environment. host: mr. hudak, who advises the president on whether his use of executive power extends beyond the reach? guest: there are a few institutions that will do that. the white house counsel certainly has a role in that process. the counsel's office advises the president on all things legal and white house counsels can have enormous power in terms of impacting the president's decision whether to behavior in a certain way or examiner size -- exercise power in a certain way. the justice department also has a significant role in that process, whether it was formal or informal communications with the attorney general himself or the office of legal counsel in

the justice department. they all work together to advise a president on where the lines can be drawn, where he can act and where he can't act. host: from sandra, phoenix, arizona, republican line. good morning. sandra, hello? caller: the other -- the independent. anyway i want to know why the press is covering everything -- ok now we are going to do this. obama said there are consequences to elections. you had trump, that was a consequence. i want to know why trump's words were being -- you know, hillary

clinton's lawyer gets arrested. nobody knows. and -- host: what would you like our guest to address? what question do you have for him? caller: i want to know why biden are not -- he said it's a crime for a president to -- host: we will leave it there. you have referenced this as far as where this legislation goes. i suspect democrats will be onboard but it would fail with republicans or do you think there is some republican interest in reforming these things. guest: i think there is significant republican interest in reforming a lot of issues brought up in the legislation. whether this legislation is the vehicle to get those rbs onboard remains to be seen. what is important about this

proposal is it was a negotiated proposal between the congress and the white house. that's important because in efforts to rein in presidential power through the legislative process the president always has veto power. so in order for this to be successful either you need to build veto-proof majorities in the house and senate to get legislation through, which has happened very rarely in congressional history in terms of dealing with presidential power, or you need to get the president onboard. that's what house democrats have done. they're gone to a democratic president and sought his support for these types of reforms. i think again to see this legislation getting 60 votes that are needed in the senate is going to be a little bit difficult, but ultimately this is the road map, whether it's congressional democrats working with a democratic president, congressional republicans working with a republican president, that is the best way to negotiate reining in presidential power for both branches to be engaged and both

branches to realize they're not going to get everything that they want but some negotiated outcome is the best for everyone. host: our guest, john hudak of the brookings institution. he is their deputy director for the center for effective public management. mr. hudak, thanks for your time today. guest: thank you. host: we will go back 0 the question we started with for the first part of the program. your view of the supreme court. as the court comes into session on monday with several cases to be considered, if you think the court is too conservative, call and tell us why at 202-748-8000. if you think it's too liberal, call 202-748-8001. you can text us and post on our social media sites as well. "washington journal" continues.

♪ >> craig whitlock begins chapter 15 in his new book this way. "karzai's fraudulent re-election worsened a deluge of corruption that engulfed afghanistan in 2009 and 2010. dark money cascaded over the country. money launderers led suitcases loaded with $1 million or more on flights leaving kabul so crooked businessmen and politicians could stash their ill-gotten fortunes off shore." we asked him to expand on this and other stories from his book, "the afghanistan papers." >> "washington post" investigative reporter craig whitlock. listen to podcasts on our c-span

app. >> next week on the c-span networks, the u.s. supreme court starts its new term on monday. listen to the oral arguments live online at c-span.org or on nur c-span now app. the house of representatives is out but the senate will be in session working on executive nominations. watch live coverage on c-span 2. on tuesday, two senate committees hold hearings. the judiciary committee hears from the deputy attorney general on the administration's desire to re-authorize the violence against women act. you can watch that hearing on c-span. on c-span 3, watch as the commerce subcommittee hears testimony from a former facebook employer who provided regular tosser with internal documents about the company's mishandling of information, children's privacy oned -- and the use of the platform by sex traffickers. watch our full coverage on our

new video app. head over to c-span.org to stream video, live or on demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. "washington journal" continues. host: again with the supreme court starting its new session tomorrow, we are asking you about your thinking and opinion on the court and its dealings, particularly as it's coming out of decisions made amongst others, the texas abortion law. you can call and let us know. here is how we have arranged the calls. if you think the court and its dealings are too conservative, 202-748-8000. if you think it's too liberal, 202-748-8001. if you think when it comes to dealings of the court it's just about right, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003 and post on twitter. when it comes to what the court

deals with this week saying for the first time in 19 months of the pandemic oral arguments will be made in person rather than virtual. the nine justices will consider cases that prove some of the most contentious issues in politics, including religion, guns and abortion with plenty of space left on the calendar. courtroom dramas may be matched by outside pressures facing the institution. adding to the tension, justice brett kavanaugh testing positive for covid. he is fully vaccinated showing no signs of symptoms. he will report to the supreme court and participate virtually. when to comes to statements made about the court and its dealings, several over the last few days and months, it was most recently that justice amy coney barrett, the justice appointed by president trump, talking about in a speech to the university of louisville at the mcconnell center said this when it comes to the workings of the court, saying my goal is to

encould -- convince you that the court is not compromised by a bunch of partisan hacks. philosophies are not the same as political parties. the media reports the results and leaves the reader to decide. sometimes i don't like the results of my decision but it's not my job to -- when to comes to outcome. one of of the people in her dissent wrote this. writing about the decision, also writing about the process. saying today's ruling illustrates just how far the court's shadow docket -- that's in quotations -- decisions made apart from the deof is of great consequence. the majority has acted without any guidance from the court of appeals which is right now considering the same issues. it has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions and only hasteily, and it barely

bothers to explain its conclusions. backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is likely to prevail. that's some of what the court members are saying about the decisions of the supreme court. we are giving you a chance to comment and we will let your thoughts be known. 202-748-8000 if you say the court is too conservative. if you think they're too liberal, 202-748-8001. 202-748-8002 if you think it's about right. the workings of the court particularly on that shadow docket that justice kagan talked about was the topic of discussion of a hearing last week on texas' abortion law. both the chairman and ranking member commenting specifically on the supreme court. here is what they had to say. [video clip] >> the shadow docket is a set of decisions and orders that the supreme court issues outside of its merits docket. these decisions are often rendered on short timetables

with full briefing, public deliberation and de-- without full briefing, public deliberation or even signed opinions. in recent years the supreme court has started to use the shadow docket for more political and controversial decisions with results that appear to be ideologically driven. >> we are having a hearing because the supreme court did not do something extraordinary. it declined to intervene on exceedingly expedited basis while reserving judgment on complex legal issues. much of the talk about the case has referred to the court's so-called shadow docket. for a long time, the court and its practitioners have called this the emergency docket because it is designed so the court can provide relief in emergencies.

