up this morning, we look at supreme court changes challenging workplace vaccine mandates with attorney daniel suhr and wendy parmet with northeastern university law school. "washington journal" is next. host: january 7, 2022, a three-hour "washington journal" is ahead. we begin with your view of the u.s. electoral process. yesterday on capitol hill, president biden employed president trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. meanwhile, the voting rights laws, legislation republican say would undermine the integrity of the ballot appeared we are asking you, do you have states

in the u.s. electoral system. phone lines, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. and on social media, twitter, @cspanwj. facebook, facebook.com/c-span. a very good friday morning. you can start calling in now. a headline from the front page of this morning's "washington post." the headline, a year after january 6, the guardrails that protect democracy, are they real or illusionary? focusing on one of the key guardrails, the electoral system in this country, and that was also a focus that president biden made during his remarks yesterday on the anniversary of the attack on the capitol, and in his remarks, president biden

pushing back on the claim that many trump supporters still hold that 2020 was a rigged election. this is what president biden had to say. [video clip] pres. biden: he is not just a former president, he is a defeated former president. defeated by a margin of over 7 million of your votes and a full and free and fair election. there is simply zero proof that the election results were inaccurate. in fact, in every venue where evidence had to be produced and those who tell the truth had to be taken, the former president failed to make his case. just think about this, the former president and his supporters have never been able to explain how it is inaccurate and looking at the other

election results, governor, u.s. senate, house of representatives, elections which they closed the gap in the house . they challenged nine of that. -- they challenged none of that. governors, senators, house of representatives. somehow those results are accurate come on the same ballot , but the presidential race was flawed? on the same ballot, same day, cast by the same voters. host: that was president biden yesterday from statuary hall on capitol hill. our question this morning, do you have faith in the u.s. electoral system? this column from the pages of the "new york times," democrats are bad at defending democracy, the headline, focusing on some of the myths distorting democratic behavior on this issue, democrats' behavior.

he writes that the whole electoral system is in crisis. there is registering and casting votes, counting votes, and certifying results. when it comes to the first about phases, the american system has its flaws, but it is not in the crisis. it has become much easier in most places to register and to vote than several years ago. we just had a 2020 election, he writes, with remarkably high turnout the votes were counted with is initially zero fraud. he says republican efforts to overturn votes that have been counted, but democratic voting bills were not overhauls to address the threats that have been obvious since january 6 last year, they are sprawling measures covering everything from mail-in ballots to campaign finance and basically include every idea that has been on the

agenda for years. these bills are hard to explain and hard to pass. catering to d.c. interest goods, democrats have spent a year distracting themselves from the emergency right in front of us. that column in today's "new york times." the freedom to vote act, a measure democrats have been pushing throughout the past year , especially more so in recent weeks and months, that bill would require states to set a 15-day minimum early voting window and would make election day a federal holiday. it would mandate that each state offer same-day voter registration and all polling locations by the 2024 election. another provision barring states to have boundaries that favor or disfavor any one political party. republicans have concerns about the bill, both in how it is trying to be passed and then the content of that bill. this was senator mitch mcconnell on the senate floor talking about the democrats'voting

rights bill. [video clip] >> no party that would trash the senate's legislative traditions can be trusted to seize control over election laws all across america. nobody who was this desperate to take over our democracy on a one-party basis can be allowed to do it. finally, it is beyond distasteful to some of our colleagues to invoke the january 6 anniversary to advance these. washington democrats have been trying to seize control over elections for years. their first draft of the legislation was introduced in january 2019. the fact that violent criminals broke the law does not entitle senate democrats to break the senate. it is surreal to hear senators invoke january 6 to justify --

listen to this, to justify breaking rules to grab outcomes they have not earned. i am going to say that again. it is surreal to hear sitting senators invoke january 6 to justify breaking the rules to grab outcomes they have not earned. it is surreal to hear sitting senators invoke january 6 to argue that institutions can be trampled because they would like a different result. a year ago, the senate did not bend and did not break. we held strong. it is jaw-dropping for colleagues to propose to commemorate that by breaking the senate themselves, in a different way. host: senate minority leader mitch mcconnell from wednesday of this week. we are asking you this friday morning, as we end this week, do you have faith in the u.s. electoral system?

(202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. ben from state college, pennsylvania, republican. caller: good morning. i personally still have faith in the electoral system. i can understand why some people's faith may have been eroded with all the crazy stuff happening in the past few years. it did not start on january 6, 2020 you have to go back when then-candidate hillary clinton did concede the election, but there were still a lot of people with the hashtag #notmy president, stuff like that. not democrats or republicans, but i say it is shared blame for people starting to lose their faith in our electoral system. host: so what can we do?

what do you think would help? caller: i think what will help, and may be in the midterms but definitely the next presidential election, i think both sides need to agree with any seed of doubt that we are going to honor the results. that is the only way i can think to fix it. host: a democrat out of austin, texas, good morning. caller: good morning. so listening to the first caller, it makes sense, if both sides are planed by the same rules and living by the same packed -- if both sides are playing by the same rules and living by the same pact. but they are not even agreeing that the sky is blue and the grass is green, so there is no basis for rational people to deal with irrational behavior. the part that keeps getting

omitted is that we have, in broad daylight, i used to be in public affairs for the u.s. military and have lived abroad, and i have seen what it is like for countries to throw away the rule of law and adopt authoritarian or fascist polities -- policies. and this is exactly where the united states is headed, and it is not both sides. it is not both sides just giving up the rule of law and tanking tradition, as mitch mcconnell just said. it is one side that said if we cannot have it all, we are going to burn this place down. and they are doing it in broad daylight, and everybody is pretending that there is some type of equalness. to your question about the electoral system, systems are designed to do what systems do. and multiple times, the democrats have had to acquiesce

when the electoral college gave victories to presidents who did not win the popular vote, by millions and millions of voters. it has happened in my lifetime three times, where a president -- always the republicans -- gets to be seated as president after losing the popular vote, and that is directly because of the electoral system, which was put in place to make sure that states with minimal populations had equal access or equal chances to affect the outcome of a major election as more populous states. i just submit to you that there is always somebody on the winning side of that and always somebody on the losing side of that.

and until we strike some type of equilibrium, you are going to have more situations. but first, we, the people, because the politicians are not going to do it, have to stop looking at the world through the lenses of only the narrative we want to believe that is not based on any common sense, any common sense, antiscience, and say, we're going to operate on fact. ok, we're going to call a thing a thing just so we can save our democracy. anti-way for the time. host: before you go, when was the last time we operated on facts? when was the last time we agreed and called a thing a thing? caller: i can tell you, in the 1990's -- i will put it in this perspective, because it was not always favorable to me, so i want to practice what i preach here. in the 1990's, when i was

working with the department of defense and living abroad in europe doing public affairs, bill clinton was president, but there were times when the congress and senate were split. so a lot of the policies that i personally supported, i had to push aside because it was not the will of the government to accept those things. i witnessed bipartisanship where there was compromise, where administrations did not always get what they wanted but always worked together for the best interest of the country, even though we did not always agree. i witnessed this, where senators would come over and visit the troops overseas, and they would even give them parties, but they were friendly with each other and had meeting points where they would sit down and say, ok, let's find out where we can

agree. then we will work backwards from that and come up with a compromise. and since then, i think when the country started noticing that the demographics are shifting, and this has been throughout history, so to pretend like it is not happening now is disingenuous, when people see things changing, they get uncomfortable and start looking for alternative solutions. and that has never worked out well. ok, we all have to live here. we all have a right to be here. and no one type of person should have more rights to this country than anyone else, because we have all worked to build this country. so i would say the 1992 -- host: thanks for they call from austin, texas. robert in michigan, independent. good morning. caller: yes, i would like to say

that i have total faith in our electoral systems, although it can be a little overwhelming at times. a lot of people voting, and once you cast that ballot, you have major market it goes into the machine, and you cannot undo it. the ballots are still there. what, are you going to go back and recounts? but i still have total faith. i have one comment about yesterday, if i could, please. host: sure. caller: this insurrection was planned, i really think this. more information will come up, especially with hannity's text messages it was not on the spur of the moment, and the reason i say that is because that hannity post that was erected, that -- that post that was erected, that

was precut and symbols, and they had to know in advance what they were going to do with that post. host: mike out of north carolina, good morning. you have faith in the electoral system? caller: yeah, no, i do not. can you please give me the same amount of time you gave that lady that just called us fascists, please? i have zero faith in our elections. i would also like to thank you for something in a second, if you do not mind. i have zero faith because joe biden admitted june 2020 that he rigged the election, and google took that video done. if you look at it now, it says taken out of context. just two weeks ago, your furor had a christmas party for his party members, i will call them, were he said, and i quote, because i tried to fund the video to play the sound, but they have taken that video done,

too, and your show will not show it, where he said, we are going to win the election next year, republicans are in trouble, because it is not who votes, not how many people that vote, it is who counts the votes. now your furor said that on camera just two weeks ago at a christmas party. host: so what would help give you faith in the electoral system? you have no faith right now. what would help? caller: -- down, that would give me full faith, because he is a con artist that has stolen the election. i would like to thank you, sir, you and pedro personally, yesterday, the way pedro acted on tv, because my wife to go down to the dmv, a lifelong democrat. she went down to the dmv, the way pedro acted yesterday toward every single republican and independent that did not have the same fascist opinion that he did -- host: i tell you what, i will not let you could size my

colleague, but appreciate the call. eric, tucson, -- i will not let you criticize my colleague, but appreciate the call. eric, tucson, arizona, democrat. caller: thank you for doing this, a good service. i really want to agree with the first guy ben. to answer your question, i do have faith, and what gives me faith is people like ben, who has such a great idea that the two parties agree before an election, and what i really thought hard about is, could trump have won, and i think that he easily could have won, and that is why i believe in the system because i think he needed, in my state, 5500 swing voters to change their vote to him, and i was one of them. i am a democrat. if he had moved towards health care, i would have voted for him . that is my issue. and thinking about that, i realized that getting 5500 votes

in arizona would have been easy. but he chose -- actually, in arizona, they tried to kill health care, the ag tried to do that, and those things cost him votes. so i think trump could have easily won the country had he done policies. that is my comments. host: to bob boston, mass, independent. caller: yes, i can admit that i have not heard about -- in 2016, hillary clinton, she was supposed to be the woman to break the glass ceiling. she had the wind at her back. she only got 68 million votes. they tell us that joe biden got 13 million more votes than she did, and it does not add up. and i do not think biden was

going to run in 2020 except for all the stuff from the ukraine that was going down, and the democratic party bolster him, to put him up in front of anybody. it was like 20 some odd democrats running for president, and he never left his house, his basement there, to campaign. and there is no way that he was going to wind up with 13 million more votes than hillary clinton in 2016. it does not add up. that is all i have to say. host: do you have faith in the local elections in boston, massachusetts? caller: yes. host: do you have faith in statewide elections? caller: yes. host: is it just federal

