c-span is your unfiltered view of government. including cox. bridging the digital divide. cox, supports c-span as a public service. giving you a front row seat to democracy. coming up this morning on washington journal. the president of the american federation of teachers randi weingarten and brandon judd

talks about ending title 42. join the conversation with your phone calls, text messages and tweets. washington journal is next. on this vote, this nomination is confirmed. and with that ketanji brown jackson became a supreme court justice. now set to take the bench. the democrats won the seat just six weeks and they did it with the help of three republican votes. we will begin by getting your reaction to the confirmation and hear your thoughts on the future

of the high court and the judicial process. for republicans it is (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, and independents (202) 748-8002 you can get us on social media http://twitter.com/cspanwj. you can start calling it now. here are some of the front pages. usa today with this headline. u.s. history is made, ketanji jackson is confirmed. after a close vote, in washington dc the city and which ketanji brown jackson was born. the front page of the miami herald, miami the city in which she was waste -- raise.

calling it a supreme moment, the senate confirms ketanji brown jackson as the first black woman confirmed to the court. here is some of the action from the senate floor just before that vote. this was raphael warnock. >> i want to acknowledge the historic nature of her appointment is not lost on me. i know what his -- what it has taken for her to get to this moment and no one will steal my joy. yes, i am a senator, i am a pastor but beyond all of that, i am the father of a young, black girl. i know how much it means for

judge jackson to have navigated the double jeopardy of racism and sexism to stand in the glory of this moment in all of her excellence. for my five-year-old daughter and for so many young women in our country. really if we are thinking about it right, for all of us, see judge jackson on the supreme court reflects the promise of progress on which our democracy rest. what a great day it is in america. today, the word of justice and equal protection under the law become flesh and lives among us in new ways. today, at the highest levels of our government, the

administration of our constitution looks a little bit more like what it says, it feels me with great pride for our country. how far we have come and what we can achieve together. that was senator warnock before that final vote which was 53-47. three republicans joining democrats. mitt romney, susan collins and lisa murkowski. your thoughts on her confirmation and the supreme court confirmation process in general. we will start with roy for michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to think -- thanks

c-span for your coverage of the confirmation hearing of judge ketanji brown jackson. justice will come to the supreme court well credentialed and be ready to hit the ground running on day one. as a matter of fact, her judicial gifts will serve her well. personally, it has hit home for me because every time i hear her name mentioned in political circles i give her a standing, thunderous ovation. every time her name is spoken and i mean that literally. i was up at 1:00 a.m. and i was

watching the news and i had to give her that ovation. c-span, when i was watching. i was watching the comedy between the left and right to be the arbiter of truth. what i did see when i watched the hearings, i saw the three sixes tattooed on the republican judicial members in the first six. host: we will go to joe in wilmington, north carolina. caller: i am a republican. i grew up the jacksonian democrat. i have family members that are judges and close friends at the federal level.

my uncle practice before the supreme court for a number of years. i think i am a pretty good judge of character. it was very clear to me that the judge is fully qualified. we need to get out of this mood of hate. there is no satanic symbol because of what they vote. people did not like jackson or this president. the established government wanted to make a big deal of that. she was highly qualified.

she had all the boxes ticked. i am a moderate republican. i would file myself under a jacksonian democrat. host: do you think the process still works? to have the senate do its due diligence here? caller: i think due diligence is important in anything and justice is supposed to be blind. if you have a $1 million you should have no greater element than anyone else and she may be liberal and anything that could come out of harvard but i know a lot of harvard professors and students that are good people at core and they don't want to see a division.

just like my professor at yale said, there is always going to be division and intelligent people can see the difference. host: that was joe from north carolina. judge jackson to join the bench after judge breyer steps down. four law degrees from harvard, four from yale and one from the university of notre dame law school. this is middleton. caller: good morning john. i think it is a good thing that she was nominated and she was confirmed but it is all for nothing. because the republicans, even my

senator, she voted no. why? what was her point? the supreme court is not going to change any. it is 6-3. it is not going to change with her in there. host: your point is why vote against her? it is not going to change the balance of the court it is a one for one switch out, why vote against her? caller: they are supposed to be in their for the whole united states. they are supposed to watch over every body and we can't pick our