host: that hearing fully available at our website. let's hear from lawrence in st. paul, minnesota, who says it's just about right. lawrence, go ahead. host: thank you. a couple quick comments. i doubt if most people have ever either listened to or read supreme court rulings, and i would strongly suggest that people take the time to go to c-span and look at some of the questions that are being asked because the questions that are being asked are basically coming from attorneys and they're not always a direct line. justices ask questions from all different angles to try to get to the decisions they make. that's the first comment. the second comment i want to make is somebody talked about how out of touch the supreme court is. again justice breyer on c-span

speaks quite a few times during the off-season. justice thomas travels across the country to be in touch with p people. justice kagan is very good at going to speaking engagements. when i have been listening to people talk, they're talking as though they're in congress. the supreme court is really different. rather than spending time talking about the white house and congress, i would strongly suggest that people go to c-span and look at some of the activities that go on in the supreme court. host: that all said, why do you think the court's workings are just about right? caller: kind of because i actually do listen to supreme court hearings. i do go through briefs and read them. i do listen to what the supreme court justices talk about in terms of their approach to upholding the constitution. i don't see a lot of extreme

decisions by the supreme court. host: ok. that's lawrence. jeremy is next, alexandria, virginia. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i am saying that the court hardly ever is right for anyone because it always depends on what your perspective is. what i would say, the court is in fact very political in the congress wants to make plaws. the -- laws. the president wants to influence how people behave through executive orders and what not. and the supreme court can act in the same way by pretty much striking down laws, which may be the equivalent to making laws. the good thing is the supreme court -- the justices aren't running for re-election so hopefully they can be a little more or a little less ideological and hopefully a little more truer to what things should be. to the point of what the last caller made, i do think that by and large it's not terribly

controversial, the supreme court for a lot of the decisions they make, but some of them, health care, abortion, all those kind of things tend to be really highly charged and maybe biased, people thinking that the court is, you know, completely political. which i don't think it is. host: thank you. there is an effort, legislative effort to introduce term limits those who are serving on the court. this is from forbes saying a handful -- last month, september 4, saying a handful of house democrats introduced legislation to fundamentally reshape the court which comes amid pressure from progressives to take action over the recent court decision about texas' abortion law. the bill was introduced by representatives from california and michigan. it would create 18 year term limits for supreme court justices though it wouldn't

apply to justices currently serving. it would require the senate to act on each nomination within 120 days before the nominee is automatically sealed. this adding also that there is a debate amongst constitutional scholars whether such reforms require a constitutional amendment. it quotes thomas barry, arguing term limits are a close call but the senate deadline is no doubt unconstitutional. there is more to that forbes story. you can take a look at it online. there is an effort by president biden and a commission looking at a court -- at court issues, particularly the supreme court, expected to sprus some type of -- introduce some type of recommendation. let's go to philadelphia. says the court is too conservative. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro and to the c-span family. thanks for having me on. i believe the supreme court is too conservative. let's look at the case of troy

davis a few years back. i am going to go back even further in history to 1857, dred scott case. in many opinion it's too conservative and the voting rights, section 5 of the voting rights act. that's why i believe it's too conservative. host: ok. that's from philadelphia, pennsylvania. you can add your thoughts if you wish to the question of the supreme court and what you think about it, as far as too conservative, liberal or otherwise. if you want to call us, 202-748-8000 if you think it's too conservative, 202-748-8001 if you say it's too liberal, and perhaps if you think it's just about right, 202-748-8002. you can post on social media as well. want to tell you about a new app that we have out that you can take advantage of. it's our new video app which is called espn now. users will find live unfiltered

coverage of white house events and more. once you watch a program, once it ends video will stay available for 24 hours on demand, viewing in the latest program section. it also has a feature clips section. this is designed to show you political highlights that are driving the news. you can take a look at that and you will also see most recent "washington journal" segments right there on your phone or whatever device you are looking at in case you miss it. go to your store that deals with your phone, look for c-span now. you can find it on the app store or google play, search for it at c-span.org/c-spannow if you want more information. that will include links for you to download. take advantage of that. download it today. you can find it on the app store. let's go to milton, wilmington, delaware, says the workings of

the court are about right. go ahead. caller: i feel that the supreme court made some decisions that i agree with, some that i disagree with. however, i think all in all i think they're pretty about right. host: when you say decisions, what is a decision you agree with or disagree with? caller: i can't off the top of my head right now think of a particular decision but all in all i believe they do a good job. host: that's milton in wilmington, delaware. this is from paul in new york city saying the supreme court is neither too liberal or conservative. each case is unique. the decisions are therefore unique. justice gorsich voted for expanding rights. this is steve on our twitter

feed saying the supreme court is too conservative. all three trump appointments are suspect. they were rammed through with the senate despite grave misgivings. the janus decision is just one example of being too conservative. richard in las vegas texting us this morning saying, ways a -- i was a life lock democrat -- lifelong democrat until 2020. i would say it's well balanced for the first time in my lifetime. people texting us. you can do so and add your views to the -- as you wish at 202-748-8003. chief justice john roberts gave an address at georgetown law school, talked about not specifically the court but the profession that he involves himself in, the law profession. you can find those full comments online. here is a portion from chief justice john roberts. [video clip] >> when you are slogging through some tedious legal work, you

