watch complete, unfiltered, live coverage of the supreme court confirmation hearings this week or anytime on demand on our website, c-span.org, or on our free a mobile app, c-span now. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low income families get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> this morning on "washington journal," we will discuss the confirmation process judge

ketanji brown jackson with greg stohr. later, the latest on the crisis in ukraine with jamie mcintyre from the "washington examiner." and we get your reaction from phone, facebook, and twitter. ♪ host: good morning tuesday, march 22. we will wrap up day one of judge ketanji brown jackson's supreme court nomination hearing and look ahead today two, scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. eastern today. we will begin with the latest on the russian invasion of ukraine, they were moving toward a stalemate as ukraine refused russian demands to surrender the besieged city of mariupol. more than three point 3 million

ukrainians have fled the country in the past four weeks. our phones are open to get your thoughts on the latest. lines split by political party. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text of this morning. that number, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you're are from. on social media, on twitter, it is @cspanwj. on facebook, it is facebook.com/cspan. good tuesday morning. you can start calling in now. this is the wall street journal this morning. the headline, russia presses its grinding attack. ukraine refuses to surrender mariupol. more pictures there of destruction in ukraine and here is the front page of the washington times.

mario -- mariupol faces more horror from russia. and the siege on the minds of members of congress yesterday. here is a tweet from lindsey graham, saying it is one of the greatest war crimes in modern history and there must be accountability from top to bottom. marco rubio of florida saying, in a war with plenty of heroism, the most inspiring stance so far may be the one happening now in mariupol. defenders were cut off from resupply and refused offers to surrender. mariupol also the focus of reporting from the associated press in the past couple days, this tweet getting attention yesterday. two ap journalists arrived in mariupol before dawn. before they left, the seaport

lay in ruins and this is their story, from those two journalists. they are being called to the last foreign journalists in the city, now left in the wake of the siege. ukraine's mariupol descends into despair. this is worth the read. here is the lead from the story on 20 days in mariupol. the russians were hunting us down is how the story begins. they had a list of names, and they were closing in. we were the only international journalists left in the craney and city of mariupol -- ukrainian city of mariupol. surgeons gave us white scrubs to wear as camouflage. a dozen soldiers burst in. where are the journalists? i looked at their armbands, blue

for ukraine, and i tried to cockily the odds that they were russians in disguise. i stepped forward to identify myself. they said, we are here to get you out. the walls shook from machine gun fire outside. it seemed safer to stay inside, but the ukrainian soldiers were under orders to take us with them. that story goes on to say, we reached an entryway to a darkened basement. only then did we learn why the ukrainians had risked their lives and the lives of their soldiers to extract us from the hospital. if they catch you, they will get you on camera and make you say everything you filmed was a lie. all your efforts will be in vain. the officer, who had once begged us to show the world his dying city, now pleaded with us to go. he nudged us toward the thousands of battered cars preparing to leave mariupol. that story from the two associated press journalists,

the last international journalists to leave that city. we are talking about the latest on the russian invasion of ukraine and getting your thoughts in this first hour and our second hour today. we will turn to the continued confirmation hearings, day two of confirmation hearings for judge ketanji brown jackson. for now, your thoughts on the latest out of ukraine. it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, it is (202) 748-8002. as you are calling in, this from the pentagon press briefing, sean kirby -- john kirby with his assessment of why russian forces have not been able to overcome ukrainian forces in mariupol. [video clip] >> when you look at what they have managed to do in 26 days, it is not that impressive. we believe they are in control of croissant -- kherson, but

even there the ukrainians launched a counterattack. they moved up that coast toward mariupol. mariupol has not fallen and the ukrainians are fighting to defend that city, that keyport city. what we are seeing is the russians have been frustrated. they have failed to achieve a lot of their objectives on the ground and, because they are still stalled outside so many places, they are stepping up their bombardment from afar, whether that is cruise missiles, ballistic, artillery fire. they are lobbing hardware into these cities to try to force surrender.

host: his near daily press briefings becoming a staple along with those from the white house and others. plenty to show you from yesterday but we also are leaving the phone lines to you to talk about the latest out of ukraine. ronald is first out of buffalo, new york this morning. go ahead. caller: i am calling about the war we have nato. russia cannot fight the united states and nato. what you're seeing, the devastation, the most damage is the air. we have to do something about that air issue. why would russia go into ukraine and tear of the country? i do not understand that.

host: you would be one of those who would support shutting down the airspace over ukraine using nato forces, perhaps engaging with russia to create a shutdown of the airspace? caller: yes because you have no choice. putin is not backing down. we have to do something about the air because the ground thing is installed. they are doing more damage in the air. host: president biden heading to europe later this week to meet with european leaders, including nato allies. there have been proposals for a nato peacekeeping force and for a no-fly zone, what you are talking about. yesterday, more of a preview of the president's trip to europe, including talks about ukrainian

and russian peace negotiations and whether the u.s. is involved, this from the white house briefing room. [video clip] >> there are potential discussions with ukrainian leaders and russia. has the white house been in communication with ukrainian leaders on this and how to go about these talks with russian leaders in the hope of ending the conflict? >> we are in touch with ukrainian officials everyday. the president has spoken with president zelenskyy a number of times, as you now. we convey through all those discussions that we support any diplomatic effort they choose to take part in. the role we feel we can play most effectively is by continuing to provide a range of security assistance, military assistance to them as well as economic and humanitarian

assistance to strengthen their hand in these negotiations. what we always convey publicly and privately is we are going to watch closely their actions, not just what they say. we continue to support their efforts and whatever decisions they make about continuing to engage diplomatically. >> president zelenskyy said if those talks do not work out it is world war iii. does the president agree? >> our view is the way we need to avoid world war iii is preventing the united states from having direct military involvement on the ground and same on nato, direct involvement on the ground. the most effective role we can play is by providing that extensive military assistance that we have been providing. i cannot assess. we will hear more from president

zelenskyy soon and i expect he will speak more on that. host: phones are open for you to talk about the latest out of ukraine and the conflict there. a lot of focus in these past couple days on the siege of mariupol, that port city that is now cut off and surrounded. richard and san francisco, thanks for being up early. caller: you cannot appease a dictator. he is trying to reconstruct the soviet union. we really should have done more when he took crimea. right now, i think they need more anti-ballistic defense systems. a lot of supplies are coming in, but they have done a job of stalling them on the ground

because most of the russians, their heart is not even in invading ukraine. they have relatives -- they could be blowing up a building with relatives in it. ultimately, he is going to have to back down. i do not think he is going to get far into ukraine with all the assistance coming in. one misstep, he could accidentally do something to anyone and then he will be forced into a situation where he is going to face nato. i do not think this guy is crazy enough to want to destroy his own country when probably a revolution is starting to bubble inside his country already. if they had any sense, the russian people, they should just remove him. that is going to take time.