elections are just the presidential election that you do not have faith in? caller: no, not the national election anymore. it is just not kosher. there is no way that joe biden got 13 million more votes than hillary clinton in 2016. they are not out there. host: this is dug out of san jose, california, republican. caller: good morning, i do not have faith in the system because it is a human system and because, right now, our culture is so fractured that i think that people will do and say things that unfairly influence elections. joe biden, as your previous

caller said, hardly left his house during the election, and yet, somehow he got more votes than barack obama got in either have -- either of his elections. i am just not buying it. i think that there are a lot of things that can be done in a system that require human beings to have input that may or may not cross the line, but they can definitely influence the outcome of an election. host: so you are not buying the results. there have been challenges to the results by former president trump's team after 2020, his team losing 61 of 62 election lawsuits, some for lack of standing and others on the merits, and the decisions came from democrat-appointed and republican-appointed judges,

including federal judges appointed by trump. there have been several ballot recounts. georgia counted three times. arizona's audit showed the emergent for biden was actually greater than -- the margin for biden was asked to greater than the results on election tape or you say you do not buy it. why? caller: as i said, i think that we're talking about a human system. we're also talking about people who depend upon that system, for better or for worse, to function. and i think that when you look at that situation, if you are a judge and you are asked to throw out an election, doing so, it can be kind of an earthquake for you. the people prefer, by and large, the status quo. and if an election official says

we have counted these ballots had have counted them again and this is what we have, then i think most judges will just accept that and move on. to overturn that election would have been a political earthquake. and so i understand why judges would not want to overturn a particular outcome. host: so what about the audits that happened in 2021? arizona, a six-month audit of election results there, confirming the results. georgia with three separate audits. michigan, and audit of the ballots and voting machines, affirming biden's victory. pennsylvania with a statewide audit that found strong evidence of the accuracy of the count. boston, a recount in the two largest countries, no evidence of widespread voter fraud -- in wisconsin. that wrapup today on the state

audits that happened in some of the county audit speed why did that not find it? caller: i cannot answer the question because i was not involved in the recounts. here in california, we have now decided to send out a ballot to every name that is on a list somewhere. and when you take all of that into account, you have all these ballots coming in. there is no way to check and verify that the person or persons involvement with any particular ballots are actually valid voters, because we do not require any type of system of voter id in most states. so if you keep going back and recounting the same information over and over again, it is like the old computer saying, garbage in, garbage out. host: san jose, california.

the "wall street journal" editorial board, their criticism of president biden from his address on capitol hill yesterday, biden on democracy for democrats, the headline, saying he conflated the fate of democracy with the electoral fate of democrats yesterday. and among the lapses, they said, in his address yesterday was a failure to recognize that the main reason that president trump failed in his attempt to overturn the 2020 election was the action of hundreds of individual republicans. vice president mike pence refused to interfere with the proper electoral college vote count and ascended. attorney general william barr said he found no widespread evidence of voter fraud. there were legal challenges based on flimsy evidence. others refused to break under mr. trump's pressure. gop, eight legislators refused to admit alternatives.

the real purpose of his speech was to address the emerging democratic campaign theme for 2022, democrats believe in democracy and republicans don't. it is a weak case for democracy to claim you must elect one party to preserve that democracy. editorial board of "the wall street journal" this morning. i call from georgia on the line for democrats. caller: you ask the question about what we can do. yes, it worked, because it worked for more than 200 years. but no, it does not work, because the gop want jim crow law to save the voting system. i think the popular vote is the best thing we can do. second, what congress needs to do is pass the generalist right to vote, voting rights and we need to protect voting rights.

we need to -- a politician picks their own borders. it should be the voters that pick the candidates. and we should not talk money and politics. it corrupts the politicians, like much of the gop and joe manchin and kyrsten sinema. this election was -- that lady caller that said fascists is correct. the gop a radicals. they are trying to put legislators -- if trump runs in 2024, hopefully not, he deserves to be in prison, but say he runs and he loses again, what will happen in those states like pennsylvania, arizona, and georgia if they have gop legislators and biden wins

again, what will he do? he is going to change the vote because of the gop. host: among the voting rights bills that tom brought up, he mentioned the freedom to vote at, and there is also the john lewis voting rights act. it restores the full protections of the voting rights act of 19 625 come expanding the formula that the department of justice can use to identify discriminatory voting patterns in the states -- the voting rights act of 19 65, expanding the formula that the department of justice can use to identify discriminatory voting patterns in the states. it expands the formula. that piece of legislation among those being pushed by democrats. a slate of voting rights bills. republicans critical of those bills and what it would mean for the integrity of the votes. john cornyn, senator from texas,

making the argument that democrats' legislation would weaken public confidence in elections. [video clip] >> those who oppose changes in the legislative filibuster, the opposition is such a dangerous change. completely partisan overhaul of america's elections is hardly an effective way to improve public confidence in our elections. just the opposite. a partisan change in our election laws, by nationalizing them, will not lead to improved public trust or more secure elections, it is a recipe for fraud, abuse, and partisan distrust. this rules change in the legislation, they make some pack -- hacktivists in the democratic base happy, but it would further

distrust and our elections. i encourage democratic colleagues to reconsider their current position based on their past position and to consider the grave consequences for publishing our country down this dangerous path. host: senator john cornyn, republican from texas. back to your phone calls. you have faith in the u.s. electoral system? debbie, independent out of michigan. caller: good morning. i used to be a republican. i no longer associate with that party's beliefs. i am a past township clerk for 20 plus years. i very much have faith in our elections. with that being said, i do believe that our elections can always be made to be better. and we should strive for that. but i think one of the things that needs to change is that our

elections need to be the same across every state. they need to be federally mandated so that every state follows the same rule, and not state-by-state. i think that is a major problem. i think a lot of people that are calling in do not know the rules of elections. people are verified. when you get an application for an absentee ballot, you go online, you look at the secretary of state, you match the signatures. if the signatures do not match, you do not issue a ballot. there is a lot to this process that people are not understanding. and i think that is one of the major problems. i think that there is always room for improvement, yes.

host: there are some states with all mail-in ballots. and some states are more restrictive about mail-in ballots. she talked about having -- you talked about having one federal system. in your mind, with having expanse in the process, what should that system look like? should there be early voting? should there be mail-in voting allowed at all? caller: i think both, yes. i think it is kind of unrealistic to expect the whole population of the united states, voting population, age-wise, to get together on one day and cast a ballot, to be able to do that. i do not think that is realistic in this day and age. i do believe in early voting. i do believe in absentee voting. if i had to make a choice, i would much rather see absentee

voting than in-person voting. it gives the person more time to look over the ballot to make their decision. they can always turn their ballot in and then request it back and avoid out that ballot and get a new one if they change their mind before the election closes. it is not a problem. i do not understand why you would not want to be able to ponder and go over that ballot. things change throughout the election process, and may be who you voted for last week and you heard something two days before the election that changed your mind, you can change your ballot. host: this is kyle in buffalo, new york, republican. caller: good morning, john. buffalo, new york.

i am 46 years old and have been voting. i was a democrat, and i have been republican through adulthood. i have noticed voter irregularities since i can remember with bush and al gore. i can remember the democrats complaining about hillary clinton and bernie sanders. no one really complained when trump came in first time. i think, from what i have seen, is when you lose, your angry and you want to blame a reason of why one side lost. the last caller brought up something i thought was interesting, because different states have different standards of voting, and when i hear the southern states complain about long lines and this and that, it

makes me think that, yes, maybe we should go to a federal each state, same standard, because certain states complain and certain states do not. host: what is a good standard? caller: i definitely believe in the id process. i do not want to hear that racial bs like black people cannot get id's. my grandmother had id and she had two birthdays, going back to the early days of birthing and stuff like that. so i think that is just another tactic that the democrats always tend to pull up, the race issues. not saying there are not any. of course there are major race issues in this country. but there has got to be some type of universal id. we got so many people coming into this country who are allowed to get a drivers

license. we do not know to the extent on who actually gets the right to vote. so i can see why you have got a lot of people out there who are disgruntled about the process, especially if your side loses. host: in 2020, a lot of states did a lot of work to expand mail-in ballot a because of the pandemic, efforts to make people safer and apart. are you ok with raining that in in 2022, that it does not need to be as expensive as it was in 2020, and is doing that restricting the right of the vote for some people? caller: yeah, i did agree with that expansion. unfortunately, this pandemic is costing us our civil liberties and rights. it is said because i think this is where it is all coming from, our rights being taken away due to the pandemic. so you have a side that

definitely want to limited government, and then you have another side that, for some reason, loves government controlling their lives, whether it be physically, responsibly, or whatever. that is why i am a republican, because i need limited government intervention. i work hard. i do not want my money going to here and there. but back to the election process, you know, i definitely think we were doing pretty good back in the early 2000's when it came to voting. we had a good absentee system, a good -- the absentee system was designed for a lot of small -- a minority of people. it was not supposed to be everybody who just sits at home and is not want to go in and vote, just to mail it in. with our military, there were special circumstances my handicap. but it just seems we are taking the way of getting out there and casting our ballot, not

responsibly. that is why they give us a day, tuesday, elections. host: why is being physically there and casting your ballot, why is that important? caller: as a black male whose grandparents helped build this country through slavery and through all sorts of roadblocks that were set up towards us for voting, it was our pride and joy to get that opportunity to go in and cast our vote because we still believed in america. it was never perfect and is not even to this day. but having the right to vote should be a privilege and a patriotic duty. it should not be about this side versus that side. and i hate when they always bring up abortion to kind of doodle to care for some people to go on the other. who cares, man? that was done along time ago. but the issues are that african-americans, especially,

we have been denied a lot of different access in getting out there and voting, and that is our way of expressing ourselves. i cannot speak for any other racial group or the gentleman in florida talked about the republicans are trained to bring up jim crow laws again. i take offense to that, because i do not know if he is 100% sure knowing what jim crow laws were, but it came after the black folks, just another way to keep specifically african-americans' rights denied, no other group. so it just seems that when we have these racial topics, and i know that that uprising last year did not look good to republicans at all, especially when -- four republicans at all, especially when the confederate flag made its way to the capitol building. i was disheartened to see that, because then it makes me look like, oh, you are a black republican, la la la.