should keep in mind an old story, justice robert jackson liked to tell. it was about three stone masons in medieval times. each one was piling one stone on another, applying mortar over and over again. a passerby asked him what they were doing. the first said he was earning a living. fair enough. the second said he was putting these stones together according to a pattern he had been told to follow. ok. the third put his trowel down, looked up to the sky, and said, i am build a cathedral. jack sob told -- jackson told this story about both lawyers and judges and his point was simple. you have to recognize that the craft, the calling, you have chosen is infused with a higher purpose. to borrow jackson's famous phrase from the nuremberg trials, it is through the law that power pays tribute to

reason. the lawyer's tool is reason, whether in negotiating a legal document, seeking a result from an agency, arguing in court, whatever. and resolving disputes according to reason embodied in the law can involve a lot more work than leaving it all up to power. but limiting power through reason is a rare and special thing in the world and worth the work. host: again that's the chief justice from earlier this year speaking on the law from mississippi. from carol, says the court is too liberal, carol, hello. caller: hello. yes, i think that if the supreme court had looked a little further into it that we wouldn't have this president. host: what makes you conclude that? caller: i felt they were intimidated. i felt they were afraid to take that step. there was something about how the whole thing went down. we know for a fact that the

voting was wrong, not to say that it would have gone the other way, but there was a lot of things that -- host: you think that the supreme court is too liberal. why is that? caller: because they seem to go with democrats. host: ok. let's hear from jet in union point, georgia, says the workings of the court just about right. caller: yes, sir. i believe that the court is just about right for the first time in a long time. before donald trump came in, the court was a mess and it has always been liberal but because of mitch mcconnell and president donnal ald trump is -- donald trump, our court is just about right. host: what makes it right? caller: we have equality on the court. we have good conservatives there and liberals there and it's balanced. at first it wasn't balanced. it was always just liberal

decision, liberal decision. now we have a balance where some decisions i agree with, so i don't agree with. but that's part of our democracy. host: so if there were more progressives on the court would you have a view that its dealings would be about right? caller: no. i would not. host: why is that? caller: because that's kind of part of what has happened before. if it was -- let me rephrase that. if it was only or if it was a lot of them on there, if i felt like they was packing progressives on the court, it would be a little different. no, i would not agree because liberals already had their chance on there. progressives already had their chance and that's why a lot of these decisions were made in the first place. now i feel like it's time for a balanced court so we can actually get back to right. host: that's jet in georgia. a viewer from twitter, they identify themselves, referencing

a previous caller about reviewing videos of the supreme court on c-span. i didn't think about those being available. so what happens, viewer, the court gives us an audio feed of the case and we use pictures to put on top to show you who is talking but you can in essence listen to oral arguments being presented, who is speaking, what the justices are saying, how the respondents are making their case. that's all available at our website. if you go there, key cases dealing with a lot of different issues that you can look at over the years. all of that is available at our website. let's hear from anthony in maryland. he says the court is too conservative. hello. caller: yes, i feel the court is too conservative because of their decisions and the decisions like -- i really think they need to follow the

constitution to the letter. the reason why i say that is because they are supposed to be a check and balance of congressional government. i mean, make rules of the government, whereas the constitution is interpreted by in donald trump's situation with his impeachment. i feel that the justices should -- we would not have been through that turmoil that we are still going through with donald trump. host: that's a hypothetical. what case would you consider too conservative that the court actually made on -- that the decision the court made that's too conservative? caller: well, when i say too conservative, they're not following the constitution because the rules are supposed to be interpreted as the

constitution is written. when you find them not upholding the law of the constitution and making their decision based on their opinions and what they feel but the constitution is supposed to be the grounds for everything. host: ok. let's go to bob, royal oak, michigan, also says the court is too conservative. hello. caller: yes, i really don't believe we need a supreme court. i don't know what happened to states rights, but isn't it all humanitarian decisions made? they're not being very humanitarian. host: so let's start with your thinking that we don't need a supreme court. tell us why. caller: because first of all, they're not very humanitarian. they take away the rights of

people rather than giving the rights to people. taking away the rights of people in texas. why wouldn't the supreme court drop right in there and say no? host: several cases happened on a state level where there is indecision among various courts. don't you think there has to be some body that has to make a decision? caller: i really think that people, people should be voting. if we are going to have a supreme court, people have to vote for the supreme court. there should be empathetic. host: wouldn't that make it too little? -- political? caller: how do you mean? host: you have to campaign for a position. wouldn't that be a political office then? caller: they do campaign, don't they? host: supreme court justices are appointed. caller: they campaign their whole life for it. you know that.

you know they want to be supreme court justices. host: they ultimately are chosen by a president so in the sense they campaign, that's not it. caller: that's political right there. chosen by a president, that's political. host: but that's part of a president's job to appoint a justice. caller: i'd like to myself. i don't know about you, but i would like to appoint a justice. host: ok. that's bob. let's go to tom in michigan, hello. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. i think that the court right now is just as good as it was back in 1980, or 1981, rather, when sarah o'connor was picked out as a supreme court justice by reagan to diversify the court a little bit. right now it's -- i think the

only matter of conservative or too liberal is not really in the justices themselves. it's rather in the decisions that they're making and it inflames either the liberals or the conservatives and thus we blame the court rather than the decision itself. host: so if you are looking at recent cases by this court, at least recent decisions by this court, you are saying at least for you from what you've seen as far as what they've decided on you say that working is about right even if you agree or don't agree? caller: absolutely because there has been -- i am a conservative myself, but as i see some of the decisions that went against conservatives, i didn't agree with them but the fact of the matter is, if the court decided them, they are the final word and we have to respect that.