the american people have to realize we have never suffered destruction like europe and other areas of the world by having our own country invaded and bombed. we have to be thinking what happens if we threw molotov cocktails on a tank and broadway in new york, something like that. because you cannot appease a dictator. that is how hitler's got started and look what happened. guest: you talk about weapons systems being sent to ukraine. an interesting story from the wall street journal today. the u.s. is sending soviet air defenses to ukraine. this is the story from the wall street journal. the u.s. is sending some of the soviet made air defense equipment it required -- acquired decades ago to help bolster the ukrainian military. the systems include -- are

decades old and obtained by the u.s. to examine the technology used by the russian military and which moscow had exported around the world. the weapons are familiar to the ukrainian military, which inherited that type of equipment to following the breakup of the soviet union. the pentagon declined to comment on the decision, which comes as the biden administration is mounting a push to expand ukraine's air defense capabilities. the u.s. has acquired a small number of soviet missile defense systems to examine. the efforts received public attention in 1994 when a soviet made transport plane was observed in alabama within sight of a major highway. it was later disclosed the plane was carrying an air defense system the u.s. had acquired in belarus as part of a project involving a pentagon contractor

that cost 100 million dollars, according to a former official involved in the mission. that story from the wall street journal today. are you with us, pamela? go ahead. caller: i was feeling like why is ukraine not bombing russia? why do they not go on the attack instead of being defensive? maybe putin would change his strategy if ukraine started attacking russia. why don't they just pick their best warriors like they did in david and goliath and let them fight instead of killing these other people? host: we talked to ben jensen yesterday of the center for

strategic studies about that question. he pointed out there has been some limited ukrainian strikes across the ukrainian border into russia and to some of their missile systems, not many of those, but there have been attacks on russian positions across the border if you want to go back and watch that segment. it was yesterday in our 9:00 hour on this program. all of that is available on our website. phone lines this morning, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, it is (202) 748-8002. back to the white house briefing room yesterday. it was the deputy national security advisor on potential cyber attacks against the west that the white house is now worried about as the russian invasion of ukraine continues.

[video clip] >> the president released a statement regarding cyber threats to the homeland, urging private sector partners to take immediate action to shore up defenses against potential cyber attacks. we have previously warned about potential for russia to conduct cyber attacks against the united states, including as a response to the economic costs the u.s. and allies and partners imposed in response to russia's invasion of ukraine. we are reiterating those warnings based on evolving threat intelligence that the russian government is exploring options for potential cyber attacks on critical infrastructure in the united states. to be clear, there is no certainty there will be a cyber incident on critical infrastructure. so why am i here? because this is a call to action and call to responsibility for all of us. at the president's direction,

the administration has worked to prepare to meet this sort of threat, providing warning and advice to the private sector and mandating cyber security measures where we have authority to do so. host: that is from the white house briefing room. more of your phone calls as we take you through the latest amid day 27 of the russian invasion of ukraine. this is bobby out of maine, democrat. good morning. caller: i think it is a shame, what is going on and ukraine. i was a marine back in the 1970's and i trained with the turkish army. they turned them into the turkish marine corps. i do not see why these other

people in europe do not go in and stop putin. world war iii to me has already started. it just has not gotten out of europe yet. i cannot believe we are just sitting back and letting russia bully america and it has nothing to do with our president, which is a great man, joe biden. if it was not for the traitor donald trump that was president that made an ass out of this country to everyone in the world, we would not be where we are today with russia host: this is joe out of arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. what i have to say is the man that just called is so wrong on

president donald trump. he worked his heart out and did tremendous things for our country, but here's the thing about ukraine. why can't the president of the ukraine send some pilots to poland, get ready in the migs they want to give them, and when russian planes come over, take off over there and take them out? host: this is dylan out of maryland, a republican. good morning. caller: i do believe the u.s. is doing a lot to help ukraine, but i do not think that ukraine should stand down. now is the time to really show the ukrainian power and not surrender but actually fight back.

i like the counteroffensive strike they have been doing against -- across the russian border. i think they should pick it up and strike the russians at their core in moscow. host: the siege of mariupol getting a lot of attention today. there is some of the destruction, that from a mall in kyiv hit yesterday. those pictures getting wide circulation after that attack, but amid that destruction this column in usa today. the headline, putin shows he has no strategy beyond cruelty. he writes, there is nothing strategic about bombing a city of nearly half a million people to dost, but that is what vladimir putin is doing in mariupol. there is nothing strategic about

killing civilians. this is not the work of a master military strategist, he writes. it is the actions of a bully angry he is not getting his way. putin wanted ukraine, so he tried to take it. the world has united against him and ukrainians have shown a patriotic ferocity that will be remembered after putin's gone and forgotten. this is chuck out of california, and independent. caller: i would like to say it is intensifying. i am glad they are resisting. i am surprised we are giving them that old of equipment, but i guess that is what we have and i think we should give them as much as we can. apparently, this is all we can at this time.

host: there has been discussion about the difference between offensive and defensive weapons. is there a distinction in your mind? do you care? caller: yes because it means something to them and unifies all of them and us. it might be a bit on the psychological side, yet it does do the effect physically. they commented this morning about how they shot one or two missiles offensively into russia and how that affects their psyche of the war. it gives them some winning. host: this is alex in virginia, independent. caller: when the ukrainian army fires utility shells on don

boss, not too much attention to that. i think the war could be prevented if biden gave russia confirmation that ukraine would not join nato, just one piece of paper and war could be prevented. i also understand the russian concern that they do not want to have nato on their border. nato is not a peaceful organization, destroying countries like yugoslavia and syria. i think that nato purposely created a situation to involve russia and to war with ukraine regardless of how many people will be killed. host: you point out assurances

and a signed piece of paper. callers have brought up the treaty signed by russia and the united states, by the united kingdom after the fall of the soviet union ensuring the territorial integrity ukraine if they gave up nuclear weapons that were there, that had been there from the soviet times. that was agreed to by russia, by the united states, and here we are today. caller: right, but we should not forget people of eastern ukraine did not take this. they did not want this to happen. that is why all this war start eight years ago and the solution is only ukraine and russia

should sign an agreement as soon as possible, including recognizing don boss -- donbas as soon as possible. host: this is rebecca and louisiana, democrat. caller: i think that trying to plumb see with a psychopath from russia is a waste of time. he does not want to negotiate. he wants ukraine, so he will do anything necessary to gain the rest of ukraine after getting the crimean peninsula. what president zelenskyy needs is offensive and defensive weapons that he can use against russia because this psychopath from russia, and i will not respect him by giving him a name