republicans and have them do whatever. host: mitch mcconnell, these were some of his remarks yesterday. >> even as a violent crime wave sweeps america, they are pursuing a nation wise campaign to make the justice system softer on crime. they are stacking the deck with local lawyers at the department of justice and federal justice that believe criminals below -- deserve lighter treatment. this is terrible for american families and democrats view judge jackson as their crown jewel. their views are judicial philosophy are not just academic , the charge political atmosphere around confirmations,

the outsized roles that unelected judges play in our life. these are consequences of liberal activism. they are direct results to misuse cords -- cords. they should not wait with baited breath to see if lawyers are going to change the constitution. delegitimizing and destroying the rule of law. there's only one solution, the senate should only can earn justices that will follow the text of our law and constitution wherever it leads.

subjective policy judgments on this side of the street where they belong. that is how we lower the temperature and shore up the cords. that is how we protect the rule of law. stack the judiciary that understand and embrace its limited role. no other road leads anywhere good for our great nation. host: mitch mcconnell on the senate floor before the final vote, 53-47 to confirm judge jackson. she will be sworn in after judge breyer steps down. she is 51 years old and replacing 83-year-old stephen breyer. she will be the 116th judge to serve on the court.

of the 116, she is the sixth woman to judge the supreme court. getting your reaction and thoughts on the process in your thoughts on the future of the high court. this is renee out of maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. c-span is always a breath of fresh air where we can all discuss the state and importance of everything in this country. it is incredibly proud moment. to see judge jackson confirmed, it is long overdue. we really need to come to a place in this country where we remember how to love one another.

these divisive politics have strangled the future of our nation and i think that judge jackson will be a levelheaded woman of character and elemental decency. what is heartbreaking is to see these politicians, i am independent. due to this vitriol that we heard mitch mcconnell put out there. it is disgraceful, it is ugly. i was ashamed during the confirmation hearings to see people from my own state, marco rubio put her through the ringer in such a disgraceful manner. a woman who has really earned every respect in this world and to see how partisan politics is

destroying the fabric of what we call the united states which has become the un-american united states. and how it would take something like 9/11 remind us that we are family. and if we don't bring back and elemental ability to have discourse. people have made their careers on the daily bread-and-butter of hatred and it works. they instill fear and it comes from the republican side. my father was a republican and my mother was a democrat and they adored each other. my father said windex in is impeached how disgraced he felt because he was a man of elemental decency. i feel that has been lost. host: that was renee out of

maryland. the headline out of miami. at the history of ketanji brown jackson, the first african-american woman and first floridian on the court. this is linda out of mississippi. a democrat. caller: good morning. i am so proud of ketanji brown jackson. that she has been confirmed as the first black woman on the supreme court. i am sad because of the way that the senate treated her. as a black woman that i am mad at what we have to do, have to be overly qualified.

we will not get jobs, we will be dismissed. it is sad but it is important because the ultimate judge in this country. i would never want my case to go to the supreme court. maybe the court has the chance to uplift his self. as of now, the republican senate, harley, marco rubio,

marsha blackburn. host: what about the three republicans that voted for judge jackson? caller: those are qualified senators that voted with their conscience and i was proud. it gave me hope. that is what they are there for. they are not there to vote on party lines. i am a democrat but we are not right all the times but neither are republicans. host: this is the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, dick durbin the democrat from illinois praising the

republicans for joining the republicans. >> this moment is possible because of judge jackson and her record of excellence. she has earned her seat on the supreme court. that is why it is unfortunate that several republicans did not approach judge jackson with the same level of fairness and respect as her colleagues. thankfully, there are members of the senate who are willing to rise above the partisan fray. i want to commend susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska and senator mitt romney for their political courage and their willingness to support a qualified nominee to the supreme court. when senator rodney announces support i could not help but remember his father who served as governor of michigan during the height of the civil rights

movement. he knew a thing or two about political courage. as a republican governor in 1963 he marched alongside the naacp in support of civil rights. governor george romney declared freedom day. to my colleague mitt romney, you are your father's son. host: that was dick durbin on the senate floor. the phone lines as usual and the picture there of president biden with judge jackson at the white house watching the final vote as it takes towards the number needed for confirmation. this is sophia out of new york. caller: good morning john.

to me, she is married to a white man. host: do you want to talk about the candidates themselves and not who they are married to? caller: just give me half a second. to me tim scott he is a disgrace to the history. the people voted for him, white and black for the history. what i am trying to say is, the people put him, vote for him.