to keep increasing the court just so that we can get decisions more favorable to what we want is not going to give us justice. that's just going to give us a dictatorship type of decisionmaking. host: ok. that's tom there in michigan. let me show you recent comments made by justice stephen breyer that he did on an interview on fox, his own perception of how the american public views the court. here is a portion of that. [video clip] >> is the public acceptance of the court in jeopardy? >> hard to say. i don't think -- i am an optimist. so i think people understand to some degree why it's a good idea what hamilton thought. he thought the court should be there because there should be somebody, somebody who says when the other two branches of the government have gone outside the confines of this document, who

is that? the president? he was a little worried the president might say whatever he did was right. congress? well, some countries do have that, and a member of congress knows what is popular. if he didn't know what was popular, he wasn't be there or she won't be there for a long time. but this document is made for unpopular people just as much as for popular people. >> i am curious, do you carry a quopy of the -- copy of the constitution with you or just for tv? >> no, not just for tv. it's always in my pocket and i hope i will put a jacket on that has one in my pocket because you never know when somebody is going to ask a question. host: rose from facebook writes, it shouldn't matter if they're conservative or liberal. they should follow the constitution. it's the supreme law of the land. this is pamela from michigan, texting us, sake the purpose of the supreme court is to keep the other two branches within the

laws of the constitution because the liberals have taken over the education system. our supreme court is now too liberal. we will hear from don in florida. last call says the court is too conservative. hello. caller: yes, those five corporation lawyers on the supreme court don't count the votes, our guy wins. those five corporation lawyers on the supreme court said too much money means you can have unlimited speech. i filed a brief with the u.s. supreme court in a matter of citizens united and i ask that they look at the constitution. it doesn't say you have a lot of money, you take bribes and you are incorporated. it says 35 years and natural born citizen. there is no reason anymore now that we have the internet to say that people who are constitutionally qualified can't be recognized. but these two private political parties not skied there decide in advance that you have to have a large money pile, you have to

take bribes and you have to be incorporated. they call it campaign contributions and campaign committee but it has absolutely nothing to do with the u.s. constitution. host: ok, that's don, laggero, florida. last call on the topic. thank you to all who are participating. next up our guest will take a look at various aspects of the state of the u.s. committee economy, whether it be those who are jobless, the stock market, unemployment, a lot of different factors in there. roben farzad of npr's "full disclosure" joins us next on "washington journal." ♪ >> watch coverage of the 21st annual book festival on sunday, october 10. this virtual event features online author discussions plus live call-in segments.

at 2:00 p.m., "the cause, the american revolution," 1773 to 1783. le join us -- he will join us live to take your calls and tweets. at 3:00 p.m. a discussion about the opioid epidemic with author of empire of pain and the author of death in mud lick. after the discussion, he will join us live. a look at russia, featuring the book putin's people and the author of between two fires. at 4:30 p.m. the history of women in medicine with the author of the doctor's blackwell and women in white coats. at 5:00 p.m. democratic representative davis talks about her book. a native kid becomes a congresswoman. watch book tv's coverage of the 2 #st annual national book

festival sunday, october 10. at 2:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span 2. >> tonight on q&a, on the eve of the supreme court's new term we look back at the life and legacy of a major figure in the court's history. justice john marshall harlan, politico's editor at large joins us to discuss his biography of the justice. >> he famously dissented in the cases who took away the rights of african-americans because he knew the postcivil war amendments which were at fied as a price of re-entry into the union for the south and for the rest of the country ratifying it under the normal process, that that was intended to preserve

the rights of african-americans and when his colleagues for reasons that were very suspicious basically trying to keep peace with the south, when they began to retreat from that as though it was the right of the supreme court to sort of say that this wasn't really in the constitution, wasn't really what was intended, harlan stood up strongly against that. >> that's tonight an 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: roben farzad, the host of "full disclosure." he is joining us to talk about the economy, mr. farzad, good morning. guest: good morning. how are you? host: i am well, thank you. talk about your program. what kind of things do you focus

on? guest: it's a show on public radio, we talk to economists, small businesses, rock stars, comedians, loosely about the culture of business and the business of culture. anyone can come on. authors, i find a loose kind of business conceit in anybody's story and we have a good 53 minutes to tell it. you can catch it on apple podcasts, wherever you get your pods. host: because you are talking to so many business types, i suppose one of the things they talk to you about is jobs and employment, who is being hired. what is the picture you are getting from these conversations? guest: unbelievably from small business the sense of exasperation, like what the heck? we can offer $15 an hour, $20 an hour, a free metro card, a free subscription to spotify, we

can't get people in the door for restaurants or retail. there seems to be a great reset of sorts in terms of the labor force and what is demanded and what the prevailing wage is. a great rethink -- you see the hashtag trending on twitter and instagram. a lot of people who were shell-shocked by this pandemic, who wasn't? who don't want to come back to work on the same terms that they accepted pre-spring 2020. this has become such a problem. millions of open jobs, literally every restaurant is telling you we are hiring. i could show up at my favorite greasy spoon and they would be like do you want to work the tables this morning? i just need warm bodies. it's that much of a problem coming out of this unprecedented economic and health care shock. host: what does it mean if those who are holding out for better -- if they're in the driver's seat, what recourse do employers have at this point?