, will not stop at ukraine and we are already involved. he deserves to have the jets to bomb back at the trucks and tanks coming into his country. we do not need to bomb russia because that would not be fair. it is the russian people we are not against, just putin and the people doing his bidding, like the speaker at the u.n. council that is telling lie after lie, only what putin tells him to do. host: more from the white house briefing room, this on president biden's heading to europe later this week, set for a series of meetings thursday to meet with the heads of nato and expected

to stop in poland. jen psaki asked yesterday why the president was not making a stop in ukraine when he is in europe. this is what she had to say. [video clip] >> you agreed on twitter that the president did not plan to go to ukraine. the prime minister of poland said he was last week and zelenskyy said others were doing the same. can you talk about whether president biden has explored going into ukraine? >> we have not export that option. i tweeted because there was some confusion about this question and we did not want to leave that out there as an unanswered question. certainly any president of the united states traveling into a war zone requires not only security considerations but an enormous amount of resources on the ground which is always a factor for us.

also the president felt he could have the most effective and impactful trip by convening these meetings with nato leaders, the g-7, the e.u. to determine continued military and economic coordination as well as by going to visit poland to talk about everything from refugees and continued assistance we can provide together. it was a decision made about what would be most effective on the trip. host: and a lot more about that trip coming up in about an hour. continuing to preview that trip. we take one more call on the latest out of ukraine and the russian invasion and then we will switch topics to judge jackson's supreme court confirmation hearing.

that is beginning in about 90 minutes and we want to leave time for you to call into talk about that. jared has been waiting in ohio. we will take that call and then a switch topics. caller: it is jerry. host: sorry about that. caller: i wanted to give a suggestion. a while back when this started up, i heard a story that the taliban came out against russia, or putin anyway. i wanted to find out about what other countries came out against putin in this war of aggression. i would like to know, all of our

former enemies, like vietnam and all those places, what they had to say about it. i would like to see one thing that might make putin sit up and take notice that he is really being wrong about this is malaysia. they were the first ones attacked by russia when that plane flew over crimea and they shot down the plane. you would think malaysia would have come out against putin on this, and i would love to see malaysia come out and say we are now declaring war against russia. malaysia is a small country. they are not going to come but they could restrict russians from coming to their country and all that kind of thing, so i think malaysia should declare war on russia. host: i do not know where

malaysia stands, but i always appreciate the recommendations for segments. it is now 7:30 and we are switching topics here, talking about judge ketanji brown jackson's supreme court nomination. day one yesterday, day two today. these hearings today, tomorrow, and thursday the 9:00 a.m. eastern, and we will show them on c-span. that is why this program for the next couple days will end at 9:00 a.m., but we want to hear your thoughts if you watched the first day of the hearings. what are your expectations for day two? democrats, (202) 748-8000 is the number. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. there is the hearing room. it is 90 minutes from now that day two will begin. you can see the earliest members

of the press and congressional staff in the hearing room. it will be the same room where she was testifying yesterday and we will take you there live at the end of the program today. here's one of the headlines from yesterday. the cavanaugh tensions simmer behind a low-key opening to the hearings. republicans clearly not over previous judicial wounds is the sub headline. democrats downplay the influence of dark money and traditional groups in the ketanji brown jackson hearing. we want to hear your thoughts. what was your take away? alan, new york, line for democrats. caller: i watched the repeat of the hearings yesterday and i was impressed by one of the statements by a senator.

i thought it was very instructive, reminding people about the role of dark money in politicizing republican nominees for the court most of the last four years and it is the height of hypocrisy for republicans to try to claim they are looking for someone who is going to be a nonpolitical nominee from the democrats when they have been nothing but politicizing the process on their side for so long. i found it hard to listen seriously to people like lindsey graham saying we have always had -- then democratic senators have had toward republican nominees. it may have something to do with the fact that democrats have been a scrupulous in picking people that deserve senators getting their votes because they

are qualified and generally noncontroversial candidates who have not been involved in a history of abuse in their past. for them to ignore that fact as a reason why democrats sometimes have been less cordial, i just hope -- are you there? host: finish your comment. caller: i hope the nominee can maintain her amazing composure because the level of hypocrisy i am hearing, if i were the nominee, would prompt me to have an outburst and throw me off, disqualify me. most people cannot take that level of hypocrisy and keep a straight face. host: that is alan in new york. first off, i somewhat agree with

the last caller. i think the politicization of the process is out of hand, but, leaving that aside, as a republican i want her to get a fair shake. i think the court needs to better represent the united states as far as the population. i did not like the idea that he set out with parameters saying i'm going to eliminate everything from a to y and only take be, but having done that, he came up with the parameters he wants. she seems qualified. i hope they give her a fair shake and i expect when we are done that she will be voted in as a justice. host: you can keep calling in as usual. there is the hearing room. will begin in 90 minutes and this is judge ketanji brown

jackson from yesterday, part of her opening statement. [video clip] >> members of this committee, if i am confirmed, i commit that i will work productively to support and defend the constitution and this grand experiment of american democracy that has endured over these past 246 years. i have been a judge for nearly a decade now, and i take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously. i decide cases from a neutral posture. i evaluate the facts and interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath. i know that my role as a judge is a limited one, that the

constitution empowers me only to decide cases and controversies that are properly presented, and i know that my judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent. host: she will be taking questions from members of the senate judiciary committee. any growth thoughts on day one and two expectations for day two. this is out of alabama. you are next. caller: i do not have anything per se against the lady, but i would need to hear more from her about the issues that marsha blackburn raised about child-support -- child porn and other issues which she had. i think that needs to be addressed. marsha blackburn really raised

some issues that need to be answered. i hope and think and really believe the republicans will not attack her the way gorsuch and cavanaugh were attacked, so i think we need to have an open mind here, me being one of those my but i think those issues really need to be addressed. on top of that, democrats have the majority, so i think she will probably get in regardless. anyway, have a blessed day and thank you. host: the new york times fact checker taking up this line first brought up why senator josh hawley of missouri and senator marsha blackburn about her record on sentencing of child sex abusers and judge ketanji brown jackson's views on

those kind of sentences. the new york times fact checker said, esther holly last week took judge jackson's legal recommendations and sentencing decisions out of context on this issue and's blackburn -- and blackburn's statements -- eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentencing on child port as a member of the sentencing commission, which advises congress on federal sentencing guidelines. they write, this was an overly broad characterization of sentencing made by the commission and omits that the commission is bipartisan and issued its recommendation as a full body, not as individuals. the commission noted that existing sentencing guidelines on crimes involving images of child sexual abuse fails to differentiate between offenders

in terms of culpability's and the resulting penalty range is often too severe for some offenders and lenient for others. if you want to read more of the fact check, that is in today's new york times. this is terry, independent. good morning. caller: i would like to make a comment to the audience about how judges get to become eligible to be nominated to the supreme court. i have been a lawyer for almost 40 years and the way it works generally speaking is that, based upon an administration, when a republican or democrat, those who become eligible for appointment to the system come pursuant to a recommendation from the governor of the state, same with united states

attorneys. it is no different. a person that becomes nominated to become a united states district judge comes from ape local background. the truth of the matter is that the majority of district court judges come from the legal system that represents corporations. that is not necessarily bad, but the truth is when one represents corporations in private practice before they become nominated to a district court system, whether a district court or district court of appeals, their experience is representing corporations. we know the corporations exist only in the form of making money. they have no heart or soul. it is not a human being.