host: that was sophia from new york. this is barney out of florida. barney, are you with this? this is gordon out of kansas city. caller: thank you for taking my call. i supported her but when she said fentanyl distribution is a victimless crime and she does not even know what a woman is. host: this is james from

charlotte, north carolina. caller: it has been a sad day for the senate. to watch the senate room and to walk out because they did not want to confirm her. i thought it was sad. host: are you talking about the senators that walked out? caller: exactly. and senator tim scott who went along with that. it was all to disgrace that woman. the questions about race theory and what is a woman. it was all in an effort to disgrace. but the republicans do, they

tried to dehumanize a person and then they can do anything they want to them. they dehumanize their enemies. host: a couple of callers bringing up that question asked by tennessee republican marsha blackburn, the question of a definition of a woman coming up during the confirmation hearing. marsha blackburn spoke to reporters about that question and offered a little more background about that question and talking about that with judge jackson. >> i told her that i would ask her about parental rights, about crt, biological males competing against biological females and i was surprised that she did not come ready to answer those questions.

and then when i asked her to give me the definition of the word woman as we were discussing the bmi decision and there are enduring differences between male and female, she said she could not give that definition. and of course, we know why. it is because the dark money leftist groups that have been pushing to have a progressive on the supreme court have been pushing her, nomination and confirmation do not want that definition. they are trying to erase woman. they are trying to push this agenda of woke education. these are some of the reasons for me that i cannot vote to confirm her to the u.s. supreme court. host: marsha blackburn on

capitol hill. this is your hour to talk about the confirmation. this is wilmer out of massachusetts, republican. caller: i am a veteran and i was wondering. how the republicans are divisive, they were not really good to justice courses or cavanaugh. it is funny now that they say republicans are divisive. every four years it is misogynistic, sexist, racist. they said mitt romney would have you back in chains. they said that senator mccain would have you and chains. mccain started to cater to the

democrats but they will never like you. this judge was not qualified. she made bad decisions. it is not because she is black, but because she is black everybody has to like her? host: you mentioned adam kinzinger. later today, 8:45 eastern. we will be showing adam kinzinger added discussion -- added discussion. it will be on c-span, c-span.org. also today, president biden will be appearing with judge ketanji jackson, that is happening right

around lunchtime. we will be showing it at c-span and c-span.org. back to your phone calls, this is elaine out of tyler, texas. caller: good morning. glad to see you. i am elated for the new justice. and i had to shed a tear for the way she was treated, but i went ahead and put those senators on my prayer list. i can recall from my own mistreatment on the day i started as an operator at southwestern bell in 1968. i left the school system because i did not like it. my son was in the first grade and was not happy being relocated.

the morning i walked in for training on january 15, there were two elderly black ladies having coffee and as i walked through one of them said i don't want to see another black woman come through here. i walk through crying and praying my mind wanting to do the best in my mind. a year later i became that very ladies manager. i stayed there and i got a lot of commendations. nevertheless, when you do right, god has your back. host: did you ever bring up that remark to her?

caller: no i treated her like my sister. but i was raised right by my mother and father and i knew right from wrong. and i could cry when i see wrong being done. nevertheless, you let god take care of that and i was happy for the justice. the united states is in bad shape. we need to pray. it is not hard to be kind. that is all i have to say.

but i had to cry because i remember that comment that lady made, i kept walking, kept smiling, cap training and learning. i kept getting all these accolades. i'd told the new operators to treat the customers right. host: thank you for sharing your story. in the print edition of usa today, jackson to inspire future generations of black women. the law professor tiffany adkins. she is what she rides, nobody in my family graduated from college, which is why tv programs like the cosby show in a different world were transformative for me. it was clear huxtable that could become a lawyer so could i.