guest: you wonder if it's a tug of war for wages, if 15 is the new 9. i am finding even $15 isn't working for a lot of restaurant wait staff or kitchen staff. there is such a bottleneck. servers are wanted, front of restaurant people, that it's literally forcing restaurants to either kill the drive-through. i have seen panera's say we don't have enough people to staff the kitchen or one place i spoke to said i am cutting tuesday from our skid you'll. -- skid you'll. the light -- schedule. the light staff we do have is overextended. i can't get people in here. i can't get people to commit to showing up for an interview. so many people flake out. recently did this on the great -- i call it kitchen existential is the name of that episode. what is up with restaurants? what does it tell us about the

economy? you are seeing car dealerships say the same. you can go to the u.k., it's a problem with lorry drivers and nobody to drive the tankers of gasoline. petrol stations are seeing long lines. this has become a global bottleneck. host: from the same conversations, how much willingness -- you hinted at this. how much willingness to employers saying fine, we will give them what they want, but if i see costs that high, some other things will -- guest: people saided if you want a $15 minimum wage in the conversation, at best i thought people would say ok, let's have a conversation incremental by 030 we might get to a $15 minimum wage. right now that has been ripped off. that taboo is gone. people are not even showing up for $15. you are sweetening the pot in other ways, benefits and paid time off, family leave, because

this is a life or death cal chaition. you have front line workers who are being exposed potentially to the delta variant. a huge turnover of customers, some customers who don't want to mask or follow the rules. it's just a whole different calculus. i find that it's interesting because extraordinary unemployment benefits, extra benefits ran out on september 6 and people are still holding out. so there's got to be something deeper to the reluctance. host: roben farzad, our guest for this conversation about aspects of the u.s. economy. if you want to ask him questions, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also text us at 202-748-8003. you mentioned something there at the end. the mentality was by some when people were still getting

federal unemployment benefits is they wouldn't return to work because they were getting sweetened benefits and now you are seeing this trend where those are stopping but people are still not going back to work. guest: yeah, i want to know what gives? how do you balance your personal balance sheet at home, your cash flow statement? are you gigging? are these people going to uber or grub hub or other things? restaurants warned that if you do force us to cry uncle and give in to something like $15 or more per hour, i am hearing restaurants broaching $20 at this point, that it will hit menu prices and turn away customers. i wonder about it. this always crosses my head when i do carry-out. if you look at the lot of a chipotle worker, yes in many reasons it's been bad for them in that the dining room has been abandoned but they saw a huge surge in pickup and delivery and grub hub.

these workers on the line are constantly dealing with receipts that are unspooling with carry-out orders. people walking up to them and giving them orders in person. delivery driver asking if an order is ready. somebody having to chop the chicken in the back. it is intense. it is dangerous and it's been hard to staff these places. stiemtion the line gets long. you -- sometimes the line gets long. you wonder is that worth $16? it reminds me of that laverne and shirley juggling scene. it was in an "i love lucy." i always feel for these workers. i think the jermaine conversation is -- germane conversation is what is my cost of burrito adjustment? is it a shock for me? am i not going to get a burrito if it crosses $10? how many times have they passed down price increases to me? the customers have a willing to

pay and they as a corporation are hardy. the stock has done well. there must be this rethink that we have flexibility. we can pass down prices. we can pay workers more and retain them because it's brutally difficult for us to have the high shock of turnover and retraining and people not showing up. the worst case scenario for them is you can't fill orders. host: you talk to the front line a lot. we know federally the information that's released to us, last month 235,000 jobs created. the unemployment rate at 5.2%. with what you are seeing as far as that reluctance to go back to work, do you see that trind as far as job added number continuing or what is the expectation? guest: yeah, the expectation, the strange, you talk to traders, late stage market cycle when people are rooting for numbers to be weaker than expected. the better to keep the fed at full largess, but actual sociologists and others are out

there wondering how much can we pierce 5% unemployment? go below $ -- 5%, 4%, without triggering inflation, that early 1980's show where the federal reserve will have to come in and slam the brakes and hike interest rates just to snuff out signs of inflation. that's a concern. are you -- do you have more slack in the economy that we can add hundreds of thousands of jobs, go back to whatever they call the natural rate of unemployment, even approach the unemployment rate, the decades low unemployment rate that we had before the pandemic, just on the eve of the pandemic, and still not see inflation? this is a very open argument in economic circles. host: let me play a little bit -- it was the federal reserve chair powell testifying

in front of congress, gave his assessment on inflation, how it factors into the economy. here he is from last week. [video clip] chairman powell: inflation is elevated and will likely remain so. as the economy continues to reopen we are seeing upward pressure on prices, particularly due to supply bottlenecks in some sectors. these effects have been larger and longer lasting than anticipated, but they will abate and as they do, inflation is expected to drop back toward our longer 2% goal. the process of reopening the economy is unprecedented. as it continues, bottlenecks, hiring difficulties and other constraints could again proof prove to be more enduring than anticipated, posing upside risks to inflation. if sustained higher inflation were to become a serious concern we would certainly respond and use our tools to ensure levels that are consistent with our

goal. host: that was chairman from last week, mr. farzad, anything in that? guest: i am struck by going back to the time of alan greenspan -- i wish there was a way that fed chair could level with us and not talk in this highly scripted way. but i understand why that's done. you don't want to give anybody in the bond or stock market advance warning about how or if he is going to telegraph more hawkishness. i think it speaks to how problematic it is, the federal reserve right now, not only controls short-term interest rates but he is out there buying tens of billions of dollars of bonds every month to further keep rates down, to keep the mortgage markets stoked, to keep the corporate bond market quiet. this is problematic in that you want the economy to keep humming but you also don't want to stoke

the inflationary embers and moreover in risk markets, this is a question we had going back to the time of alan greenspan and his predecessors. it visited every fed chair in the modern era, is you can keep federates at an emergency low rate for an extended period of time and that's going to cause asset bubbles. we saw it in the stock market. we saw it with real estate and subprime in 2006 and 007. while you are trying to be supportive of full employment and moderate inflation in the actual economy and the risk taking economy, this kind of environment has been a free for all. you have seen a boom in baseball card prices, not fungible tokens. you can take a dead ox public in this stock market. we saw the collapse of a house of cards, if you will, ozzie media, been all over the news this week. when you don't have enough scrut

knee -- scrut knee, these kind of excesses happen. i don't envy jerome powell's job. he is controlling one rate, one main rate that the entire country, whether you are a saver, a person dmendent on cost of living adjustments, whether you are a bond trader, dependent on this one rate. host: roben farzad, our first call is from tom, in pine level, income n, republican line. -- north carolina, republican line. you are on with our guest. caller: i want to make two comments. i am tired of the democrats spending the trump tax cut. i make $70,000 a year. under his tax cut, i am bringing home $340 more because they're taking less out in federal taxes. so when they keep saying that it woanl went to the rich, it didn't. number two, if they raise the corporate tax at the very top, who do you think will pay for