no, i do not agree with some of the people who say they are republicans, but the overall message of limited government of self responsibility, i am all for. again, i go back to the whole 50 state universal voting, id, let's limit the mail-in ballots, the lady before talked about let's do it weeks ahead so it gives an opportunity for local establishments to count it appropriately so there is no discrepancies. you pointed out earlier the court cases and all the things found untruthful -- i mean, i don't know, i guess i believe it. host: appreciate the call out of buffalo, new york. isaac is waiting out of california, maryland, next. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. happy new year to you. i have faith in the electoral system to do exactly what it is

designed to do. i believe that it was designed on a state level to be a democracy type of election. and on the federal level, to be a representative of democracy. the issues that i have is that the electoral system, two issues. first issue is that it is extremely outdated. in the second issue is that it needs to be updated. the issue that the american culture has is that we keep hold to things that no longer apply to the current events. the caller mentioned al gore and bush, mentioned the current election. the reality is that we were in a democracy, and the electoral system was a democracy on every

level. the republicans would have never been in office as far as the federal level as a president for the last 20 years. we would have had straight democratic presidents, and that concept is what scares the old guard of the gop. and also the old guard of democrats, i.e., joe manchin. because they want to have a system of control in place, kind of like spinning on the wheels, internal battles, but in reality, the players are still the same. i believe that it is 200 years since this system was created, and it has had some minor updates, but it needs a full 21st century update. i have no issue with a representative democracy, but where i do have an issue is a representative marcus he were half of the senate --

representative democracy were half of the senate represents less than 40% of the actual country. and they can have just as much power over the country. host: you are going beyond the electoral system question, talking do away with the filibuster and other changes on how congress and even the white house works? caller: more along the lines of the electoral system needs to be updated. i believe we have different tools we use, i.e., balance, absentee ballots, coming physically to a voting location, and i think people kind of forget that these last two election periods have been during a pandemic. that is the reason why the absentee ballot has been so high. host: about 15 minutes left in this first hour of "washington journal." i want to get to some of your text messages and tweets. a few of them come of this one

says, there will not be any integrity in our elect twirl system as long as it is driven by dark money. and it is more than just people, and we have failed to make any necessary corrections intentionally. steve in florida, very little faith in the electoral system, a system built on the idea of compromising to self problems over objective solutions, and it will destroy itself from the inside because the problems will never go away. sue in new jersey saying, in the 2020 presidential elect -- election due to the pandemic, there was more opportunity for fraud, but i still believe the majority of people are honest, ethical, decent and would only vote once. in my community, i did not witness tampering of ballot boxes or duplicate voting. i know people who work at the polls, and they would not even think of doing anything dishonest. about 15 minutes left for your phone calls on this topic.

the supreme court will be coming in for arguments on the vaccine mandate cases, and we are expecting the jobs number for december and about 40 five minutes, and we will talk about those in our latter segment this morning. marie in greenville, mississippi, democrat. caller: good morning, pedro. i was not going to call in this morning, but after the man for massachusetts made the statement about joe biden receiving 81 million votes, and i have been hearing that for the whole year, no way joe biden got 81 million votes, no way. i said, if i hear that one more time, i am going to scream. what i am not understanding is why they are not understanding that joe biden was not in the race by himself. for the first time in the history of this country, we had a race with a black woman on the vice presidential ballot.

so, no, joe biden did not get 81 million votes by himself. if i were to try to calculate the votes, and i cannot do it off the top of my head, i would say those votes went to kamala, though biden, and then there were republicans that turned and voted for joe biden because i could no longer take trump. so stop saying no way joe biden got 81 million votes. no, he didn't, not by himself. host: staying in mississippi, this is ben, independent. caller: good morning. i have confidence in the elections because -- well, i got my confidence in 2008 when obama won.

i have been an independent since bush-gore, because i did not like the way i was a democrat, did not like the way that election went and the democrats did not fight back. on the laws that the republicans are changing in these states were trump lost, they got it right on it should be states, but it should be bipartisan in the states. it should not be just republicans, should be bipartisan. and i have no problem with id. that is not what the democrats are arguing about. it is not the id. it is the other stuff that they are putting in there. i think y'all need to put that out there. host: here is chuck schumer, majority leader in the senate, making some of the arguments were democrats on the various voting bills. chuck schumer from earlier this week.

[video clip] >> republican state legislatures are promoting this like to justify disenfranchising legitimate voters. and the violence that we saw on january 6 was seen throughout the country by the same types of people, local legislators, local election officials are being threatened. some have police guards, simply because they stand for counting -- making a legitimate count of the votes. and people want to threaten them away from doing that because trump wants to threaten people away from believing the election results. so if we do not act now, my belief is the big lie will threaten the very future of our republic. and if you have any doubt where donald trump wants this country to go, look at who he endorsed yesterday, orban, a dictator

infringing on democracy in hungary. that is where this country will head if we do not take action and prevent what is happening throughout the legislatures. as i said yesterday, if republicans continue to hijack the rules of the chamber to prevent action on something as could cool as protecting our democracy, then the senate will debate and consider changes to the rules on or before january 17, martin luther king day. host: senate majority leader chuck schumer from tuesday this week. our question for you, do you have faith in the u.s. electoral system? bill in florida, republican. caller: well, i would have more faith if they took -- you know, the states with the balloting that were male and and they said it were good -- that had the mail and the balloting and set it were good, they claim they

got rid of the people that were dead and those were not supposed to vote, that is why they had male in -- mail-in voting. in 2022, that is when the firestorm will hit, because you will have to come up with 7 million more votes on the democrats. the states okaying this balloting, saying it was good, they will have to come up with some extra votes. i tell you what, those 160 people that swore under oath, under perjury, that's where they saw bad things happening in the last voting election, i do not believe the supreme court had enough guts to stand up, because they said if they did so, democrats would riot. host: a call from west chester, ohio, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. in the state of ohio, we had three weeks of early voting

in-person seven days a week. you had an absentee ballot, and it is very important when we talk about a mail-in ballot, to make a difference between an absentee ballot and a main-in ballot -- mail-in ballot. and when i go into vote, there was a republican and a democrat sitting at the table. i showed my id, and they're cordial and positive, and they say she is the person on her id, and i vote, and about in the person. it is very important that we not have mass mailed ballots, as the person in michigan indicated. what is so odd about ohio, and stay with me on this for just a minute, is that trump lost the primary to kasich, we have 30 strong democratic cities in ohio. cleveland, cincinnati, and

toledo. yet, trump won the state of ohio in this last election by eight points, a huge margin in a swing state. what we do not have and what we should have had is a method, a mass mailed ballot is a new method of voting. we should have had an id go with that ballot for the audit. host: on the primary system in ohio, forgive me for not knowing, can only republicans vote, registered republicans voted in the republican primary and only registered democrats vote in the democratic primary? or is it the open system where you can pick what primary to vote in? caller: it is an open system, you can pick. host: so you want to change that? caller: no, i don't want to change that. i think ohio has it right. they are a swing state. here is the other thing, after the end of the election when there was so much confusion, the

other thing they should have done, from a statistical standpoint, is take a statistical sampling of the counties that they had and explain to the american people how many republicans voted down ballot and left the top of the ticket either blank or chose biden. remember the lincoln project? there were active republicans, and kasich was one of them, who wanted down ballot republicans but did not want trump. that would tell the american people, in this county, x- percentage of these ballots. i have been a scientist all my life, and i cannot get over the lack of mass and understanding in this election process. 3113 counties in the united states, and seven cities in our nation have an -- enough density of population to elect the president. show that map of how many counties went for trump and how many went for biden.

people would go, how did he ever win the presidency? host: eve in grand rapids, michigan, good morning. caller: good morning, brian. host: brian is down in his office down the way, but i will tell him. caller: ok, i am sorry. good morning, c-span. my problem is during the voting period here in grand rapids, they sent out ballots to the people that -- they sent ballots to -- quite a few ballots here, but i filled out a ballot, and for some reason, i lost the ballot and could not find it. and i end up going down to the statehouse and down to the office in order to vote, and i went there to vote and told the people that was there, and they looked up my name and everything

it took me off the list for the mail-in ballot, and i voted then. and i must say, it is a safer way for people to vote and a good way for people to vote by ballot. because after i went there and voted, i end up with the covid. and that is because i went among all those people and stood in line, and i end up getting the covid and almost lost my life. so with all the people that are saying that the mail-in ballots are not valid, that is not so. because those people that was there, they checked my name off of that list and put me on the in-person voting. for all the people that think because they were sending all the ballots out and when was sent to my daughter also -- host: so pray to god we are past

covid in 2024, should the mail-in system still be as expensive as it was in 2020? caller: i think everybody should be given a choice whether they want to vote by ballot or if they want to go in person. that includes the people that are sick, the people with frail health or whatever. they should be given a choice whether they want to vote by ballot or they end up not voting at all. host: tony out of waterbury, connecticut, good morning. caller: boy, we got a lot of snow. the weather forecasters blew it, i was supposed to wake up with three inches, i got eight inches. they still get to keep their job. host: should have seen d.c. on monday, came as a bit of surprise for folks, and we got a few more inches last night. i imagine it is a lot more for you. caller: it is.

this whole area. good morning. i missed the first 15 minutes, but i watch you guys daily. in 2020, when the covid and everything was becoming big and they were talking about mail-in voting, not absentee, mail-in voting, you guys had on the attorney general from the state of washington, one of the five or six states in the country that do mail-in voting and do it successfully. he was asked, how is it that the state of washington does it successfully? his answer to you, and i really wish i got on earlier because you could play this, his answer was, it took five years to clean the voting rolls, five years. what does this country do? they do it all in one time. was there a concerted effort to

throw the election? i do not think so. but what i do think is like you hear stuff on the news all the time, how is it that all these states can use the same exact adjectives and stuff? kind of crazy. the other thing i don't know if you guys talked about was the ballot harvesting. we are very rural here, but we have a few major cities that every election for governor make the election, the ones that determine it. one of the things we do is we have people come in, they go and they get the ballots. they have people come in and say, you want to lose your benefits, you want to vote, vote for republican, so they vote democrat. so they help these people that do not know what they are doing and they tell them this is who you should vote for. it is not right. california, i think it was los angeles, has more people eligible to vote then are

actually counted in the city. does not make sense to me. host: just to point c-span viewers to that, was it about ferguson that you are talking about, the ag in washington? caller: yes, it was. you had him on, interviewed him. you only have five or six things that do it and his answer to that, because they did that, was they successfully cleaned up their voting rolls. we opened the whole country to it. come on. to anybody, that does not make sense. host: i only have about 30 seconds. guest: we are an electoral system because the smaller states have as much rights as the larger states, and they should not be overpowered. that's our country, we are a

republic. you have a nice day. host: tony in connecticut, hope this note is not too bad for you. last caller. but plenty more to talk about. in two hours, the supreme court will hear cases challenging the biden administration's vaccine mandates. we'll take on that issue in our next hour with daniel suhr of the liberty justice center and wendy parmet, from northeastern university. stick around for that discussion. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪

♪ announcer: book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 9:00 p.m. eastern, the executive director charles love discusses his book. it's on the progressive racism movement. and then law professors discuss their book about the post-civil

war change on the constitution, innervated by john wick. watch every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule of your program guide or watch online a book tv.org. >> what is your question or comment for rush, that is how james goldman, or vose are nearly -- bo sneeringly, would greet callers. mr. goldie has written a book about his time as call screener, show observer and producer of one of the most popular radio talk shows during the past 30 years. rush limbaugh died in 2021. in his book, which he says is a tribute to his former boss and friend, he writes about his love of radio and how the limbaugh program came together behind the scenes. announcer: on this episode of

book notes plus. book notes plus is available on the c-span now app, or wherever you get your podcast. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: in under two hours going the supreme court will hear arguments in cases stemming from the administration's vaccine mandate, so we are focusing on those cases, previewing them for you. for that discussion, we are joined by wendy parmet, from the northeastern university law school center for health policy and law. and daniel suhr from liberty justice center. explain the legal questions at play here. guest:guest: today's cases are really important, an exposition of the scope of federal government power and what it means in our lives. there are two cases today. the first deals with osha.