judge ketanji brown jackson will become the first judge on the court. i am guessing that more than one black girl will see her on the screen and say i want to be a judge just like ketanji brown jackson. it is the representation for me. caller: good morning to you all. i just want to say congratulations to justice ketanji brown jackson. i think it is something that will move us towards a more perfect union. but also to the district judges,

the eastern district of new york. they have my son in pretrial detention for 15 months and i remember calling and i told him, that is unfair, that is unjust. they don't have probable cause is right. host: do you think having a public defender will change the way the justice system will change the way they treat people awaiting trial? caller: a person who upholds the rule of law. i think we really need to address the issue of district

judges who are there and do not uphold the rule of law. they are not doing it with the fear of favor. how could they have my son in pretrial detention? host: this is sue out of massachusetts. caller: i am a lifelong republican and i have to say i am disappointed in mitch mcconnell saying that he is not going to have hearings if we take the senate but i am so proud of this country and the appointment of judge jackson. i am really proud, i know you are getting a lot of calls from people who are plugged. as a woman, i am proud to have three women on the supreme court and i think or for women, and i think it is number six for women

on the supreme court. i hope that the democrats fight hard. the one thing that makes this country great is that we persevere and debate hard and we will play within the rules. the democrats can appoint a second justice. if there is an opening in the second two years of biden, may be the democrats can play hard two. host: what keeps you being a republican? caller: i am a lifelong republican, a massachusetts republican. if you are a scientist you really understand the complexity and sometimes my party breaks it down in a way that i cannot

endure so i am proud of mitt romney. it is a complicated world and people don't always fight fair but i think it is one of the greatest countries in the world. i believe in business and free market so i have to be a republican. host: senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell won't commit to senate hearings if he is the senate majority leader leading up to the 2024 election. he told jonathan swan he will not put the cart before the horse but if republicans retake congress, the president will finally be the moderate and would refuse to say that he would hold the potential hearing

on a potential supreme court nominee next year. this is kevin out of clinton, new york. caller: good morning. congratulations to miss brown on her appointment. what you could do this after new is replay amy coney barrett's confirmation hearing so these people can get real about how rude the republicans were. i hope to hell that none of those people have a child that ods on fentanyl and people have to go for four coni brown.

you people have lost your minds in this country. host: this is scott, and independent. caller: i appreciate the democrats for getting her in because i can prove a point. they just love child molesters. she has led child molesters off. just like those hold biden, just like the border. we have laws against it and they will use the and just push it. host: in our 9:00 a.m. hour we will talk a lot about the border. i am assuming you are talking about the ending of title 42 that allowed border agents to expel those who crossed the

border illegally. that cdc provision is ending and 9:00 a.m. eastern. we have about 20 minutes left to talk about the confirmation vote of ketanji brown jackson. she will officially become judged brown jackson at the end of the term. she is one of the many justices that senator leigh he has seen come through. he took to the senate floor to talk about it. >> i have been here for 21 supreme court nominations and i look at all of them and what we

have learned and here i see someone extraordinarily well qualified. someone who makes the court look more like america and someone that i can say to my children, and my grandchildren, be proud. be proud of what you see because over those 21, i could not help to think it was rare that we could put through someone to show diversity. as proud as i was to vote for the first woman to go on the supreme court, the first latina to go on the supreme court, now we have come all the way and i am so happy. i am so happy we have put this

all together. after 48 years, i am very happy. thank you. host: that was just after the vote was confirmed of ketanji brown jackson. we are taking your phone calls and getting your reaction. we are going to take this conversation until 838 time 8:30 a.m.. we will keep up your calls this morning. this is joey from atlanta, georgia. caller: i just wanted to remind your listeners that it is not about anyone's qualifications that we need to be concerned about it is their true identity. we have to understand, especially christians that evil is among us and it will be infiltrated and the highest

government and in our lowest government. we have to understand to be watchful. these evil people are trying to destroy this country and they will try to destroy us by lying to us and confuses. all i am asking is to understand our history. we have to understand our bible and we will drown in our own blood if we christians don't get serious about what is going on in america and around the world. i pray for all of you and god bless you. host: from maryland, this is ruth, a democrat. caller: when i heard the notification that judge jackson got confirmed there was a part of me that was very surprised because i thought wait, did we actually do it? did we get a

woman of color on the supreme court? i consider myself a young person it to see the supreme court changing is really inspiring. as i was watching the hearings that was a part of me that worried how our country is going . seeing how people on that committee, specifically republican were acting. this was one of the harshest confirmation hearings i had seen. it surprised me and it worries me that we as a country are going in the wrong direction. but by getting judge jackson on the court, it is really inspiring to me as a woman, as a