when you represent those types of entities and become in the district court system, you take that experience with you, which is not all bad. host: what would be a better way here and what are your thoughts on judge jackson? -- judge jackson's background coming through the court system and having that experience as a public defender? caller: in this instance, we have a woman jurist whose experience is in the field of representing people, human beings. she was a public defender. everyone is entitled to representation. when one represents people that the vast majority become found guilty, that does not put her in

a situation where she would be best able to interpret the constitution. it broadens her scope. all of us listening to this program will know someone that probably got involved in the law in a bad way, but to have that experience to take to the bench where if you look at the background of the supreme court all of them basically came from the judicial system, representing entities that were corporate and standing, many of them never represented a person their entire life, hence if judge jackson is accepted as a nominee she will have experience that all of us can benefit from, even if she was representing people that we find are not particularly the type of people

we want to be. host: an in new york is next, democrat. good morning. caller: as an african-american woman of 80 something years old, i am proud to have lived to see this time come, when the court has so many years of never choosing a black woman to be on the court. this is a proud moment for a woman of 80 something years old. i also think the supreme court should never be a life term job. it should be maybe 10 years and then change. it is too much power for them to be there for a lifetime job. i do not believe in a lifetime job like this. host: that is an out of new york. reading through your tweets on

our social media pages as well, from twitter, tony says the court does not need to look like america or represent our desires. it needs to interpret the constitution and it was written not how we would like it to be. it has to stand as a limiting document on government access. and agreeing with a caller from nevada, saying he is correct. the majority of our federal judges do not work with criminal clients and not people who need public defenders. her experience is unique in that regard. jack is in wisconsin, republican. host: the way the justice was chosen, joe biden wanted to have a black female on their and that takes a way a lot of candidates, a lot of possibly qualified candidates. the other thing is that, reading

through her articles on her decisions, she has been overturned many times, so i do not know why we want to have somebody on the supreme court that has been overturned as many times as she has. other people were talking about the constitution is the leading document and that is what they have to represent, the constitution, not that they came from this type of neighborhood or schooling or represent companies or individuals. it has to do with how the constitution applies to the specific case and not the specific person. host: this is lindsey graham yesterday, senators giving their opening statements. this is what lindsey graham had to say. [video clip]

>> if you are a hispanic or african-american conservative, it is about your philosophy, not the nature of the pick. it is about your philosophy. the bottom line here is, when it is about philosophy when it is somebody of caller on our side it is about we are all racist if we ask hard questions. we are used to it by now, at least i am. we are going to ask you what we think you need to be asked. senator hawley, you need to ask her about her record as a district court judge and i hope you do. very fair game. president biden had a choice here and he has every right to make it. elections have consequences and we need qualified african-american women to choose from. he chose you. michelle childs, that was in the

mix. i think it came down to three or four people. we do not know for sure about that is what the president is reporting. when it came to judge childs, you talk about dark money, you may be onto something. this group is funded by soros and another liberal billionaire. they have so many groups i cannot name them all now but they said if you pick childs you may have a primary opponent. they said justice judge childs was a union buster. the attacks from the left against judge childs were vicious, so you say you do not have judicial philosophy, per se. somebody on the left believes you do. or they would not have spent the money they spent to have you in this chair.

host: senator lindsey graham yesterday. sean is in north carolina, democrat. go ahead. caller: the lady is definitely overqualified for the job. the problem is we have people on the committee that basically have ties to the insurrection on january 6. not any of them should be on the committee. they should be removed until after the investigation is done. it was funny listening to lindsey graham talk about philosophy and stuff. maybe if you did not allow trump to do the things he did we would not be in this problem with ukraine. did you ever think about that philosophy? thanks for taking my call and this judge is qualified. she is overqualified. host: mark, independent.

caller: the reason i am calling in is the problem is the democratic party is the party of baby slaughter. this judge coming in will support the abortion clinics in this country. it all goes back to biden. he has no moral authority to even protect the people in ukraine. he and the democratic party have killed 70 million babies, unborn children. all my grandchildren are black, so this is not a racist issue. this is a decimation of the black population in this country. that was the intent, and this woman who has been appointed is a reflection of biden himself.

host: this is john out of new york. caller: this is discrimination, to select a black woman or i am going to select a white man or this or that. you cannot select like that. you cannot even say that. biden was crooked from the beginning. he is still in office. he should be thrown out. host: that is drawn in new york. this was senator chuck schumer yesterday talking about what he hopes the american public will take away from the confirmation hearings. [video clip] >> over the course of the week, i expect the american people will see for themselves what judge jackson is one of the most qualified individuals ever to be nominated to the supreme court

of the united states. they will see why the american bar association rated judge jackson as well qualified for the supreme court, their highest rating possible. they will see why the president of the fraternal order of police said there is little doubt that judge jackson has the temperament, intellect, legal experience, and family background to earn this appointment. they will see why even conservative judges like thomas griffith, who introduced judge jackson today, wrote that judge jackson is qualified to serve on the supreme court and should be confirmed i the senate. i also trust that americans will see through the misleading and desperate broadsides that a few members of the other side have lodged against the judge in recent weeks. we need not pretend that wild accusations from self-interested actors deserve to be taken seriously, so caller me skeptical that the american

people will give them much weight. host: a few more minutes left to take your calls on this segment, but we will keep talking about the supreme court confirmation in our next half hour. we will be joined by a supreme court reporter with bloomberg to get his take on day one, his expectations for day two. if you do not get in and this segment, stick around. there is more time to get your calls. we noted news came out sunday that clarence thomas was hospitalized over the weekend for an infection after experiencing what the supreme court called flulike symptoms and the expectation was he would be released in the coming days and he was not available in the court for arguments yesterday. his absence from the court is part of the story around this nomination now.

this is how the wall street journal editorial board puts it, his absence is a reminder of the stakes for the supreme court nomination, saying the timing of his illness undermines the gravity of every supreme court confirmation hearing. judge jackson, they write, is 51 years old. if she joined the supreme court and retires at the same age as justice breyer, it would be the year 2054, plenty of time for anything to happen. senators should evaluate judge jackson as if she is going to be a swing vote. someday not distant from now, she might be. that is the wall street journal. this is yvonne out of milwaukee. caller: this is a wonderful time to be alive if you are a person of color. we had a black president, a black female vice president and now we are getting ready to have the first african-american

female on the supreme court. i am grateful to be alive. i am ecstatic. the only thing i have to say is the same questions they asked the other nominees, i hope they ask the same questions of ketanji brown. do not change the order, do not change what you ask, but i am sure they will ask her, are you going to let your decisions affect -- be affected by your caller, by your race. if that is not the question you ask gorsuch or kavanaugh or amy coney barrett, they should not ask that question of brown jackson. you should be fair, the same questions that you asked those other three jurors should be the same questions that you ask her. host: this is vivian in tennessee. caller: good morning.