that agency was one of several that announced a nationwide vaccine mandate that affects about 84 million of workers across the country who are employed by businesses with over 100 employees. it requires them to either vaccinate or pay for testing against covid-19. the challengers are a group of businesses and states, arguing that goes beyond the powers that congress has given to osha. and a vaccine mandate specific to health care workers. the issues are the cms statute authorized this vaccine policymaking, and two, does the constitution authorized this sort of national policy exercise

by the president and administrative agencies, or do these decisions belong to the states and individuals? host: i know you have been on the program before, remind viewers what the liberty justice center is and your relationship to the cases being argued. guest: it is a nonprofit, nonpartisan law firm. we do not take money from the government, but we represent everyday americans in cases that defend free speech and other constitutional rights. one of those is the right to run your business without government interference. there's a man named brandon, who is a small business owner and he runs grocery stores in louisiana. he is subject to this mandate. brandon was the case we won at the fifth circuit, initially, that put the nationwide pause on this vaccine mandate several weeks ago. and kind of laid the foundation,

legally, for the case the court will be hearing today. host: wendy, there is an op-ed in the new york times today, the vaccine mandates must remain intact. the author is you. what is the case? guest: good morning. thanks for having me. i agree that one of the questions of the court is the scope of authority, and it really is a question about -- it's not just about the mandate. it's really about whether we are going to continue to have, um, the federal government using its constitutional power so we can drill down into why there's a constitutional unknown that to protect -- annulment to protect

those who have health care, the medicare and medicaid workers. these are questions of federal government, areas of the federal government has been involved in for decades and decades. we usually consider it a political question, should we have medicare and medicaid? should medicare be able to regulate -- that we people are as taxpayers? these are questions that are political, they are policy questions, and now the court is saying, we want a small government. we do not want the federal government to be involved in protecting people. so, that's the question in this case, it is the future of the federal government's capacity to protect the health of americans

in pandemics, but also in natural disasters and other crises. host: viewers can see that you served as the director of the senate for health care and law -- center for health care and law at northwestern university. tell us what you do there. guest: we are the school of law and we do research and run projects that relate to public health laws that say -- looking at public health issues, but also access issues, voluntary care service, we sponsor research and provide services for students. and we lead academics related to the issues. host: the phone lines are open. we have an hour. democrats, -- i should say,

employees can call 202-748-8000. employers, 202-748-8001. health care workers, 202-748-8002. and everyone else at 202-748-8003. we want to hear your stories, how this has impacted you, if it has impacted you. daniel, to the arguments that wendy lays out, if the supreme court decides against the administration, does it make it harder to protect public health in the future? guest: it returns the question of public health back to the authorities that the constitution designed the questions to be answered by. the professor is correct that one of the questions in this case is you should be making these important policy decisions. and we saw in the eviction mandate case earlier this year a very strong statement from the court that it is the responsibility of congress to

make these major, legislative policy decisions. we rely on executive agencies to execute those decisions, but it is congress that the constitution and the people vote for an empowered tod make the major policy decisions affecting our everyday lives. the constitution also has an important principle of federalism, but is the states that are closest to the people, they make the decisions that affect our everyday lives. we call it the police power in the law. one aspect of that is public health. there is a reason that governors and mayors have been issuing the orders we have seen over the course of the past two years, that is because that is where the focus really lies. the important questions before the court today are not only -- in fact my they are not even primarily about whether vaccines are a good idea, it is a question of where the authority lies, and it should these

decisions be made by our elected policymakers in congress and by states and localities closer to the people. host: why not leave this to the states and localities, why did this come from osha and cms? guest: sure. you know, he is right, most locales -- most the authority has been left to the states. but the u.s. has recognized that there are some issues that states cannot do on their own. they are interstate in nature, light pollution from new jersey going to new york. -- like pollution from new jersey going to new york. one virus from florida goes to georgia. there are lots of issues states

cannot, by themselves, handle. it affects the other states, the overall economy and well-being of the public, and we recognize in our constitution that although the states have power, congress has power over interstate commerce. and that has been recognized for a very long time. it's easy to say the question is whether decision-making goes to the state or federal government, but i would argue the opponents are really saying the decisions get to be made, on who decides, is made by the court. that's problematic. for much of our history, the courts have been differential in these policy matters, and certainly about whether something exceeds the scope of the commerce clause. or the spending power, which is

what the cms -- they are ending the money. and they, since the beginning of the medicare program, have put many conditions, including those related to -- control, on the receiving of federal money. imagine the outcry of the federal government was paying for nursing homes that were killing people. we have always expected if you get federal money, you have got to provide the services. and suddenly we are being told that this is too far and it should be left to the states. but it cannot all be left to the states, because it is about federal money and interstate commerce. this is about the federal government, elected branches, making those decisions. the last thing i want to say is some of the opponents of these mandates have said federalism,

it is up to the states. but many of these people are challenging the state mandates, too. what they are searching for is the federal judiciary, to make the decision not the elected -- to make the decision, not the elected branches. host: we will find out more about whether supreme court justices want to know about the issue in about one hour and 45 minutes. so, stick with us after our show if you want to watch and hear those arguments live. it will being the national federation of independent business v. department of labor, that is the workplace vaccine rule that is at issue. one of those cases issued on november 4 by osha, impacting 80 million workers or so nationwide. the other case, biden v. missouri, is another set of

consolidated cases with the health care worker vaccine rule issued on the same day, november 4, that one by cms applying to about 17 million health care workers. it's our topic of discussion here. we we already have calls. kenneth out of albany, kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. how y'all doing today? host: we are doing well. what is your question or comment? caller: i am a 69-year-old veteran, united states veteran. and in a way, i took -- uh, moderna -- the moderna vaccine. so, in a way, the second dose and in approximately 7-10 days i got really bad sick.

and it took me almost eight and a half weeks to get over that. host: i am sorry about that. what are your thoughts on the idea if you are in charge of a company with 100 or more employees, you have to have a mandate for the vaccine for your employees? caller: yes, sir. if the vaccine affected me in this bad, and i'm 69 years old, and anyway, the deal is -- what if somebody is a young man, it might end up harming them before they get my age. and i do not think people have the right to say, hey, you have to do this just to be working. host: daniel? guest: thank you for not just calling in, the thank you for your service.

you highlight an important point, all of our bodies react differently to the medical conditions we experience. one of the problems with this mandate is it is a one-size-fits-all, national policy that forces people into this impossible choice between their job and accepting a vaccine they may not want. they may not want it for religious reasons, for health reasons, or they may have personal or philosophical reasons. your story illustrates this brought a reality that each of us is different and we need flexibility to make medical decisions in consultation with our doctor, not as the result of a mandate. host: you talked about the authority lies on the state level. if there was a statewide mandate , would it not also force that impossible choice you are talking about and have those

same issues, but on a state level? guest: i think it would. one issue not before the court today is a lot of these important questions around individual medical freedoms. there have been cases over the course of the past several decades in the area of assisted suicide or reproductive rights, where the court has laid out a series of decisions recognizing individuals and their economy to make medical choices. i think some of those decisions are wrong, but that is where the law is today. we have yet to see a good decision in this vaccine context, recognizing those statutes in relation to this instance. the government should have a higher burden to prove the necessity of something when it involves deeply personal questions around individual medical freedom. host: wendy? guest: thank you for your

service and your call. the osha rule is not a mandate. itself -- mandate itself. it has a testing option and it includes religious and medical exemptions. if you are in consultation with your doctor and your doctor says this is not going to be safe for you, you should be able to get an exception. if you have a religious objection, you should be able to get one. in terms of -- i'm glad daniel said this is about liberty and the sense of what i can do with my own body, as opposed to the issue before the court, which is supposed to be about the scope of government authority. it's important the two do not

get commingled. but if the court of the united states had been upholding -- but the court of the u.s. has been upholding similar -- since the 19th century. it's repeatedly, um, held up these decisions in the years since. it is true that we value individual decision-making and autonomy, but we also recognize that individuals do not have the right that two things that create harm for others. vaccines and communicable diseases are a social problem, if the problem is contagion. the problem is my disease threatens you. i threatenst -- it threatens to

collapse the hospital you might need if you have a heart attack. what we are each doing now, we cannot think about this. the problem is we are thinking about all of this in terms of what is good for me, but we are living together and breathing on one another and infecting one another and collapsing one another's hospitals. so, since the middle of the 19th century, courts have recognized that vaccine mandates are reasonable measures to protect the public. there's lots of things we do -- we have always said, i may like to drive 80 miles per hour, but i cannot do it for good reason, even though i really care about it, i cannot do it because i could endanger others. there's some things we have to limit on ou autonomyr. they need to be carefully

thought through, they need to be reasonable. opportunities for medical exemptions, that was indicated in 1905 by the supreme court. but we cannot just say, i get to choose what i get to do even though it endangers you, because we cannot function in society that way. host: mike on the line for employees. good morning. caller: thank you for the opportunity to comment and question. a comment, as an employee i like the mandate because it protects people feast on generally accepted medical standards -- based on generally accepted medical standards. but that leads me to this question. if stotus overturns the vaccine mandate, what would be the impact on other existing public-health mandates, such as for public schoolchildren

getting vaccinated or for people even getting married, being required to get a blood test? is it against the constitution, against individuals' rights that they get a blood test before they get married? host: wendy parmet. guest: and potentially depends on other things, what the court rules and how it rules. the court, i hope it uploads at the mandates, but the court could overturn them narrowly, for example on procedural grounds. or it could make broader arguments about the scope of authority and liberty that we are hearing. if it does that, i think it absolutely -- i think that decision absolutely would -- i'm trying to say it creates an invitation to begin to contest

lots of laws and accepted measures. other osha laws, other cms laws. why should nursing home employees have to be trained on infections. and you mentioned marriage testing. what about tuberculosis testing for jobs? what about school mandates, the laws requiring children to have the polio vaccine? i could go on for a long time and list all of the measures. that will be challenged. it's not -- let me add, it is not just the federal measures. if the court uses the kind of reasoning daniel is arguing, and we have seen it in some of the lower court opinions, suggesting the liberty interests here are

so pressing that the court needs to read federal authority narrowly, those will be picked up to challenge estate measures. we may see an unraveling of all the health and safety laws, or at least contestation about things that have kept americans save for well over 100 years. host: the slippery slope argument, daniel suhr. guest: i think it cuts in a different direction. to say, if osha can do this, what can't they do? you can imagine a future president saying, if there is workplace violence as a real problem, even if you have a concealed carry permit authorized by your stick motion will have a rule saying no firearms -- by your state, osha will say no firearms in the workplace. or all companies misuse electric cars because -- must use

electric cars because of climate change. osha can do so many things to companies and our overall economy if we open the door from thse narrow -- these narrow powers that osha currently has, that has to be tied to a specific hazard in the workplace related to your occupation. if instead we say that osha has the power to combat bad things that might be dangerous, that you might encounter in the workplace generally, that's a massive expansion of osha's power. the same is true in the cms context. if a court of mandate like this, there is no aspect of our health care system that the federal government cannot control and regulate. i think we saw a few years ago in a case, the obamacare case, the court was not willing to go there. they wanted to draw a that said, the federal government cannot

use medicaid and medicare spending as an excuse to control all aspects of our health care and our economy. i think that same principle will hold true today. host: simi valley, california. we have charlie on the line for health care workers. caller: good morning. mr. suhr, i believe you are correct. there is a lot of things that have already let up to where we are today with presidents, thin gs that are happening. but the lady was speaking about for the good of community, you know, the way that the vaccine has been rolled out has been confusing, at best. i'm in the medical field. i'm holding off for a vaccine. this is not even a vaccine.