person of color. it it gave me hope that we continue in the right direction. host: you have seen republican several times accusing them of being too harsh. we will point to the brett kavanaugh hearings and save those were harsh confirmation hearings? caller: when we look at judge kavanaugh, what was interesting as they were focused on his past and his high school career. in this case, with judge jackson, we were focusing -- we were looking out one single case and they kept repeating it and what was really interesting, and

she explained her full answer. as the confirmation continued she got so irritated that she said i already answered that. host: your comments about diversity, the washington post headline saying for the first time ever, the court will no longer be a majority of white men. there will be five men, for women but no longer a majority of white men on the supreme court. this is frank from oregon, and independent. caller: you are doing a great job of herding cats. i am reacting to a caller allowing

child molesters go. that is ridiculous. mitch mcconnell stuff times two. she did not let anybody go free and especially not a child molester. when they look at the cases she decided, they decided that she had gone slightly below the prosecutions recommendations but she had never gone below the federal recommendations at all. this is just dog whistle stuff. we have mitch mcconnell who before she appeared before the committee said that he wanted to know about her packing the court. that is something that she has nothing to do with.

however, he has been packing the courts for years. he never gave merrick garland a hearing. they spoke to lisa murkowski about bringing up garland's nomination. i appreciate c-span exposing these crazy notions for what they are. i do hope that the democrats would do the same sort of thing. host: on the sentencing issue which was very much a part of this confirmation hearing from republicans. a few of those judge jackson saying that the final sentencing based on probation reports that the senators were not looking at all the information she had when she was making her decisions and there was a discussion among

republicans, we don't have the probation reports we should get access to those reports individually dick durbin said he was not going to go there and open that can of forms because it is sensitive information in probation reports. i wonder if that was handled correctly. if the republicans were saying give us that information, should they be able to look at those reports? caller: not only did they look at which she had done but what all her peers had done. and her peers did not depart at all from the standards that she used, they followed the federal probation reports. i am not aware that those are not available to the minority on the judiciary committee. it has been my understanding in the past that in state law that

those reports are available and if the republicans wanted to know, they could have had them i think. host: there was a lot of discussion if they should be opened up because it is sensitive information. we had a probation officer call into the program and talk about the process and all of the sensitive information that gets included in those reports and it was an interesting conversation with that caller. thank you for bringing it up. this is helen and washington dc. a republican. caller: what i would like to say is, i don't know if the people were listening during the hearing when she said that she does not make the laws, it is the congress who makes the laws. the congress makes the laws,

then they need to write them correctly. there are a lot of flaws in the way that the law is written across america and they must go by the rules of the law. no one knows what the case was that she was on regarding the pedophilia, i take pride in the fact that she did the due diligence. we don't know what it was, whatever. i don't think that the republicans or anyone else should have seen those documents. we need to listen to what they are telling us. host: helen from washington dc. coming up on 8:00 p.m. eastern. getting your opinions on the confirmation of ketanji brown jackson.

andy reactions from capitol hill. this is speaker pelosi. >> on the bench, the speaker said judge jackson will be a relentless defender of individual rights and the rule of law. the american people will benefit from her experience as a public defender that she will bring to the court. with her confirmation it takes an important step to our most cherished ideals. that was the speaker yesterday. this is george hamel, he is the deputy chief of staff. he tweeted yesterday, speaker pelosi received a positive test result for covid-19 and is asymptomatic.

she is fully vaccinated and boosted and thankful for the robust protection of the vaccine and asks everyone to get boosted and vaccinated. host: this is lee and toledo, ohio. caller: i just want to say that i am so happy to see that finally america has really recognized a black woman. america has stood on the shoulders of black women for 500 years and it was great to see yesterday it going forward. i remember myself, i am so

elated that i was nine or 10 years old when the civil rights bill passed. more importantly today, the five on the show, i am hearing women, black women, brown women and white women speak positively about the situation and it is time for women to take over the united states of america. it has been jacked up with men running it. and i think you young man for your kindness. host: it was senator lindsey graham yesterday, a member of the judiciary committee saying that democrats celebrating the confirmation, they had the chance to have that celebration.

they had the chance to confirm a conservative black woman. this is lindsey graham after that confirmation vote. >> senator booker is a good friend and a fairly dramatic reading of the vote regarding judge jackson. however this historical nature to assent to the court and that is a good day for america that the court presides over. what i will never let go is the idea that that was possible because of the filibuster by democrats of the highly qualified african-american nominee janice rogers brown. the reason she is not the first african-american on the court because they filibustered her.