i was calling in. i have been looking at what they have been saying about judge jackson. we want someone who is going to be fair to everybody else, every race, not just to the black people. that is republicans throwing this out and i am tired of this. i am 71 years old. it is about time america wakes up. put people on that is qualified, no matter what color they are to represent everyone in america. lindsey graham getting up there talking, they have been up there too long. just look the other caller said, we should do like what england did when they made them pay taxes. we need a referendum to put judges up there for at least 10 years, not lifetimes, because those judges are up there -- up there are old and their mind changes. everybody knows this.

host: monique, democrat, last caller in this segment. caller: thank you for c-span. i keep hearing that joe biden should not have announced he was going to nominate an african-american for the supreme court. he should have. he did exactly what he was supposed to do. america would have blown up. it would have been a shock. america is a mixed pot of different people and how they think, so i think he did a great job announcing it before because people's heads would have bussed -- bust. when it comes to judge jackson and her qualifications, she is an african-american woman, so

that means she had to have been overqualified. this is america. she just could not have came in like a kavanaugh or the other guy. she had to have been overly qualified. this is america. when it comes anything that puts a black person in such a strong position of overseeing the american population, they have to be overqualified, so she will be on the supreme court but she is going to have a tough three days. she is going to do a great job. i am glad a lot of little black girls who do not feel like they are anything in this america, that there are ways to believe in yourself and you can one day come something great. thank you.

host: before you go, you may be interested in today's usa today. from part of the board of contributors, brings up a lot of the topics you just brought up. >> with the historic confirmation hearing of judge ketanji brown jackson as nexus associate justice on the supreme court, c-span in partnership conducted a survey on public attitudes towards the u.s. supreme court. newly released survey of voters assesses america's knowledge about the court and its cases and the political governing process and whether the public wants cameras in the courtroom during oral arguments. view the results of the c-span 2022 survey. you can also watch complete

unfiltered live coverage of the supreme court confirmation hearing on c-span or anytime on demand on c-span.org or on our free mobile app. >> c-span offers a variety of podcasts with something for every listener. washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capital and every week, a book notes plus has in-depth interviews with writers about their latest works. we look at the latest issues the day developed over years. our feature -- many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them on the c-span now mobile app films wherever you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continues.

host: a wrap up of day one of judge brown jackson -- to tonja brown jackson's -- can tonja brown jackson -- kentaji brown jackson's supreme court nomination. we saw a lot of long speeches but not just the nominee but members of congress themselves. expectations for what happens on day two and day three and four. >> today is the day gets interesting because she gets to answer questions and respond to some of those concerns and attacks she heard yesterday from republicans will have a full round of questioning today. everybody gets 30 minutes to ask questions. she will come back tomorrow for more questions a bit shorter and then they will go into an executive session which they do for every nominee where they in

private talk about anything that might be sensitive and then on the fourth day there will be outside witnesses testifying and that usually gets less attention. >> do we know who will be testifying on day four? guest: i do but i can't tell you who. host: your take away from yesterday and expectations. guest: a lot of it was what we expected based on what senators had been saying beforehand. republican signaled they would talk a lot about crime, that's an issue they see as being politically beneficial to them. it would talk about her record as a trial judge on crime. senator -- several senators raised questions about child pornography cases she's issued. they will want to know more about her judicial philosophy when she was an appeals court nominee answered a question saying she doesn't have a judicial philosophy per se, they

will want her to spell that out. one thing we heard when she was nominated, maybe before she was nominated there were criticisms from folks on the right about this being an affirmative action pick and we didn't see that yesterday. that's one area republicans moved away from. , kratz will look to bolster her case throughout and let her talk about her background and experience things like that. host: what is a judicial philosophy? do you have to have one? guest: it depends on what you mean by it. some republican appointees of said they are originalists, they believe in interpreting the constitution according to the original meaning of the words when they were adopted. some democratic appointees, like justice breyer who is retiring and he is someone who judge jackson used to work for. he takes a pragmatic approach,

tries to make the constitution work for the people and the other branches of government. there are different ways of approaching it and ways of approaching federal statutes. those of the sort of thing she will talk more about. host: as you listened yesterday for buzzwords or groups that get brought into this, the arabella group and demand justice. guest: this came in the context of republicans talking about so-called dark money supporting her confirmation, demand justice is a group that has formed to support progressive court nominees as a counter to some conservative groups that did the same thing with republican nominees and sometimes the funding for those groups is not totally clear where the money is coming from. there are a lot of charges and counter charges. sheldon whitehouse, who's been a

democratic critic of republican dark money making the case we weren't the one that started this, republicans take a different view. host: did you cover her confirmation hearing when she became a circuit judge? guest: i did not. host: how much attention to these issues get just nine months ago when that happened? guest: they certainly got some. everybody knew when she was nominated to the circuit that if there were a vacancy given the joe biden had said he would nominate the court's first black woman, everybody knew she was can at least be a short list her. in some ways it was a dress rehearsal for what we are seeing. host: go ahead and start calling in with your questions. did you watch yesterday, what are your expectations, let us know. democrats 202-748-8000, republicans 202-748-8001, independents 202-748-8002.

greg, longtime supreme court reporter. you've written about this pick that the resume has the potential to fill some long-standing gaps at the supreme court rain guest: the supreme court has never had a former public defender. there has been one supreme court justice breyer who was a member of the sentencing commission. she would add that. the court has been over time and both right now very prosecution heavy. there are two former prosecutors on the supreme court bread she would be a lawyer who both in private practice and public defender and involved with defense work. then you add in the experience as a black woman in america which we've never had on the supreme court before and it would be a different perspective. host: what is the sentencing commission? guest: basically it was set up

to try and eliminate disparities in sentencing and criminal cases in federal court and so they put together guidelines that judges originally were required to use and then after some supreme court decisions now are supposed to consult but don't necessarily have to feel as bound to follow. host: what has the sentencing commission said especially during her time on it in child predator or child pornography cases? guest: there are disparate -- what the commission has said is mandatory minimum sentences congress has laid out for some offenses don't do enough to take into account the different levels of culpability depending on what we are talking about. for example, people who create child pornography as people who near -- merely passively look at it and therefore possess it or

perhaps pass on to other people. much of this debate we are hearing about child pornography involves her and did -- as a district judge and member of the sentencing commission advocating for tying sentences a little more to the culpability of the individual person. host: greg here to take your phone calls on day two. we are ending this program one hour early today and we will take you there live in about 50 minutes. for now, your phone calls and questions, also from twitter and social media. harry sent this text message this morning saying when ketanji brown jackson gets on the serene court she will vote liberal every time the matter the case and everybody knows it so wire we going through this discussion? host: -- guest: we are going through this because of the lifetime appointment and really important to know something about the person.