it doesn't fit the definition of a vaccine. it's been rolled out too quickly. host: what has your employer told you about your vaccination status? is your job on the line? caller: i am out of work right now. and i just had become a medical assistant and was working when covid had come, and due to circumstances where i left that job -- no, i am not an employee, but anybody i try to apply for is going to, especially in the medical field -- unless things change down the road where they are hiring back people that they have fired or have not, you know, they will take somebody because they need the people.

host: before we go, on your vaccination status, what are you waiting for? what will make you feel like it is safe? caller: a vaccine? host: yes. caller: a vaccine, something like the -- novavak is a little closer. they have done the traditional testing. they have done the traditional meetings with coming up with a vaccine, and sometimes that takes 5-10 years. i've heard of too many problems with this. and i do not know what will happen in five years, nobody does. host: charlie in california. daniel? guest: good, thank you for calling and i wish you the best in trying to find that next employment opportunity. you highlighted important points. the first is the science here. the supreme court is not a scientific body. i'm not here to argue the

science, but it goes to this important question of what the government's interest is. especially given the new variant and how we know transmission works, there is a great -- in this case filed by professors, laying out the science around the new variant. one of the things we know is it doesn't necessarily stop with the vaccine. so the government's interest changes when the vaccine mandate doesn't have the effects that osha is hoping it has. the second thing you mentioned is precedent. we need to focus on where the law is today. the most important precedent is with the court decided earlier around the eviction moratorium, where the cdc, you may remember, trying to say that we will have a nationwide rental eviction moratorium as part of the

government's efforts to stop this bit of covid. the court heard that case twice, actually. the first time justice kavanaugh reminded the biden ministration, you have to go to congress to have this kind of power. the demonstration decided to do it anyway and it went back to the court and at court delivered a strong opinion that's on point for the cases today, saying these are the important decisions left to congress and the states. i think that is the president -- precedent the lawyers need to be prepared to deal with today, because it is in onpoint consideration by the court, and i think they reached the right decision there and i am hoping that they reach the right decision today. host: on precedent, these mandates were issued in november and at this is happening kind about warp speed to come before the court for arguments. can you take us through what has

happened since november 4, specifically on the workplace mandate and health care worker mandate, wendy? guest: there have been lots of cases filed. and we really do have a lot of decisions on the workplace case. the fifth circuit stated the regulation, but there were so many cases filed about this and that it did go through the multidistrict litigation process. the sixth circuit won the lottery and issued its decision. now we have a decision between the fifth and sixth circuit. and decisions also from lower courts. in terms of the cms rule, the

11th circuit issued a decision on withholding the mandate, while the lower courts have -- it. and the fifth circuit allowed states to continue, but only in particular states. so we are getting a mixed set of messages from the lower courts. that's a reason why the supreme court, it makes no sense to have different decisions and one of the cases we have seen is the biden administration that asked the supreme court to decide. in the other case, the osha case, it was the challengers. so we have a mixed sense of decisions going on. host: a question on twitter for daniel suhr, and you addressed

it last time on the program. can you discuss your vaccination status? guest: yes, good morning. i will take the opportunity to know if you want to follow me on twitter it is @daniel suhr. i'm vaccinated. i'm grateful for what medical science has been able to achieve, so the decision my wife and i made is we chose to be vaccinated. and i think that that is a tribute to a lot of people in these companies, in our economy, that have made that possible. i think that does not change the fact i respect the right of other people to make a different decision. that's one of the things that has always been true of our country, we respect the right of people who disagree with us to disagree with us about politics, to who to root for in sports. that is the core of who we are as americans.

and this is one of those issues were given the state of our society and estate of the information we have to make these decisions with, rather than seeing our boss or a bureaucrat make these decisions for us -- it's the sort of thing we should be able to make for ourselves. host: we have the line for employers and jorge is on that line. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: what is your question? caller: i have a plant in northern iowa. my issue is i have to test my employees that do not want to get vaccinated, correct? guest: that would be the lot of the supreme court does not strike it down. caller: exactly. and the law does not state my employees have to pay for their testing, weekly. right now, the number i have is a million dollars a week that i will have to pay for my employees to get tested. do you think the senate, if we

could propose those numbers, would still follow that line -- that we should pay out-of-pocket? no. the last caller's point, the reason why people are waiting is because there's not a live virus in those shots, that is why have the world is saying, look, everybody is getting covid. we are getting new strains because the shots are not working. host: before you go, can you see what kind of plant it is? caller: it is a pharma plant. host: on the $1 million cost, about how many employees would you have to test or how many have decided not to take the shot? caller: well, right now i am looking at over half of my employees who refused to get the shot, therefore i would have to test them weekly and it will cost me $1 million.

host: wendy? guest: i see your question. i can't speak to the exact numbers. i'm sure you are accurate. again, the mandate here being challenged is giving the employer the option to require vaccines or do the testing. there's also options for exemptions. but regulations can be expensive. they are nationwide, federal regulations are nationwide. they are different from state regulations. but regulations, no doubt, can be expensive. but covid expenses -- people are incurring enormous costs

because of the pandemic. there's social costs. we're hearing you are in trouble if you have to go to the emergency room because you are having a heart attack, because there is no room at the inn. we need to figure out, as a society, how to reduce the costs. so, you know, i think probably we may well need more -- we've seen substantial support for businesses and if the surge continues, we may need more. but these are policy issues. governments pass laws people do not like. governments pass laws regulating pollution, saying you have to have seatbelts in your car. these are costly, especially

when they are new. but these are policy decisions, they should not be judicial decisions. we have gone to a bad place in this country where we continually want to reverse policy decisions. and it is just happening to frequently. -- too frequently, and by both sides. we cannot function, in terms of our physical health and/or political health, as a country where every new regulation is challenged and it depends on a 5-4 or 5-3 vote. that's not how you run a country. host: let me give you another employer from texas. caller: good morning. first of all, i am a disabled veteran and i have nurses who

come periodically. i do everything within my power to stay free of covid-19. so to invite somebody into my home or go to the v.a. to get services rendered with somebody who does not have the vaccine is not fair. the air you breathe, we are subject to it. it's not fair to bring the covid to me. host: you are employing these nurses that aid you? got you. daniel suhr? guest: thank you for your service. i think we have gotten a lot of information over the years about how this virus spreads and if are practical steps we can take to protect ourselves, and to protect one another. if there are incidences where people are in the marketplace

and they want to insist that somebody they interact with is vaccinated, i think that that is probably the right, just as much as we need to respect individuals' rights to make these choices. we need to also respect consumer rights. but we also have to respect the rights of employers to run their businesses as they want. and we have to let employees make choices for themselves, if employers want to let them make them for themselves. the story of jorge illustrates one of the problems about the vaccine mandate, which is it's a vaccine and testing mandate that osha has put forward. when you talk about what employers will be imposing on their employees, it's a financial lever of hundreds of dollars potentially every week, sometimes exceeding the value of what you will learn in your job,

which is forcing people towards vaccination. so, the biden administration, even the courts today may say that this is a test mandate, but there is no doubt in the way that the rule was designed directing employers towards pushing the burden onto employees. and it is a big burden. the point of that is to financially force people into vaccination. host: again, and about one hour and 15 minutes, the supreme court will hear these two sets of cases and you can listen to the live oral arguments here on c-span. that's where we will go after this program. officially, it is the national federation of independent business v. department of labor. that's the employer mandate case. the other one, the health care worker case, biden v. missouri. those will be the other cases.

wendy, a preview of what you're going to be looking for when it comes to the arguments made by the justices? any tea leaves that can be read? and what should we know about those making the arguments? guest: it is always dangerous to read tea leaves. [laughter] when you are in this business, you know. you cannot quite no. but what i will be -- know . but what i will be looking for, first of all, what are we hearing from the chief justices there. justice kavanaugh, justice alito, justice thomas -- they have not found any covid measures they would oppose, state or federal, and -- with

some strong and angry language, conversely justice sotomayor and justice breyer have been in general, i think we know where they are. so there's roberts, kavanaugh and barrett, all three who have expressed some concern about the role of the courts. particularly brett kavanaugh and justice barrett have in fact a booted with the other conservative justices -- have rebooted with the other conservative justices. -- vote withd the other conservative justices. and i will also be looking at how they handle these different pieces. we have not spoken on the legal issues, but in-depth -- issues

in depth, but there are reasons to believe this ems case is probably the stronger case for the biden administration. first of all, health care and health care workers -- they need to take vaccines. in response to the last comment, if i am having a heart attack, i am not a consumer, i cannot ask the nurse who is putting in the iv, have you had a vaccine? there is no consumer sovereignty for patients in hospitals and in nursing homes. so, the reason for the vaccine is stronger. health care workers give up their economy in all kinds of ways to be health care workers. but it is also spending power regulation. the federal government has always had this authority and cms's power to regulate for the health and safety of patients is

pretty explicit. so i think we might see, if there is going to be a split here, we might look to see whether particularly roberts and cavanaugh and barrett are seeing these two cases differently. host: daniel, your pregame analysis? guest: the professor is actually right in the way that she described it in that the cases are different because the statutes are different. one thing we need to keep in mind is pay close attention to the words of the statute. the two actually operate at different ends of the same spectrum, and in both ways that are problematic for the administration. the osha statute sets a series of standards that are high. it has to be in emergency, it has to be necessary and it has to be a new hazard. it has to be related to

occupation. there's statutory standards that the biden administration has to check through and that has to win every single one of them to justify an emergency standard. at the other end, you have the cms statute that says the secretary can do whatever they want them around the program as you think best. congress has given him a lot of guidance to the agency and the osha context and has a set a high standard for them to meet, but in the other instance congress has given up its power to legislate and it has turned it over to the agency, and that is equally problematic because we do not elect the secretary of health and human services. when we elect the president, we elect the president to execute the law and it is the job of congress to write the law. when congress delegates these massive swaths of power over to these agencies, which then exercise them, in this instance

without going through rulemaking, that creates a concern on the part of the court that these are unelected bureaucrats wilting vast amounts of power without democratic accountability. and that is really congress's job to write laws with specificity is that agencies can execute on. congress has failed to do that here. host: anything about those arguing the cases that viewers should know about? guest: both of the lawyers challenging the osha mandate have worked for justice scalia. this is a case that justice scalia would've loved. it's about the core concepts so central to his legacy is one of the great justices of our time. the first is close attention to the words of the statute, we'll focus on the text of what was written here. and lawyers on both sides have done a good job focusing on the