they held her ideology against her. they said she was too extreme. and no one mentioned the fact that the air filibuster an african-american woman that was in line to the supreme court. what did we learn from this hearing? double standards abound. all of a sudden you are racist if the nominee is a liberal african-american. we don't like that and we will not put up with that. we will always remind the public that the only reason judge jackson is is because they stopped a conservative african-american woman. if we get charge of the senate in 2022, i can promise you that

nominees like this will not make it through. we will go back to the old system of collaboration. it is not that there will not be any more judges. if we were in charge and we had a say, it would be someone less extreme filling the seat. host: this is eugene out of massachusetts. caller: first of all, i am very happy as an independent to see a black woman, a woman of color on the court. the only thing, the problem i have with it is that for the high profile positions, clarence thomas and now ketanji jackson. i did not like clarence thomas

in the subliminal message is that why can't they put someone on the supreme court that is black whose significant other is a black person with black children. that is a problem with america. from the very beginning, the whole thing has been the destruction of the black family and that represents with the biracial children. the cdc is saying that biracial children is two to three times more likely of having health problems. host: are you saying she is not qualified? caller: she is qualified to an extent. there are a lot more qualified black women than her. host: you mentioned clarence thomas.

we go to washington post clarence thomas referenced in an op-ed by anita hill. she writes, i know something about being mistreated by the judicial committee. i was subjected to attacks on my intelligence, my truthfulness insanity when i testified about my experience in a spectacularly low moment they sought out slanderous statements by vifor former students. it was obvious that no matter how composed, respectful were. i appeared as a witness before the committee, but in both situations, republican senators

showed their capacity to use misogynistic attacks. caller: i just wanted to reiterate what lindsey graham was saying while -- reiterate wt mr. graham was saying that janice rogers brown was nominated by george w. bush, the young bush, and the democrats just eviscerated her. she was a wonderful christian, conservative black woman, and yet she was vilified by democrats. she was crucified by the democrats. and, just like clarence thomas was -- he was a wonderful black -- clarence thomas was a christian man that did not believe in murdering babies. and, just like janice rogers

brown, she was a wonderful black woman, conservative, but she was a christian that stood against abortion. and every democrat that sits on the u.s. supreme court right now believes in murdering babies. and that goes erratically against the lord god, our savior. host: factcheck.org with a bit of the back history on janice rogers brown. brown never actually nominated to serve on the supreme court. democrats, including then senator joe biden, did initially filibuster rogers brown when the president first nominee did her to the first circuit what appeals. democrats were opposed to brown because of her conservative views. after democrats and republicans reached an agreement not to filibuster judicial nominees,

browns nomination to the appellate court preceded and she was confirmed. biden voted against her. brown was also reportedly on the short list of potential pix to replace justice sandra day o'connor, but bush did not nominate her. bush nominated harriet miers. her nomination faced backlash, and he eventually picked justice samuel alito. some of the history there. a long history in the court, 116 justices will have sat on the court when judge brown takes her seat come later this summer after stephen breyer steps down. this is kelly, alexandria, virginia, democrat.

good morning. caller: good morning. if i could come off mute. i just have to say i've been laughing ever since yesterday, watching lindsey graham --a spectacular circus. anybody who thinks, for a minute, that a supreme court position is not political is lying to themselves. we all know. but this ridiculous ideology -- it is quite ridiculous, the tactics republicans use with regards to one case. when you take a look at her overall cases and all her presiding's, the fact that the republicans only hammered in on two cases kind of set the tone for pretty much how onboard they were with her. and then for lindsey to

always have his moments -- it was lindsey and mitch mcconnell who flipped the switch as to how fast the process was pushed when merrick garland they refused to even have that conversation with their ridiculous idea that the 18 months obama had left in office, he could do nothing. it is funny that it is genius, because those little teeny pieces and snippets of conversations is what sticks in americans' brains, and it really stuck, this one case they pulled apart and were hammering on. out of all of her cases, just one case they picked apart. it is political. it will always be political. the reason kavanaugh was put on was because trump was running into some issues legally, and kavanaugh is a staunch believer

that presidents have full and control power. every pecos for a particular reason. that is my two cents. it is political, it will always be political. but i think judge ketanji brown's cases and precedence and the presiding's of her cases have been stellar. if anyone wants to pick apart one case, two cases here or there, i think you can find anomalies in anybody. host: 8:05 on the east coast you will notice we are still having this conversation about judge jackson's conversation. we had been expected to be joined by randi weingarten, president of the american federation of teachers in this segment of the "washington journal," but due to some travel issues, we will have to reschedule her, so we will have this conversation, and there is plenty to talk about on this topic.