as stephen breyer liked to say this is the one time the democratic process connects up with the supreme court and the public gets to see the nominee and members of the senate get to make an assessment. we can speculate that she probably will be on the liberal side in the large majority of those ideological divisive cases, we do not know for sure. talking about how she will approach cases including cases that we can really imagine today , we think about in terms of the kinds of cases the supreme court is considering right now. but as we've seen, nominee, someone who's confirmed the court may serve for 20 or 30 years and legal issues will be different. it's important to know about how a nominee is going to approach the job, what thoughts and values go into making decisions. guest: who is the current member on the court in your mind whose judicial record is the farthest

from what the expectation was when they were going through the confirmation process? guest: is an interesting question. the answer i give you now is the different answer than 20 years ago when we had a lot more justices whose sort of defied expectations. republican appointed justices who turned out to be fairly liberal. we have fewer of those today and one might say none of those today. probably the person who is defied expectations the most is john roberts, a former reagan administration official, came into the job appointed by president george w. bush, viewed as very much a conservative and still very much a conservative in a lot of ways. but because he has come to think of the court's institutional integrity and institutional standing as a very high priority , he has frequently in the last few years voted with the court's liberal wing on various issues

and sort of separated himself from the more conservative justices who now make up the majority of the court. host: betty in riverside, connecticut. line for democrats. caller: good morning. i watched the hearings yesterday and what i want to say, and i am a democrat and i'm very much for this judge being put on the supreme court. those republicans on the committee were saying different things about her record and some of them i heard were not true. what i want to say is it seems like they just want to pin something on her because a few of them kept talking about what was done to brett kavanaugh. there were reasons why different questions were brought up so seriously about kavanaugh and i for one and very disappointed he got on the court.

because i believe some of the things i heard in those hearings. this woman is so qualified and she certainly wouldn't be having any you know racial sticking up one way or another for race. she's wearing -- she is married to a white man and has two biracial children. these republicans just want to pin something on her because they want to get even with the democrats for making a big to do about kavanaugh. host: to that point, we showed viewers in the last segment, but the headline politico went with today, the kavanaugh tensions simmer behind otherwise low-key opening to this hearing. this idea of kavanaugh and those hearings and as they play out. guest: it was interesting how

much the feelings are still raw among republicans about the kavanaugh hearings. several mentioned, one that was interesting was lindsey graham who has always prided himself on voting in favor of democratic nominees to the supreme court but has strongly indicated he's not, support this one. he is someone who after that kavanaugh hearing was really the first republican senator who expressed at the hearing his anger at how brett kavanaugh had been treated, he suggested for him that was a turning point. one other point i should make his republicans talked about that very contentious hearing. they don't talk much about amy coney barrett, a hearing that despite it happened just before election day was a much more civil proceeding and did not

have the kind of anticipated rancor that occurred in the kavanaugh hearing because of the sexual assault allegations. host: dan, republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. caller: first of all i would like to offer my congratulations to judge jackson and all women of color. as the son of a staunch feminist i'm glad to see this happening. however i have to admit that as a white christian male, i see the process that it's happened through and it just -- i keep thinking that if president biden had said he was only going to appoint a white male, i hate to think about the fallout from a statement like that and i kind of feel sorry for justice jackson because it's kind of a hollow victory, it sounds or she's well-qualified, it just

takes a lot of thunder away. guest: i guess one thought of course is white men -- there's been a lot of white men on the supreme court. it's certainly not an exact parallel. it is interesting to think about with when clarence thomas was nominated to the supreme court, president george w. bush didn't say going and he would nominate a black man even though was someone who was replacing thurgood marshall, of first black justice. when firtash what president bush did as he said i must pick -- pick the most qualified person for the job and he got a lot of criticism for that. it's an interesting thought experiment, but if this had been a process where people of all races and men as well were considered and president biden selected ketanji brown jackson, what would we be talking about

at that point. host: what is the latest on clarence thomas's health. guest: the latest we heard is he is still in the hospital. we are told he went into the hospital on friday night for flulike symptoms and was eventually diagnosed with an infection being treated with antibiotics. i expect we will find out when he is released from the hospital. for now, he did not take part in argument of the court and another argument today and the expectation is he will not be there today. host: i don't expect you to be an expert on his health. has he been hospitalized like this before? guest: he -- not as far as i know. we don't always know what happens with the health of supreme court justices, they make their own decisions about what they will tell the public. in this case the fact the court waited 48 hours to say he had been hospitalized suggest the

reason he made public was because it would be clear the next day he was not on the bench. i cannot tell you for certain he has not been hospitalized for something like this before. host: compare that to how ruth bader ginsburg, how public she was with her health. guest: in general she was forthcoming. she had a lot to disclose. but it's not a perfect record. if i'm remembering correctly at least one case where she did not disclose for several months that her cancer had recurred. she cited a lot of information but i can't say she put everything of importance on a timely basis. host: and there's no guidelines on what they have to and don't have to? guest: the justices make individual decisions. some of them are more forthcoming than others. host: joe in maryland, independent. caller: thank you for

everybody's work. i worked in the supreme court, cleaning marble and kneeling down as the justices walked by and i would talk to them. that said, i played basketball at the supreme court, i've been in the basement, i just don't believe that miss ketanji brown is the right person for the job. i personally think she is an awesome person i'm sure, but having heard all her credentials i wish we could get some one who was a little bit closer to the common man. i feel she is a representative of control and connections. her family being involved in the cia, all the harvard, i appreciate everyone's hard work but she is someone they are

using as a face. host: what you think of what's been coming up quite a bit, our work as a public defender? caller: i get all of that, she gave less than the state attorneys wanted to give. she's done a good job of walking the line in my opinion. i get it. her husband works at georgetown, the place, it's serious business. i don't issue represent the people at all. this is real serious stuff here. i don't mean to come off like that. host: we will let you respond to some of that. guest: one other piece of information out there is both of her parents were educators, her father became a lawyer and the mother became a school principal.