text of the statutes. the second thing that justice scalia always drew our attention to is the constitution divides power between the different branches, and between the federal government and states and the people. and that division of power is really the genius of the american system, that we do not concentrate it all on one individual or one person, that we separated to create checks and balances that protect our liberties. so those are the concepts that will be at the core here. they are concepts justice scalia gave us as his legacy and the fact that two of his law clerks will be arguing today -- host: is that scott keller, he is one of those? guest: he clerked for justice kennedy. penn flowers for the -- ben

flowers for the state of ohio was a justice scalia clerk. host: and we have brian fletcher will be the principal deputy solicitor general. what are you watching from these folks making the arguments on behalf of the biden administration, wendy parmet? guest: i think that the briefs are very strong. i'm looking to see whether they are able to clearly explain why these measures are in the statutes. and why they are not in any way different, legally, from other measures. and how the court goes where the challengers are asking them to go, how it would open up the doors where, you know, daniel

said the cms regulation is broad , and he does not think congress should pass broad regulations. but our entire health care system is predicated on these regulations. that may not be good or bad. but i think they need to explain how there is no really clear way of distinguishing -- yeah, it is a slippery slope, but it is really questioning, um, how much -- how intrusive do we want to the courts to be in our lives? how many policy decisions should go before the court? is every policy decision going to be a federal case now? you know, in a pandemic will we tie the government's hands? if omicro had turned out ton --

omicron had be three times more lethal, are we tie in the government's -- tying the government's hands? there have been so many laws, pollution laws, health care laws that people do not notice or take for granted and they have helped keep us safe. will we start rolling them back and doing so not because of political debate about them, but because judges think we should not do them? host: we have 10 minutes left and plenty of calls. kathy in montgomery, texas. caller: good morning. daniel, you are a very sensible man. i hope the supreme court strikes the mandates down. biden could not force us to put

something into our bodies that we do not want, especially knowing that the vaccinated are still getting sick. this is communist control in my view. host: nelson out of hollywood, florida. good morning on the line for health-care workers. caller: good morning. i agree with the previous caller. mr. suhr, you are correct. ms. parmet, the purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of the federal government, not to give it a never ending power. the president is not the dictator of the united states. he has no right or authority to be giving out presidential mandates because he can. i hope the supreme court rules in favor of mr. suhr's side.

host: on the line for employers, john at staten island. john, are you with us? you have to turn your tv down. it really helps with the conversation. now on the line for employees, caller from michigan. caller: good morning. ms. parmet, there is a disconnect between proof and conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine. there has not been any concrete evidence, or data, made available to the public that supports the effectiveness of the vaccine. additionally, you stated that humans do not have the right to create harm to other humans, yet humans create vaccines that have adverse effects on humans.

do you not defined that is harm? -- define that as harm? guest: i do not want to debate the efficacy of the vaccine. um, there's enormous evidence about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. we know medical organizations have supported these mandates. obviously, there is a group of people that feel the vaccine is not safe. i disagree. and i think people will be -- of scientific studies and medical experts that these vaccines are effective in preventing significant disease, right? and that they render people less infectious.

it's clear with omicron that we have gotten fewer infections. people can be infectious, but the evidence is showing that they are infectious for a shorter amount of time. and the time transmission, giving into others has been reduced. but i understand people feel differently. the question again is is that he debate for the supreme court? i do not think we will hear the court say the vaccines are not safe or effective. host: melanie and lake charles, louisiana. good morning. caller: hi. i have a question for the professor. i wonder if she is aware of the adverse reactions -- the injury

for the -- uh, for the people who are injured with the mrna vaccine and johnson & johnson vaccine. there are over one million people who have been injured. and also over 20,000 people who have died from the vaccines. host: wendy parmet, you talked about the efficacy question, but you want to respond? guest: i will talk about it. there's an open system where anybody can report anything. it's not about science, it's not about causation. i could be vaccinated on monday, i could be in a car accident on tuesday because somebody ran a red light and i could say it was

a vaccine related injury. the system is useful and important because it provides researchers with data that they can mine and study to see if there are trends. bu thet fact that people are vaccinated on monday and diane tuesday because they fall -- die tuesday because they'll follow down the steps, does not mean the vaccine caused the injury. anybody can put anything. i can be against vaccines and i can put into the system that they have injured me, even if they haven't. of course there are vaccine related injuries. nothing is safe. i could take ibuprofen in the morning, there are risks. everything has risks. covid hasn't much more significant risks. -- ha much more significant riskss.

so, no one is saying that the vaccine is a hundred percent safe, but nothing is 100% safe. it is important to understand that the data is not data of causation. host: a twitter question noting from the military, what are your thoughts are vaccine mandates for the military to maintain readiness and national security? guest: an important question, and one through our court system. certainly, when you sign up for the military, on the one hand, you give up constitutional rights. we are asking you to do this for a service to our nation, and you're volunteering for it. courts have recognized that there is some sacrifice of your own liberty and that decision.

at the same time, courts also recognize that members of our military are protected by the constitution, and they project for us. and decisions run religious liberty, courts have said something like a haircut might be part of a uniform code. it needs to accommodate a person of faith who might have a religious attachment to a particular hairstyle. they recognize the important constitutional protections that still apply to members of the military. in a vexing context, there are several cases, particularly in florida and texas, where we are seeing members of the military not respecting the religious military. there is a sham policy that says that there is the possibility of exemption, but in reality, it denies every exemption, every time. there are two federal judges

looking at that two are extremely concerned about the biden pentagon policy on this. those decisions need to be respected and a reminder that the military, as much as any other institution, in our society, they need to respect the rights of our members. including religious liberty and the right to make choices. host: we are just passed our time. we will do one more call. matthew in california has been waiting for a while. caller: good morning. i would like to say about short-term and long-term consequences of vaccine. you don't know anything about the long-term effect of this vaccine. just a week ago, employees had to rush to the hospital. a 19-year-old. he had a blood clot on his right arm. moreover, what is even more

important, i believe, is that vaccinated people and unvaccinated people, they both have the virus. nobody says -- what should they do? should they go home and do nothing, and hope it goes away, [indiscernible] medicine? host: a chance to get your final thoughts in. we began with daniel, so let's get wendy with the last thought. guest: thank you for having me on the program and thank you everyone who has been on. thank you to the last few callers, and the friends who i think agree on what is so important.

what is reflected across our society, broadly. this is a country built on liberty and freedom and a government that keeps us safe, but respects the boundaries of its power. the question before the court today really comes down to those fundamental american principles. we are a government of limited and enumerated powers, and it is the job of our policymakers and congress to make important national policy decisions, not unlike bureaucrats. ultimately, these are decisions made by the american people. by the states and localities that are closest to the people. those of the constitutional principles that the court should be focused on today. i think it will ultimately lead to the right resolution in this case. host: wendy? guest: thank you for having me. it has been a real pleasure talking to the callers. talking to you. and daniel, i really appreciate the opportunity. it is very important.

these are important cases. this is a country founded on protecting one another. we have long had, back to the founding era, longed to protect each other during health crises. it is a well precedented scope of government for a very long time. supreme court really gave extraordinary deference to helping, and that is part of our tradition. we need to remember that. ultimately, i think we all agree that this should be a question for elected roads presented us

-- representatives and the put a cold body. my concern is that more and more, we are trying to turn policy questions, important policy questions, questions real debate, into judicial questions. in easing the statues, the question is really, do the courts say, ok. it is possible, it is strong, but the statute stands. congress decides to give power. set the end of the case? i believe, we believe, limited government, we don't like vaccines are mandates, so we are going to stop them from having that power because we have to understand that we cannot function with the level of health protection that americans are taking for granted over the decades and centuries. the answer is that congress

itself, which we know can barely do anything these days has to enact a statute in each and every regulation. there is a reason why we have initiated regulations, and we wind back the clock to pre-regulatory states which never really existed in the way of those who claimed it did. it will lead to a much more healthy world for all of us. >> the director of the center for health policy law at northeastern university law school. daniel is from the justice center. we appreciate both of your time to stay past to talk to the callers. guest: thank you. host: in 60 minutes or so, before we take you to the supreme court to hear the arguments in that case, those cases we just talked about, we

are going to have some time for open forum, were we let you lead the discussion. among the topics we will talk about in the open forum, the december jobs report that just came out about 40 minutes ago. 199 thousand jobs added in the country on december. that is down a bit from the 249,000 that were added back in november. the job and unemployment rate fell to 3.9%. those are the numbers being reported. we will talk about them, and any other policy or political or state issue that you want to talk about in our open forum. call in now. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 748-8002. we will get the calls after the break. ♪

>> american history tv. saturday on c-span two. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 8:45 a.m. eastern, scholars discuss the history of the may flower compact, a set of rules for self flower -- self-government. develops shortly before arrival in north america in 1620, and the lessons that can be learned from that. and at 2:00, the loyalists. it recounts the struggle between woodrow wilson and senate majority leader henry cabot lodge. about the 1919 treaty which ended world war i and created the league of nations. exploring the american story, and watch american history tv. saturday, c-span2. find the full schedule on the program guide, or watch online, anytime. c-span.org/history.

>> events and people that inform our past. american history tv. book tv brings the latest on nonfiction books and authors. is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: it's our open forum. anything you want to talk about, your phone lines are there to do so. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 four independents. remind you about that december

jobs report as we do on the first friday of the month. those numbers coming out from the department of labor and the bureau of labor statistics. 3.9 percent, dropping in december. jobs added, lower than expectations. a hundred 99 thousand jobs added in december. that is down from 249,000 jobs added in november. of note, the revisions of job reports, specifically from october of last year, an increase in the department of labor of 102,000 jobs in this report of added in october. the last revision headed at 540 6000 jobs added in october. they are putting it at 648,000 jobs added in the country of october. those revisions are up from previous months. a lot of tension in recent months, but that is the job

situation in the country as of december. we can talk about that. we can talk about any other policy issues. before we talk about the job numbers, resident biden is expected to address the jobs report from the white house. that is as c-span.org for that. turning the phone lines over, and letting you lead the show. 10 a.m. eastern as we always do. this is bob in hometown illinois. a republican. can morning. -- good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about mainstream media. we are being force fed what they want us to hear. they don't tell us true things that are floating around. the laptop or president biden, how much she got from china and russia.

it is right in our face, and no one to talk about it. people could come on there, veranda. were not allowed to think for ourselves. were only allowed to think what they tell us and to go through big tech the way the press stories. host: where do you go for your nose -- news? caller: bill o'reilly. the guy is a straight shooter. he doesn't speculate. he talks about facts. and so do c-span. you do a great job. you get criticized by people, but i think you're a great service for the country and i appreciate it so much. host: an independent in tennessee. good morning.