not a problem to do that until 8:30 a.m. eastern. then we will have time for open phones -- especially at the end of a busy week, we want to give you the chance to lead the discussion a bit. and at our 9:00 hour, we will be joined by brandon judd, president of the border patrol -- national border patrol council. we will talk a lot about the ending of title 42. we have another 45 minutes on this topic of judge jackson's confirmation to the supreme court. a note that today at 12:15 p.m. eastern, there will be a white house ceremony featuring the president and judge jackson and vice president as well, that taking place at 12:15 p.m. eastern. you can watch it on c-span, c-span.org, listen to it on the free c-span video out. back to your calls. independent. caller: good morning.

john roberts has a lot to handle when he is dealing with the supreme court. he has a qualified justice on the court, but he will have to juggle having all these great personalities come about. we start with clarence thomas. is he going to recuse himself when it comes to their january 6 committee -- the nui six committee? jackson browne has said she will recuse herself from the harvard case. it will be a hard juggle for john roberts, but i hope he will be able to persuade clarence thomas not to be involved, even though he voted for the trump information to be released. let's see how he juggles this, you know? host: how do you think the chief justice has done in his job, has grown into this job in the many

years, now, he has been on the court? caller: i think because of his age, a lot of the elders there probably have greater influence over him. although he has been on the courts for a while, i think he is being overpowered by the elders on the court. that is my opinion. he has done ok. host: he is 67. he is not an elder on the court? caller: compared to their compared to alito -- compared to clarence thomas, compared to alito, compared to sotomayor, he is still in his late 60's. these folks are hitting their 70's and 80's. host: one stephen breyer steps down, clarence thomas will be the oldest member of the court. i believe clarence thomas is 71-year-old. -- 73 years old. there you go. he will be the oldest member on

the court after stephen breyer. angela out of washington, d.c., democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i think justice jackson will do well. she obviously can hold her own based on the hearing. you may commentary on her hearings -- it is good that the senators want to ask relevant, pointed questions, but for some reason, the republicans always have to get personal with people. and they do not realize that their line of questioning shows them to clearly be racist. i mean, it is a free country to be a racist if you want, but you should realize, in the 21st century in the united states, that is not really a valid point of view. the thing that makes me happy about this confirmation was two things -- i am 58 years old. i guess the first political

surprise i had was when barack obama was elected the first time , because president obama is 2-year-old event i am. his background, in many ways, is similar to mine. so to have another black person of my generation get this high in the u.s. government, it is something i did not necessarily think i would see, because i saw so many presidents have the opportunity to appoint someone black, a black woman, and they did not do it, for whatever reason -- host: what were your thoughts when joe biden picked kamala harris as running mate? caller: i think that was great. it is funny you mentioned that, because i am almost exactly 1-year-old event vice president harris. the day after she was born, i turned one. so, again, i thought it was a good pick.

i guess the last thing i would like to say is that c-span is a great service. i feel like i am a person who was well informed. but i always learn something more. there is a corps of listeners who call in who are very informative and also very open-minded. but it seems like the majority of people who call, especially with regard to justice jackson, they look at everything except her all occasions and her character. -- qualifications and her character. in the real reason is they do not want to see progress in the united states. they want to go back to a time before i was even born or you were even born. they don't seem to understand that everything that happens politically in the united states will not always be to the liking of one individual. we are supposed to be one country. tried to broaden your perspective -- try to broaden your perspective and stop processing people who

do not merit criticism. host: monitoring some of your tweets, the conversation happening at @cspanwj . myland writing if you're upset about the tonja brown jackson, blame trump. he lost the senate and house in four short years. larry, via text messaging, saying judge brown is a win for women and blacks and liberals and those living in d.c. there is no change in america, though, impacting our society. and this one, as a woman who walked in civil march -- civil rights marches, i feel like i woke up in a better america this morning. as the wise justice jackson said, perseverance. my granddaughters woke up with a better america this morning. this is randy, wisconsin, republican. caller: good morning.