that? us at the bottom because prices of goods are going up. for instance, in north carolina, the price of propane four weeks ago was $1.91. today it's $2.40. under this new bill it will go up 15%. us at the bots tomorrow are the ones who will suffer under this tax plan. host: that's tomming in north carolina -- tom in north carolina. mr. farzad? guest: it's a valid question. i think if you look at the past several decades of information, if you look at the snapback, let's take from the bottom of the economy, say last spring to where we are right now, people who were invested in real estate, crypto, stock market, overwhelmingly have fared much better. the wealth has increased enormously. there are i believe six components in the united states

stock market that now have a stock market capitalization of $1 trillion or more. the big go to lie yats of -- goliathss of silicon valley, jeff bezos is worth $200 billion. what is kind of -- you can't argue against it, the wealthy have done far better in the tax regimes of the past several presidential administrations than working class americans have. you have seen some degree of catch-up in wages over the past 12 months, with the great resignation that i mentioned earlier and cobwebs coming off of the lockdowns, but it's nowhere near kind of bridging the gap that the average -- the divide between the median worker at a fortune 500 company, it's only getting bigger. host: from indiana, gary, democrats line. hi. caller: hello, everyone. first of all, mr. farzad, i

could listen to you all day when it comes to economics because it's fascinating stuff. but i want to say the previous call from north carolina confirmed something i want to say, too, that i am not so sure there is enough attention to detail when it comes to controlling the economy. for one example, our tax system -- i think they need to bring back the progressive way where you are taxed more if you make more. you are taxed less if you make less. i am sorry but that's simply a more fairway to go about it. then there is the infrastructure deal. i was reading yesterday where the government confirms that there is at least one out of every five miles of structure that's dilapidated and there's

45,000 bridges that need to be repaired and everything. we are talking about personal safety of other people, and the ones that are in charge, they would rather overlook that just because they're more concerned about lining up their own pockets. that's preposterous and to think that i live in that kind of world is -- i can't even think of a good word right now. we all need to get together to do something. let's think about it. thank you. host: thank you, caller. guest: this debate is raging on, not just between democrats and republicans. but if you look at the democrat party, if you look at the progressive wing in the house and what it would like from these two bills, $1 trillion is not a routine thing if you go back and look at barack obama's

first 100 days and the financial crisis, this is a huge number for an economy that is in recovery otherwise. but even within the democratic party, you look at west virginia and arizona, there isn't as much of an appetite with less blue states are -- west virginia is not a blue state certainly. for them to indulge in a lot of these big spending plans, which are huge. they're new deal-like in some respects. you also saw some experiments last year with a hint of universal basic income. if you talk to workers, essential workers, people who have to take family leave, people who are kids on zoom school, they tell you, a lot of them i spoke to, they felt they did not have to be paycheck to paycheck. there was just enough slack in the system for them to feel like they could taste what a living wage was. they could taste what it would be like to not have to roll over

credit card balances or go into debt just to make basic payments. there wasn't even unanimity for extending all those programs state by state. there were certain states that were keen do it until december 6 and there were others who wanted to throw it off in fear of people not going back to work. in other countries where universal income or a more progressive tax base, western europe, you look at ha -- what your pay is garnished for in germany or the netherlands or other countries and the basic benefits that are provided for that you don't get in the united states, and it's an ongoing debate. i am particularly fascinated by the debate within the democratic party and generationally what millennials think versus what the baby boomer class thinks, what those that supported bill clinton's triangulation versus

the a.o.c. school of thought and some of the other leaders of the left wing inside the democratic party. host: there is a viewer who says i won't go back to my service job until i feel safe. no amount of money can bring back your life and i have no health care, so if a customer hurts me with covid or physically i will survive on my two other jobs until it's a safe workplace. for the people you are talking to, business owners, aside from providing more incentives to go back to work, what is being done as far as a safer workplace? guest: it's so hard. if you are a grocery store employee, a major grocery chain, there is the announcement that comes on about the delta variant and regardless of vaccination status we urge all customers and associates to mask, to help us kill the sprid of the virus -- spread of the virus. i am looking around and the staff isn't masked or some people have a nose peeking out.

i can't see anyone enforcing this at the cashier level or fronts of the store level. you are asking people who are paid somewhat above minimum wage to do really dangerous work. you've seen no shortage of videos of angry customers, people crying bloody murder when asked to mask or when asked to observe the community standards of a store. the enforcement has just been terrible. i do wonder, if these companies were starving, if people were terrified of showing up at a walmart or a kroger or these other places, you could about the that they'd have paid armed security, they would not have left it to the will of beleaguered employees who are worried for their own health. it's not tenable. host: linda is next. linda from utah on our independent line.

caller: good morning. they keep saying wages are $15 an hour but is that the base with tips? is that the base? thank you. guest: no, a lot of people may not realize the tip minimum wage is far lower, it's a fraction of the actual minimum wage. after all, you have service workers, table workers, bus workers who are divvying up that jar of tips. that's a significant part of your pay. but there is also a huge protest of that. if i am going to show up and be face to face, a few feet away from diners who have to unmask to eat and yes, i can be masked but there are still ricks of a -- risks of a breakthrough, do i want to sign up for a $4 an hour wage and be at the mercy of a lot of customers are grumpy now coming back. it's been a long time since dining out and the tips might