that's another piece of her background she's can add into the mix. she has family members who were in law enforcement and an uncle she talked about who had some drug issues and was in the criminal justice system. she does provide another perspective in that regard as well. some people do criticize the fact so many of the supreme court nominees are harvard and yale graduates and some people would like to see other graduates of other law schools be represented on the court. that is certainly a legitimate perspective that some people have. there are only nine justices on the supreme court, you can have a perfect amount of diversity and represent every facet of america. the caller's perspective is certainly a legitimate one if that's how he perceives her. host: it was amy coney barrett

who went to the university of notre dame law school. guest: she did. host: is there another non-ivy league school represented on the bench? guest: at this point every other justice is either a harvard or yale law school graduate. host: why has that happened? guest: it is an interesting question. part of it is people go to harvard and yale get themselves in the pipeline to do things like be supreme court clerks, be appointed federal judges and those credentials also help them get into higher courts. it's may be a question that doesn't have a perfect answer, you may have to ask the people who advise the president and the president's why they frequent to land on someone who went to the top law school spring -- law schools. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i just have a couple of comments. if judge jackson is qualified, more power to her. my thought is though. everybody knows even she knows that she was chosen for the nomination based on the color of her skin and her gender. she must not have much self-respect if she's not embarrassed to even accept the nomination on that basis. i'm reading right now she's had several of cases overturned for overreach so i will be keeping an eye on her. all of biden's nominations are getting pushed through. i just want to throw some facts out there for people that are listening because i was listening to some of your callers and they are not educated on the facts. host: greg on judicial

overreach. guest: that's an interesting point we hadn't talked about yet. the caller's point is that there been a couple of cases or may more than a couple where judge jackson as a different judge said there's a suit in front of me and i have the power as a judge to decide this case reversed it saying this is not actually an area where the federal judiciary plays a role. there's less yesterday than i would've thought but i'm sure there'll be plenty of questions today about a lot of her decisions and as the caller said being reversed by the d.c. circuit judge and there been a couple instances where she was reversed in high profile cases and in a -- and the panel including a couple of democratic employees. and there are questions republic and so probably probe perhaps

suggesting she's even more liberal than the average democratic appointed judge. host: we talked about demand justice barrett remind us what the federal say federalist society is. guest: it's a group of conservative lawyers -- a network of conservative lawyers who aim to influence debate in law schools and on the federal judiciary. the former federalist society official leonard leo was a key advisor to donald trump in his initial selection including the three supreme court appointments. host: when watching today's hearing and it starts in about 35 minutes this morning, in these recent hearings we hear the nominees answer questions

saying i can give you an answer because this might be a case that comes before the supreme court, explain when did they start doing that and why do members keep asking them questions they can answer. guest: they've been doing it for decades. robert bork in 1987 was really the last nominee who really tried to engage in issues like that and defend this view of the constitution. since then judges have learned nominees have learned that talking about that sort of thing only gets them in trouble so justice ginsberg famously said she will give no hints or previews of how she might rule in cases. and that's proven to be for nominees kind of a great roadmap to be able to not get pinned down on issues and they explained because as a judge they want to go in any case with an open mind and i don't want to

feel like i'm bound with the confirmation hearing. but it's proven to be a roadmap that pretty much all the justices, the judicial nominees have filed in their hearings. -- followed in their hearings. host: line for democrats. caller: can you hear me? host: yes ma'am. caller: hello. it's not just about race. i know people were calling and saying because she is an african-american woman, but biden was also -- also a qualified. not just any african american woman, but a qualified one. in the past she has served as judge on the d.c. circuit court i do believe and she does represent the average american working.

she comes from the average working family in america where they were able -- she was able to rise up to the positions she had and served in america. she is not from a line of iv leaguers and other things so she does represent the average or common, whatever you want to use, american. host: greg we will give you the final minute and a half. guest: i said at the beginning, this will be her chance to talk and am especially interested in hearing her talk more about her judicial philosophy and how she would go about making decisions about what the equal protection clause means and how she will interpret federal statute. think she didn't really talk about as a tcc nominee.

we've only seen her as a shirt -- for a short time. we have a limited sense of how she will be an appellate judge. i will be really interested in hearing about that. and i'll be very interested in hearing how forcefully she defends her record as a district judge especially again some of those allegations that she was soft on crime and soft on people who were convicted of possessing or distributing child pornography. host: you can see greg's work at bloomberg.com and follow him on twitter. we always do appreciate your host: coming up next we will be joined by jimmy mcintyre of the washington examiner. we will talk about the pentagon's posture as the russia-new crane conflict deepens. coming up it is day two of

confirmation hearings for judge ketanji brown jackson. we will be right back. ♪ >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday you will find the events that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sunday book stevie brings you fiction. discover, explore -- weekends on c-span2. ♪ >> on march 19, 1979 americans for the first time were able to

watch live coverage of the u.s. house of representatives on c-span. visit our c-span anniversary sale going on right now at c-span shop.org. use that code est1979 at checkout. every sale help supports our nonprofit operations. ♪ >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine bringing the latest from white house officials, the pentagon and congress. we also have international perspective doves and statements from international leaders. our web resource page --

follow tweets from journalists on the ground. host: as we turn back to the topic of the russian invasion of ukraine we welcome back to our program jamie mcintyre. he is the author of jamie mcintyre's newsletter, a staple for national security professionals in this town. what is leading the daily on defense today? guest: i was writing about how the valiant defense of the city of mary opal has stymied the -- mariupol has stymied the russians but it has come a great cost to the residents.

the citizens there are without food, water, medicine, electricity. many of them have left it describing scenes of utter devastation with bodies it's drone the street. the refusal of mariupol to -- i quoted the former nato supreme allied commander as saying he was comparing the last stand of mariupol to the battle of the alamo, which was a siege as well. it ended with all of the defenders in the alamo being killed but it was a rallying

point that rallied texans to defeat the mexican army the next month and we are really seeing this kind of pivotal battle being played out and the very brave refusal of the ukrainians to submit to the russian demands. this war has not gone anything like president vladimir putin had anticipated. the russians have had problems at every turn. they did not think a month into the war this was where they would be. it is really a race against time to see what side will be able to withstand the casualties and the losses and in the case of russia the crippling economic sanctions. it is a perversity of war the more inapt to the invading

forces the more pain and suffering is suffered by the people of ukraine. one of the big revelations of this war from the pentagon's point of view is they clearly overestimated the prowess of the russian military. the u.s. thought the russians having wealth up their military were a much more formidable foe than they have turned out to be. they have serious problems in the russian military. the price is being paid by the ukrainian people. host: you talked about the strategic importance of creating the land bridge of crimea but is the symbolic importance outweighing it? is it worth it this point -- it at this point for the russians?

why does russia have to have this city? guest: they need the major port of odessa to the west to secure the coastline and cut off ukraine. that was their plan. they thought they would execute that in a matter of days. the symbolic value is no longer ukraine can hold out, the longer they can inflict heavy casualties -- is the longer ukraine can hold out, the longer they can inflict heavy casualties on the russians, -- those are very high numbers. it is way more than the number the united states lost in afghanistan and it is approaching what the u.s. lost in afghanistan and iraq in 20

years of war. the russian defense ministry can claim everything is going to plan. they may even be able to prevail if they keep at this with brute force, bombarding cities with missiles and rockets and airstrikes, but it will come at a terrible cost. people back in russia, as their sons are being slaughtered in ukraine, that could cause a considerable problem for mr. putin. it is almost-- it is kind of like a war of attrition. it has turned into a classic guerrilla war with the ukrainian troops trained by the u.s. and its allies, well equipped with weapons that can inflict damage on russian aircraft, and their motivated in

these -- they are motivated in these hit and run attacks. one of the neighborhoods outside of kyiv has been retaken by ukrainian forces. that is a measure of how well they have been able to stymie the russians. the plan was to circle kyiv the way they have circled mariupol and bombed the citizens into submission. as long as we prevent that, they can get supplies into the capital. unless the capital falls, this war is not over. if it goes on long enough, the price for russia can be so high they will have to find some way, find some sort of offramp to stop the fighting.