caller: i'm calling about the vaccines. right now, we know that pete went -- that when people are vaccinated, which i am, and i advocate my friends to get vaccinated as well, however, to mandated and say that everyone needs it, to prevent severe illness, and/or death, when you really look into the statistics, the people who are really getting sick and dying, they are often times overweight or have underlying conditions. so, when you mandate it, especially when you have these young adults, men who are more at risk for myocarditis, those issues, it really is getting to be too much of a blanket statement. not federalized. not given in terms of guidelines. i think that people overall who have been healthy do not die or

get severe illness anyways. i had covid before i was allowed to get a vaccine. i was very sick. i was short of breath. i lost my sense of taste and smell. i've moved on and i am fine. my son got it, and he proceeded to get vaccinated, but the idea of him getting the booster, at the risk for them, we don't know the long-term effects. will it affect the heart long-term, we don't have that data. he is young and healthy, and i don't see why we are forced into it. that's what i wanted to speak about, today. host: you can hear what the supreme court justices have to say, or what they are asking. the lawyers will be arguing those cases before the supreme court. you can listen to that at 10

p.m. eastern on c-span. that's where were going to be going after this program. at 10 a.m. eastern,, 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. we have talked about it for the past hour. plenty of conversation about twitter -- on twitter about the mandate. ahead of the arguments today. senator jim imhoff, from oklahoma, said that he joined 46 of his senate colleagues in filing an amicus brief to the senate regarding the occupational safe and healthy administration about mandates on private employees with over a hundred employees. i urge the court to stay the mandate and protect the rights of oklahomans and employees everywhere. make health care decisions for themselves. jim inhofe on twitter.

we mentioned the jobs number, and the fact that we will be hearing from the president on december job numbers. that is at 10:45 a.m. eastern this morning. republicans are weighing in on the jobs report that is lower than most expectations. congresswoman from florida saying that it is the worst jobs report in the bidens presidency. when will we realize that it contributes to a stalled economy? this from mike carey. it is a huge mess in december. the economic crisis continues. will democrats finally abandon their radical agenda? we will hear what the president has to say about it at 10:45 a.m.. carl, west virginia. caller: good morning, sir. i am 84 years old and i have been watching his show since its inception.

what led up to this -- people invading the capital. it started out with the 2016 presidential election. the obama administration allowed cia to spy on donald trump's campaign. clinton came up with this dossier that donald trump was a russian agent. that was repeated over and over again. by the mainstream media. for four years, and not to this day has anyone in the media come up with anything saying -- it was a farce. it was an absolute fraud that

donald trump was a russian agent. people like me, i am sitting here and i look at the sort of thing, the fbi, spying on the campaign and all that. i'm thinking, when you kick a dog so many times, eventually it is going to bite you. that is what happened. the last four years, donald trump, the way the democrats and the mainstream media absolutely trash that man every day. nancy pelosi had typed up articles of impeachment long before he ever got into the white house. to impeach the president, twice in four years, nancy pelosi stood behind him on the state of the u speech and tore up the speech and threw it away yet i was thinking, my gosh, if one of

my kids acted like that, they would be grounded for a month. host: the second impeachment was a direct result of what happened on january 6 of 2021. i wonder thoughts on what happened in the building behind me that day. caller: i'm telling you what led up to that. host: what are your thoughts on that day and the violence that we saw? what are your thoughts on that day? caller: i don't condone that. believe me. i was very sad that day. i don't condone that at all. my lord, what led to it is more important than the day it happened. it's a matter of fact that you folks in the media will not admit what led up to it. caller: karl in west virginia. frank in florida. your next. caller: good morning.

i'd like to piggyback on what the previous caller said. i watched president biden and his speech yesterday. you know. the man never fails to disappoint. meaning, the president yesterday had an opportunity, in my opinion, to try and help heal this country. to bring people together. he blew it, in my opinion. he blew it. i'm independent. exactly what the previous caller said. there were over 100,000 people that were present in that rally. january 6. there were a percentage of those people in the crowd in the capital, which was horrifying.

it was wrong. anyone who has any morals, no one thinks that that was right. no one. however, to condemn anyone who supported donald trump, he really blew it. he really missed an opportunity because you know what? there were a lot of really good people there who were equally just as horrified. who are trying to prevent that behavior from happening. and to not acknowledge that, in my opinion, it is just another one of so many failures with this president. so many. i am just so -- at this point, with the entire democratic party. host: florida. this is part of what president biden said from statuary hall

yesterday on capitol hill. >> the election of 2020 was the greatest demonstration of democracy in the history of this country. more of you voted in the election then have ever voted in all of american history. over 150 million americans went to the polls and voted that day. in a pandemic. at great risk their lives. it was not an attack. right now, in state after state, new laws are being written. not to protect the vote, but to deny it. not only to suppress the vote, but to subvert it. not to strengthen or protect her democracy, but because the former president loss, the senate election results of 2020 are saying they need new ideas, or better ideas to them more votes.

the former president and his supporters have decided that the only way for them to win. it is to suppress your vote. subvert our elections. it's wrong. it's undemocratic. frankly, it is un-american. host: from capitol hill yesterday, marking the one-year anniversary of the attack on the e on january 6, 2021. an open forum in washington journal. a half-hour left. that's to hear from you about public policy issues you want to talk about. phone lines are open. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. the story of note going from the 2020 election to the 2024 election. politico with the story the

republicans are ramping up a search for a host city for their parties 2024 national convention. narrowing the list of contenders to four cities. the cities and contention are nashville, pittsburgh, selleck city, according to a person searching in the process. politico says that party officials are playing to visit each city before finalizing their city in the spring. the walkie is of note because it is the site that democrats canceled the 2020 convention, but on a short list for republicans in 2024. linda, st. louis, missouri, democrat. you are next. open for them. caller: thank you for taking my call. i went to piggyback on the previous call. mr. biden did not say all of them were like that. but he's correct. one thing i want to say about the vaccination, it should be mandated. those are the people who are trying to take care of themselves and have to be thrown

out there with folks who are not take care of themselves. then they also think they have the right to establish it when they want to wear a mask. they want to or amass, you don't want to be vaccinated. it is different if you have something that is only going to injure yourself. if you have cancer, you can't spread that. with this disease, you constraint -- read it to other people. -- you can spread to other people. that does not mean you should be subject to testing something else. we need to take care of each other. that is not right. lee's mandate. host: the washington supreme court mandates will be carrying live audio in about one half hour. caller: i will be watching that. people are fighting because i don't want to wear masks. how do you think a teacher feels going to stand in front of a group of kids and you don't know what kind of family they are from because if they don't believe in their kids doing that, they are not wear a mask. after take stuff home.

these teachers -- there is no concern for anyone but themselves. thank you for taking my call. host: limerick, maine. you are next. caller: yes. i thought of something. if it has been established that no persons country is above the law, right? the president of the united states is not above the law. if we were to ask ourselves, and that includes the taxes as well. property is of less value when he has to pay taxes and of more value when he wants to sell. on and on. all the crimes that is done. if any of us had done any of that, we would be in jail. that's all we have to ask ourselves. he has to be criminally prosecuted for all that he has done. he is very protective. that means that there is one set

of laws for one set of people and one set of laws for the rest of us. we have to ask ourselves, if we had done this, we would be in jail. we would be pursued by the fbi, the cia. law enforcement. thank you very much. happy new year to everybody. tomorrow is my birthday. i had to vaccines and a booster. and i'm sick right now. so. goodbye. host: how old will you be? caller: 76 -- no. 75. host: happy birthday. caller: three quarters of a century. host: annapolis maryland, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to talk about free speech on college campuses.

i think it is an important issue. before that, i want to reach back and say to frank, the color, i think he's right. if you can cannot -- if you kick a dog enough times, he will bite you. all of the events that led up to january 6, i think, in the future, people will look back, and they -- nobody is wanting it, but they will say, hey, frustration was evident. i was there. i certainly didn't get anywhere near that crazy crowd that went into the capitol building. but, i was among and around and witnessed many good people. many, many good, gentle, peaceful people. host: did you go to the speech? caller: no.

i was waiting to pick up my daughter from school. i did not have the intent of joining in with the crowd, but i was among the crowd, and i was among the crowd. i was in the peripheral area not far from dupont circle, and there were people walking around all over the place. i drove through a lot of it, and people were honking the horn and waving. the vast majority that i saw were peaceful and good people. the way that they call this an insurrection, i find it -- well, listen, i've been to other countries. i have been through the arab spring areas. i've been to rough countries. they don't know what an insurrection is.

that's not even close. we know the numbers of individuals charged at this point. it more than 700, and those cases are working their way through the system. jail time for some. and cases going to jury trials this month and next month. the question is, from what you have seen from the videos we've seen from the folks breaking into the capital, does 700 people being charge sound right to you? caller: maybe. you know what? there is probably a handful of people that really are serious lawbreakers, and violent. i think that there is probably another group of people who got caught up in the crowd, and i think that you had a much larger group of people who were not there for any of that, didn't

want to participate in any of that, and they were really shocked. probably less early, people are leaving early. but i tell you. there is some truth that do process is really been presented to a lot of people who are locked up. they are doing that to make a point in history. history is rife with innocence being held to make a point. you have to look any further than stalin's, i don't want to make a comparison, but politics, and there are plenty of people who made a point of -- to make a point, and i agree with other callers, saying that president biden is taking advantage of that. he is way off base. he calls this an insurrection. i was there.

host: we have a lot of callers waiting. ron is next. council bluffs, iowa. caller: good morning. i would like to speak to you about the speeches yesterday. kamala and joe. i would like to know what kind of history degree does she have from when she is in school. i like to know if some of the people that jumped ship from her staff wrote her speech, if they had history lesson school. she had her history all wrong. she said in the speech that we were the oldest democracy in the world. she is wrong. it was greece. she should have gone over that before she even started. i was trying to understand where the democrats found her. just because she is a woman of

color? i don't understand. she's to go back to school. the teachers union could loan her a history teacher. host: that is ron in iowa. a texas independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about this interview i saw with bob woodward. it was from david brinkley. i'm just wondering if woodward is trying to call himself a journalist, these days. most of what people used to call journalists, and hold to high esteem, they are now just political hacks. if woodward would write a book about biden, i would buy it because i think he is been around the capital long enough he would know the history of biden. speaking of biden, if i just thought about the situation, and

i think he is really a fake. a failed grandfather. host: good morning. caller: i would just like to say i am an 81-year-old black man, a 20 year military veteran. i was in vietnam in 1965. i had no idea that people do not have the right to vote. i had no idea at all. i would rather be dead then someone stopped me from voting. i have one request, and i would like to advertise that if those people who stormed the capital and did the same thing were black, what did the people of america think would have happened? if you ever come up with that, i went to make sure i see that opinion. thank you. host: 45 minutes left in the program. -- 25 men slept in the program. one other piece of news from the white house. finalizing details with the

postal service to deliver 500 million cobit test kits to households around the country. that is according to people familiar with the plan. kickstarting at the washington post to keep the president's response to the omicron variant. the administration is set to launch a website to allow individuals to get rapid test. speaking, there are people using anonymity to talk about the planning session to the washington post. officials are aiming to ship the kits in january. perhaps just a week or two away. paul, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. this hoopla over the january 6 thing is a great example of the corrupt media, controlling 95% of our media. i think that is our biggest threat. not china, not russia. there are three conglomerate

media monopolies in the united states. we don't even compete with each other. three that are like a laser beam of this information. the propaganda machine is so overwhelming that they become our biggest threat. that's one of the reason they hate donald trump. he said the media is the enemy of the people. that's what we have to concentrate our efforts. we can just look at who is in charge of our antitrust. amy klobuchar. she is tight with comcast. there is no hope to turn the tide. corrupt media. host: where you go for your news? would you trust? caller: right now, the only people i trust architectural awards and alex jones furniture. -- dealing people i trust are info wars and alex jones, for sure.