not reflebt -- reflect the danger of what these workers are doing. i hear the same thing from gig workers, uber drivers, grub hub people. there's this reluctance to depend your career on the largess of others, on tips. there is a big rethink of tips as well. host: to that end, stephen asks this comment, if you would comment on delivery companies making 30% of the ticket, much more money than the actual restaurant worker. guest: there's definitely a love-hate-hate relationship with these delivery companies. it's a great service if you are willing to pay, if you are at home, you could get a restaurant miles away to deliver all this stuff in packaging for you that didn't deliver before. but the restaurants are thinking, it's a strange risk to me because let's assume that $20 entry will cost $26 and you have

to tip on top of that for the driver but who will shoulder the blame if the food is cold or if it's late? are they going to point at the door dash or grub hub? are they going to call and be furious at the restaurant? it's a heads the gig company wins, tails i lose. they're taking a huge cutout of me at a time when my margins are being beleaguered. i had a restaurant owner on my show who got a state of the art machine in her restaurant she opened, the problem is she can't get ox tail. jamaica has had a huge issue with the export-import market. she's reluctant to pass it down to customers and so meanwhile a gig company comes up to her and says how about we deliver this for you? the total cut at the end, sticker shock would be 40% of the ticket.

she says i don't have anywhere near those margins. i am struggling to keep 5% and keep my workers employed. there is -- if she were to try to build this from scratch, you can't hire delivery workers right now. there is a shortage everywhere. you have to pick your battles. it is problematic in that carry-out and delivery have become table stakes in this industry right now. it used to be optional but now everybody insists that everything has to be carry out or delivery. host: for those delivery workers themselves, particularly if they work for uber, those services, are they demanding more as far as they're getting paid or benefits and are those demands being met? guest: i don't see many of them dassing like julie andrews in "sound of music." a i think a lot of them are saying i am still tip-dependent. maybe the customer is not educated to realize that that 30% cut is not overwhelmingly going to me, that i could still

take a cut. uber drivers had to fight to get the tip option. it used to be they could only get tipped in cash. now it's almost an afterthought on the app. i hear the same thing from barristas who are working but could use the tips. this is a problem. this is a responsibility you are leaving to other people. these companies are doing very well, the management is paid well. if they haven't already, they're going to see great i.p.o. exits. they're doing this on the backs of gig workers, people who are driving around, going into neighborhoods, stuff is spilling. it's not a clean job. they're potentially expoing -- exposing themselves to unsafe air. they want more of a cut. do you want to double the price? this is a problem and this is where the $15 minimum wage question becomes even bigger.

i will say it is great that gig working has become a fallback for a lot of people that are in transition or are wanting the option of leaving a job. you could flick that switch on and be doing uber, grub hub or any one of these services and that's a whole new kind of face of the economy that we have not had in previous recessions. host: let's hear from pat in west virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. i want to give you some actual facts that you can look up concerning the economy. first of all, people complain about the rise in wages and the $15 minimum wage, $15 an hour. labor costs for manufacturing and retail are 15% to 20% of their total outlay, including

costs like materials and where they have to locate transportation. in the service industry, it's anywhere from 20% to 30%. so if someone raises the minimum wage a certain amount, that doesn't automatically mean that the price of the goods are going to go up that same amount. if the people were fair that are running businesses, they would only go up the amount that the additional labor costs incur on them. secondly, donald trump's economy for the four years donald trump was in office, his g.d.p. for the entire four years was 1.9%. that is lower than all of the four past presidents, two democrats and two republicans. you can look it up. thirdly, to the gentle genius that came on here and said biden

had to quit taking his tax cuts away, i want to tell him about that trump tax cut. that was designed so that in the year 2025, whenever he potentially thought he was going to be re-elected, those tax cuts magically disappear for the individual. but the corporate tax cuts remain permanently. host: ok. we will leave it there. mr. farzad, anything from that? guest: i am trying to get my head around it. look, i think a very important point is that restaurants so far have been able to absorb this. you don't just have -- the way it was depicted in the past is if i give in to a $15 an hour wage i am going to have to hike menu prices and you are going to kill the goose that lays the egg and we are all going to lose. there are other constituencies. you might have backers that

might have to accept a smaller return on invested capital. restaurant chains, the publicly traded ones, report a higher cost of labor or cost of goods sold if raw material prices and food prices go up and it's variable. the question is coming out of this and in the full normal economy, are you going to have pricing power? are people going to -- it goes back to the cost of burrito adjustment. are being going to say that's it, i am done, i am going to taco bell because i can't deal with the $9 burrito. this other school of thought, we have been deluding ourselves for decades and paying service workers very, very low wage that has not kept up with inflation, has not kept up with the cost of living. we are only tasting reality right now literally. host: mr. farzad, there is a viewer off of twitter, about

delivery service, he said delivery not as good as it used to be with rising gas prices. we heard a previous caller talk about the rise in propane prices. where does energy fall into this? guest: it's interesting, there was an energy crisis at the onset of this global health and economic crisis last year. if you remember, there were tankers stranded at sea that could not offload their oil. you couldn't give oil away last spring. there was this brief moment where oil hit this negative price because there was no storage for it. meanwhile the global energy infrastructure system has had an enormous snapback in prices since gas prices are up enormously. you are truly feeling bottlenecks that are hurting regents. not only are drivers feeling it, they felt it this summer and are still feeling it into the fall. natural gas prices are up. that's affected heating, if you look at the u.k. there is this

intersection of labor and commodity shock with gas stations having long lines because there aren't enough people out there to drive the tanker trucks around and fill the gas stations and top them off. china has been having rolling blackouts, power outages, because of a huge snapback in coal prices and this is a bigger problem writ large for economies that are looking to decar bannize their power infrastructure. much easier said than done to go to all wind, all solar, geothermal. you need to have what is called base load power. you need to have natural gas, coal, things that can be flicked on if it's not sunny out, if it's not windy out, and some countries are learning this the hard way. i think that you saw the problem in texas with that freeze, i think it was earlier this year, natural gas. the problem is, you know, you