vladimir putin has decided he has to win this war. he did not leave himself an out. he has no way to get out and say face. that is a problem -- save face. that is a problem. he doesn't care about lives in ukraine. he doesn't care about the losses at his own military has taken. host: let me give the phone numbers for viewers to join the conversation. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002 -- independents, (202) 748-8002. a question for you from twitter

-- " this proves the russian conventional military threat was the biggest paper tiger in history and we can stop spending so much money on the military." i wonder your thoughts on that? guest: i agree with the first part. the russian military did turn out to be a paper tiger. it looked formidable, but it was not. it will cause nato to reassess how it fends against potential russian invasion into nato territory, something that was really the founding principle of the nato alliance was to counter the soviet union, if it had designs on things. a couple of years ago the rand corporation reviewed the

wargames the u.s. does to game out what a war with russia would go like. russia was able to take a lot of territory quickly and nato did not have enough resources, particularly in the countries that border russia to stop them. based on their performance stopping them in ukraine it seems like some of those calculations were flawed. if you read what vladimir putin has said about his ambitions, it is pretty clear he would not like to stop at ukraine. after being bloodied in ukraine he might not have a stomach to go further but nato is concerned he might go after one of the countries, former warsaw pact countries right on the border,

including lithuania, estonia, latvia, those countries along the edge of his border, and they are making big plans to beef up the defenses there to make sure that does not happen. one other big wildcard here is russia has this unique nuclear doctrine. the united states and most of the countries that have nuclear weapons argue that the purpose of nuclear weapons is not for them to ever be used, but to deter and prevent war. people are not going to attack you, if they know you have nuclear weapons and the best use of them is if they are never deployed. russia's nuclear doctrine calls for the use of so-called " battlefield weapons," lower

yield nuclear weapons to de-escalate -- to escalate to de-escalate. if russia is losing on the battlefield, or the country is at stake, they might employ a small nuclear weapon, which seems oxymoronic, but something that might take out a tank division or aircraft carrier or a major airfield, then the other side, in this case the united states would be loath to new tally eight -- low the to retaliate with another nuclear weapon so we went back down and russia would able to prevail with a limited use of nuclear weapons. you can see how that would

quickly spin out of control. there was debate during the trump years about developing more low yield nuclear weapons from the united states, not to use them but to send a message to russia that if it was to use some small mini nuke, we would have some small mini nuke we could respond with without provoking all-out thermonuclear war that could destroy the planet as we know it. these are perilous times and that nuclear doctrine is what has kept the united states from putting a no-fly zone over the country or intervening in a more proactive way. host: members will start gathering in the senate judiciary committee hearing room in a minute. this is timothy and washington, d.c., a democrat. caller: i live in washington dc

not too far from the white house. everyone here is a little on edge. we are aware -- it sent shock waves around the world three times. they could have increased that to 100 megatons. the thought is what if something like that was taken as a threat america sending aid to ukraine and weapons as an act of war? and russia decides " i'm losing." this is an act of war. " we are losing." my question to you is, who's back -- put in's back is up against the wall == putin's back

-- putin's back is up against the wall. what is to stop him from destroying the entire united states? guest:'s back from what we can tell putin is ruthless. he has gambled big on this end he is capable of doing something -- and he is capable of doing something beyond conventional warfare. the u.s. is concerned he might use chemical weapons in ukraine. the u.s. is bracing for cyber attacks on u.s. infrastructure. we saw what happened when the colonial pipeline was crippled. we also in theory --

he also in theory could use a small nuclear weapon. ukraine is on his border and the effects of that would affect russia. putin is not interested in a major exchange of nuclear weapons. their whole doctrine was that this one strike would be so shocking no one would respond and there would be immediate calls for peace and russia could prevail on its terms. there is no indication he has appetite for an all out war, which would mean the end of the planet as we know it. he has 1500 nukes. we have 1500 nukes. host: scott in omaha, nebraska. caller: i wanted to point out

that if you follow the un security councils, this is an issue the russian ambassador has been trying to raise. they have state interests inside ukraine, and that is a dispute that is occurring in that region of the world that we should let play out and when you substitute or stifle discourse, you produce an alternative result, and that is warfare. politics is the continuation of warfare by other means. we should look to not only how to stop this situation but how to avoid stifling discourse in the future. host: i will give you the final two minutes on the role of the human, the role -- the u.n.,

the role of nato and expectations on what will happen with biden's visit this week. guest: one nation should not take over the borders of unaided another nation because they want to. no history gives them rights to it. they had the chance to resolve this diplomatically but president putin gave lip service to that. he lied about what his intentions were. president biden will be going to nato headquarters, meeting with the eu. lloyd austin will be going with him. they will be talking about adjusting the nato security

posture to make sure whatever happens in ukraine does not spread to nato countries, that putin might have designs, and to send a more effective message of deterrents. there will be talk of what more the u.s. and allies can do to get web -- weaponry into ukraine. the theory is the ukrainians could hold out long enough. they could wear down the russian forces. otherwise it is a matter of time before russia with its superior forces just to simply grinds down the opposition in ukraine. it is a very perilous time. most experts say the next week to 10 days will tell the tale of

whether ukraine will prevail or if russia will impose its will on ukraine. host: jamie mcintyre, daily on defense, you can get it through the washington examiner. as always, we appreciate the time. guest: my pleasure. host: that will do it for us this morning on the washington journal. it is the second day of the confirmation hearings for judge ketanji brown jackson. they are set to begin in a few minutes. reporters and members of congress are gathering. we will take you live now for life's outs -- live sights and sounds.

>> we are live on capitol hill this morning. the scene on this tuesday morning for day two of the confirmation hearing for judge ketanji brown jackson. if confirmed she would replace judge stephen breyer. it will start in eight minutes at 9:00 eastern. dick durbin who you saw a couple of seconds ago is already in the room and ready to gavel the session to order at 9:00 eastern. today will be the longest day of questioning this week, possibly 11 hours of testimony. we will carry it in its entirety.

all 22 senators today will have a chance to ask questions. tomorrow, wednesday they will meet for more questioning. senators will have 20 minutes to do any follow-up questioning. we will get testimony from the american bar association and other outside witnesses on thursday. you can follow the confirmation of judge ketanji brown jackson all week long right here on c-span.

>> you can find hearings from president reagan's nominee of justice rank west to be chief in 1986 all the way to trump's nomination of judge amy coney barrett. easy viewing on c-span.org/confirmation hearings