they are worse than stalinist russia or even germany. host: donald in raleigh north carolina. independent. caller: good morning. i want to say that in reference to what the guy said about greece being the oldest democracy in the world. greece coined that term because of its great orate or pericles, but women and slaves in greece not vote. that is not debatable. greece is not the oldest democracy in the world. i want to say, i was there when joe biden one, so i could get back to my regular routine during the day. sometimes, watching gunsmoke and any griffith, but what he took office, i awaken to the thought, what craziness will he reveal to us today? my final thought is this.

the stench of the current events of january will continue to rise up in the nostrils of americans and people all over the world for the next 10,000 years. we will never live it down, and i am ashamed. when if you ever heard of a president getting up and saying that people rub feces on the walls of the u.s. capitol. seat of power. a lot of people talk about the riots that occurred. the people that rioted and damaged buildings and property, they ought to go to jail. the people that participated in the january 6 riots at the capitol ought to go to jail. host: donald in north carolina. this is luis in ohio. your next. caller: i just want to thank

c-span for having all of the people they had on yesterday. they're people like me. i never watch c-span before, until i retired. when i saw what i saw on january 6, maybe i am naive, but i was just -- i will never forget, especially the shooting of the female, ashli babbitt. i will never forget that. i know they don't show the same thing. not on jerry 6, 2021. thank god. that was way too much. for people to see and congresswoman wilde. her last name is wild. she was shocked by what hers kid sensing on that day. she should have been. stuff was shown that was just

beyond sad. i always remember what they showed about ashli babbitt. whatever her name was. it was too explicit. i remember her eyes being up. anyways, i will stop there, but also come i want to thank the congressman. i can't remember his name. he said he was a football player, and he said that they suspected -- respected him so much. it made me feel better because i thought i was a wimp. it affected me so much. he said he is annexed fell -- and ex-nfler player, and the same with congressman kilby or whatever you say. how it affected his mental health.

i am thankful that everyone was so honest, and that you all caps that on to help -- kept that on to help us people deal with it at the home and everything. how they can help us, so thank you. host: anthony gonzalez, the congressman from ohio? caller: i can't remember his name. i'm sorry. he is african-american, and he started off the conversation saying that --. host: aldrin? caller: he thank the police for helping him since he got to be with his newborn son. now, he has two sons, or something like that. i can't member's name, i'm sorry. host: colin allred? caller: that's it. host: those testimonies from

members of congress that spoke yesterday at that event yesterday afternoon, they are available on her website, c-span.org. all of yesterday's programming available if you were to go back and watch our programming and what we aired that day in 2021. you can do that as well. brooklyn, new york. good morning. your next. democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i just want to say a remark about the media. journalism. the media is not the enemy of the people. what we call the media, the mainstream media is just giving their audience but they want. they are supporting advertisers. people like tucker carlsen, bill o'reilly, they are entertainers. they are not journals --

journalist. real journalists actually go out and do the hard work. i think what led to january 6, unfortunate, started in the 90's when you saw huge pop-up of right-wing talk radio hosts. just spouting out now and says -- nonsense, day after day. it led to qanon. it led to pizza gate. it led to trump. and lead to january 6. it is all -- the outrage is not based on anything real. it is understandable. we have a horrible access to education, housing, it is terrible. emigrants archery is like not humans. it is sad. there is outrage. i understand. but it is all coming from misguided information. you have to check out real journalists who actually have real stories on the ground,

data. info wars. host: how do you find real journalists, and can there be real journalists and entertainers that you are concerned about? at the same cable channel, at the same publication? how do you distinguish one from the other? caller: that's a great question. that's what i really have to find out. a google search is not doing research. within these companies, like the atlantic, the economist, the hill, there are journalists within those organizations who actually do the work. you can kind of sense what is being done, based on the details, showing statistics, showing the data. so,. host: do you recall miss? -- do you read columnists?

caller: i read investigated for -- investigative reports, despite what they may be thought of. there are people within these organizations who do good writing. host: the job to provide commentary on the words, they can be journalists. caller: they are doing investigative journalism, and there are opinions which is a different thing. yes. i suppose, journalism can't be 100% unbiased. that is just a fact. there are people who actually do hard work, and there are people who just get on tv, and they are bubbly or a personality that you like. it works. yes. it's just, unfortunate, the outrage that you saw during the

summer of george floyd was -- there's nothing wrong with getting on the streets, and that was based on real stuff. january 6. it was an insurrection. it may have been people who got roped up in doing it. there was a plot to stop the election. certification. so, yes. i think our biggest enemy is not the media. it's just misinformation. host: russell is in coal city, west virginia. independent. good morning. caller: i'm just biden said in his speech about god. i believe in god. if you believe so much in god,

he would forgive all walks of life. i don't think that this insurrection, it was a plan of god. if you read the bible and live by the word, then you would be doing the word. host: russell in west virginia. winston-salem, north carolina. democrat. caller: i have always had a problem with trump. when he was president, i didn't have a president then. will you tell me he was going to the top of 16th street and shoot somebody in the head, and still be president, and everyone knows where 16th street is, that's where black people live. threaten against them.

that -- not only that, but he was not president. president biden [indiscernible] it's like normal presidents do. not only that, he is knocked out of the white house. who would do that. president biden had to go find somebody on his security to get the key to let him into the white house. host: i think what you're referring to was that i could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot somebody and i would lose voters. that was during the 2016 election, as i recall. it was not 16th street. that is not the quote you are referring to. caller: there was another on 16th street. host: phoenix, arizona, independent. caller: good morning.

i wanted to touch base on a couple of things. i am an independent, and i think the right-wingers in the capital are idiots. i think the last few callers are totally out of touch. the capitol riot was bad. it was stupid. we have politicians comparing it to 9/11 in pearl harbor. there was a mormon of silence four. -- a moment of silence for it. the only person who died was a poor girl who got shot. i have done my research. one death is blown way out of proportion. i think you guys have done plenty of shows on this january 6, and i don't think you did one on the guy that drove through the parade in wisconsin. six people versus one in the capital. you didn't do a show on that.

someone asked about black people in the capital, like black panthers in the 60's. they went into the capital. the insurrection has really been blown out of context. it is stupid, and people deserve to be in trouble. but this led to out of control. do actual research, and c-span, do a little better journalism on your end. i remember when the wu hand flew started. you were in the impeachment of trump. i was one of the callers, people calling and saying we have this covid-19 virus coming from china. we should talk about it. it wasn't the story whelped -- while people try to impeach trump. it was a mess, but this is not a fact. the insurrection is not comparable to 9/11 or pearl harbor. it is ridiculous.

one person died, and it was a protester. host: this is jay, west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i appreciate the information provided about your organization related to --. i am a rarity in western gene. a republican who believes that trump should not have been elected president. should not perpetuate this charity -- terrible story which really drove people to make some horrific decisions on january 6. i teach at a school and we focus on critical thinking. information literacy. what is lacking in the vast majority of some of your callers, particularly those in the republican party, those two important qualities. the capability to discernment

quality information based on the affordability and credibility of the people who are writing it, and the capability to write accurately, rather than listening to, as your callers have said in the past, entertainers who foment those terrible ideas and create falsehoods and exaggerate for the purpose of media ratings. it's horrific. and what is worse, people certainly in my state and around the united states, they take action based on those inaccurate and exaggerated ideas. my new year's wish would be for us to improve our capabilities as a nation to understand good information and discern that from that which is not. thank you very much. host: what grade do you teach?

caller: i teach college. i'm at the university. i teach freshman, and i see it is my goal to not necessarily tell you what they believe, but enable them to improve their capabilities to decide for themselves based on quality information. host: do you think there are restrictions on free speech on your college campus? caller: not one. we seen some articles in our local papers about some issues about the major universities, and they concern me somewhat. i was relieved to see one case where someone was giving their job back after they were dismissed because of statements they made.

i don't agree with the statements, because they are inflammatory, but, unfortunately, -- fortunately, the process was work through. i think the circumstance was exaggerate. people were reacting. this is a place for an exchange of information, and that information includes inappropriate and inaccurate information. perhaps. it allows people to discuss the reasons why that information is to be disregarded, perhaps, or minimize. to identify that which is may be more accurate, given the circumstances. host: running short on time, give me a 32nd take as a west virginia republican on joe manchin. caller: and interesting question.

he is in the worst possible position a democrat could ever be in west virginia. he has to represent constituents that are very much conservative, very much as a whole entrance camp -- in trump's camp. he has to represent his party. he is on thin ice, it seems, every day. it can be viewed as being on the fence, wishy-washy, but i think he is doing his very best to represent his constituents. and, i don't agree with some of his decisions, but i expect to have many of my republican and democrat friends in west virginia feel the same way. host: have you ever voted for them? caller: yes. each time. and i did not vote for donald

trump. again, i consider myself a critical thinker. frankly, all i had to do was watch his television shows to understand that that man was not capable of being a president, and certainly i was shown correct. host: a couple more calls before the supreme court dabbles in this morning. it is usually a pretty quick entry for the supreme court. apologies if we have to cut in order to do that. until that time, your calls. this is john in vicksburg, michigan. caller: how are you? i have something quick. it will not take much time. i found it kind of odd that in all of the violence that went on at the capitol on january 6, there was not one police officer who drew their gone and shot somebody because they were in

fear for their life. that's all i have to say. host: what about ashli babbitt? caller: that was not because he was in fear for his life. you never said he was impure for his light. she was breaching an area of the capital where it was his job to protect. host: so the question is, what's your point? caller: my point, why, when you get so many unarmed people and armed people, they are shot at police, and other circumstances, why do you think that none of those cops fear and offer their life to shoot somebody? all of the violence that was going on. host: mode be your answer to the question question mark -- what would be your answer to the question,?

caller: i would say it is because they are all white people. host: john in vicksburg. this is hudson. good morning. your next. caller: thank you for taking my call. we'll go through the some rapidfire stuff here. host: you have a minute. go ahead. caller: i am a border protection officer. what is going on at the southern border is just awful. i mean, my fellow brothers and sisters, their hands are tied by the ministration, we have cutaways ranging in the hundred thousands who we have not caught. these are bad people. that's number one. number two, the january 6 riot, if you do research, you will find that people were taken off the fbi list for that event. now, some of these people were

fbi informants, or even agents for the fbi. ok? number three, the black lives matter, the riots, that went on, torching federal buildings, people inside. nobody was charged. we even had a vice president at people get money to get people out of jail. let's not forget about the capital. host: you don't think anyone was ever charged in any of the violence that took place in cities during the riots? caller: very few. we have democratic district attorneys trying to change the law and reduce the sentences for the violence. host: this is mark, silver spring maryland.

go ahead. i apologize. i think the supreme court are about to come in. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. we take you to the spring core as they begin momentarily to take on the biden administration's vaccine mandate.