are talking about a massive infrastructure bill or pair of infrastructure bills that are coming in and talking about decarbonization and talking about modernizing the grid. in practice especially in an era of bottlenecks and supply chain shocks, it's going to be a lot harder than we imagine. host: even as you say that, there are stories about supply chain shortages overall, particularly that could impact the holiday shopping season. what is the cause and what is the resolve? guest: same thing, rush for tankers. generally when everything shut down overnight or within a couple of days as it did in the spring of 2020, much easier said than done to turn it back on again especially if staff leaves. you are seeing that with tankers. you are seeing that with gas drivers. you are seeing that with waiters and waitresses at restaurants. it was supposed to be the hot vax summer and hot vax awe towm

and -- autumn and everything coming back on. there isn't enough staff to do it. a lot of these refineries had upkeep. the big oil companies and oil producing nations decided to slash capacity when it kind of demand disapierd and suddenly demand booms back, it's very hard to get all the machinery up and running at full capacity. just within a matter of days and i think everybody is feeling that right now. look, the system broadly is very creeky. it needs a giant splash of wd-40 and it's affecting the planet. supply chains are global. host: we will go to massachusetts. this is mike, democrats line. caller: good morning. good to be back on. it's rare these days. anyway, my question is when donald trump ran for president, he stated to the american people and the world that 65,000

industries have left the united states in the 21st century, and went overseas to pay much lower wages and benefits than the americans were used to. my question is, how many of these jobs now in almost five years since his campaign have returned to the united states? i don't want to be sarcastic, but you are talking about a lot of jobs with no future, with no benefits, that are barely paying enough for people to hardly live on. i would like to hear your answer if you could. thank you for accepting my call. guest: very good question. it's punningent to run on bringing back our jobs and high paying good jobs in the cored out rust belt and heartland and practice a lot of these jobs have been lost to automation and other countries that have a

advantage. it's very easy to say a company that used to make the $15 razor clipper that i could buy at walmart has moved from missouri to china. that production might have moved from china to vietnam or another place because that is not as value added as some other higher tech job. these jobs come and go. they can't stay in one environment. if the insistence is a place like walmart or amazon wants a $12 clipper razor, it's very hard to provision that in the united states with the protections and minimum wage issues and investor demands of return on invested capital and this job will go overseas. in many respects we are not lamenting jobs that have aged out decades ago. if you want to look at the auto industry right now, which have very controversial because it is electrifying and it's seeing enormous supply chain issues.

look at a tesla factory, in california, far less personnel, far less of a supply chain in terms of the company that manufactures seeds and widgets and lights and the stereo system, the long tail supply, a lot of these jobs -- a lot of these factories right now -- an electric car has far fewer parts. elon musk is going to avail himself of automation much more than kind of the factories of yesteryear and you look at a g.m. and a ford and it's a reason why g.m. was bailed out in the wake of its bankruptcy because the united states couldn't afford to let these dozens and hundreds of suppliers across the country go out with all of these factories at general motors and it had to give them another chance. as the car evolves from this

enormous contraption with thousands of pieces into something far more simple and electrified, a lot of these jobs will go away, offshoring or not. i think automation is a bigger question. host: one more call, john in alabama, republican line. john in alabama, good morning? caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead, please. caller: my question is, i love america. i would do anything for this country that i could and i am disabled, and my question is, why does not anyone really show any concern about illegal drugs flooding this country and destroying young people's lives? host: that's john. guest: the war on drugs has been ongoing. i think it was in ronald reagan's first 100 days, i wrote a book on the cocaine wars and

what not in miami. but right now the drug of concern is synthetic drug, the opioid crisis. this stuff is prescribed. it's not being smuggled here by cartels and people swallowing pacts of things. it's being produced in giant factories by pharmaceutical companies and distribution system and people abusing other ayes legal -- otherwise legal opiates. that's shifted the attention away from marijuana where you are seeing rolling legalization across states and cocaine and we have had crack epidemics. we have had heroin epidemics. now front and center is a true opioid epidemic and it's actually -- you have seen federal reserve reports on this. it's been so serious that it's actually been a lag on individual states' economies significantly. this is the crisis now in how we

wean ourselves from this dependence. it's a mental health crisis. it's people in overwhelmingly economically depressed areas that are turning to these things as an escape. that's the bigger concern right now, not so much -- it's not to say that it's not important, crystal meth that's coming here, fentanyl that's coming in, lacing cocaine, little tiny flakes of it that end up in cocaine can kill you if you use it. this should be tier fieg -- terrifying people but it's a whole new world from what i think ronald reagan faced. host: how can people find your show? guest: we are on apple podcasts, npr1, spotify, you can subscribe. i am sure you can find me on my space. i like to joke. we air in parts of washington, d.c. and in nashville, but find

me on any podcast. host: the show is "full disclosure." the host is roben farzad. we thank you for your time. guest: my pleasure. host: that's it for the program. another edition comes your your way tomorrow. we will be joined by robert costa. make sure to tune in. that will be 7:30 tomorrow. we will see you tomorrow. >> live on the air, on the news of the day and with policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, robert

kostev discusses his book "peril." and the heritage foundations john and elizabeth preview the new supreme court term that begins on monday. also, politicos david will be on to talk about covid testing. watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern on monday morning and join the discussion with your facebook calls -- facebook comments, calls and tweets. >> tonight, on cue and day, -- q &a, we look back at the life and legacy of a major figure in the courts history. justice john marshall hollen. peter canalis joins us to discuss his biography of the justice, the great dissenter. >> he dissented in all of the

cases that took away the rights of african-americans. he knew that the post-civil war amendments that were added to the constitution and ratified at the price of reentry into the union for the south and the rest of the country ratifying get under the normal process, said that was intended to preserve the rights of african-americans. when he's -- his colleagues, for reasons that were very suspicious, were basically trying to keep peace with the south, when they began to retreat from that, the supreme court said this was not in the constitution or what it intended, harlan stood up to that. >> you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app.