host: go ahead. caller: they are just stretching a liberal judge for a liberal judge. they are making a big deal out of nothing. these people that call into essay how they pick -- in to say how they picked on her. did they remember the kavanaugh hearings? they brought up high school, 30 years ago. that was the worst case. and how the democrats are always so nasty. this hearing was nice. but it was the democratic ones. the only bad thing that really

came up was when she was asked what a woman was -- host: you think that was a bad question? caller: no. no. all she had to say, "yeah." just take your clothes off and stand in front of a mirror, you will find out what you are, woman or a man. but she would not answer it. she has to be a biologist? she was not pressed hard enough. she is very liberal, very light on punishment for anybody that gets in trouble in the law. but, you know, the democrats have to have that, first black woman, you know. go back and look at joe biden, what he tried to do to clarence thomas. they raked him over the coals when he had his hearing.

that's the democrats and how awful they are. anyways, have a nice day. host: this is brian, hamilton, virginia, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, when i got online to hear you, you are playing that clip from lindsey graham. and when our rate senator from arizona was still alive, he and lindsey graham got along and they could talk. now, lindsey graham, who has turned into -- i do not know what he has turned into, but i do not like it. and i did not like the hearing. i did not listen to all of it, but a lot of it. i thought it was outrageous. and they all say, both sides, we are going to do better, this was wrong -- but they don't. and that is the sad part. they just don't. and it is political. i listened to the lady from

alexandria. it was well put. that it is political. they have views. we all have views, whether democrat, republican, or independent. you have views. it affects you. i wish they would all get their heads out of the clouds and come back and govern this country. host: do you think you are senators in virginia would have done a better job if they were on the judiciary committee? do you like your senators, as an independent? caller: senator warner would. i cannot stand tim kaine. i think mark warner is a good guy. i've listened to a lot of his stuff. i will not ever vote for tim kaine. i cannot stand that guy -- host: what don't you like about tim kaine? caller: i think he is too liberal. i think mark warner is much more of a moderate.

and i think that is what this country needs right now, moderation. the polarization is out of control. out of control. and that is sad. that is really sad. i am 72, and i've seen a lot of it. in the way it is now, they cannot govern. they cannot govern -- host: did you think joe biden would be more moderate than he has been since taking the white house? caller: more moderate than who? host: do you think joe biden is a moderate? do you think joe biden has run his administration -- caller: i think he wanted to be. but i think the ultra-liberals have pushed him further than i think he wants to go. but he has to -- he tries to

please everybody, and he cannot. i listened to the congresswoman -- and i will miss pronounce her name -- they cannot answer questions. they just go into the bullet points. if i asked my wife what is for dinner, and she says what do you want, and i go, i don't know, pi ck something, i don't care. but when they can't answer the question, we have got a problem. host: about 10 minutes left in this segment, then we will turn it over to open phones. phone lines as usual. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans.

independents, (202) 748-8002. marie, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to thank the two woman who called earlier this segment. i think they were both white. saying how excited they were that the first black supreme court justice was nominated and to piggyback off with they said this is for all women to be excited about. also i want to say about lindsey graham, he keeps going on about the black lady, janice brown, not chosen to be on the supreme court, but if that is the only black person he knows? he was under trump four years. they had three opportunities to choose justices. he couldn't choose any other black woman?

host: president trump's pick for the supreme court, the senate is just there to confirm the vote. caller: i did not hear you. host: the president gets to pick the nominee, the senators then confirm or reject the nominee. caller: did he ever talk to him or ask him about choosing someone? i mean having a conversation. they were all in there together. they have conversations. i know they choose, ultimately, themselves, but they have conversations, and no one bothered trump and the three opportunities he had to choose a black person, man, woman, whatever the person may be. the senators dropped the ball on the guidelines they had and have not updated those things in over 15 years or so. she could only go by the guidelines she was given. one man called in and said she was for babies being killed.

the 20 years bombs have been dropped on iraq and afghanistan, did you not think children and women and babies were being killed than? host: that was marie out of mississippi. from ohio, republican. good morning. caller: really great answers there. it seems we get snickered every once in a while. we got snickered on the laptop. we were not able to hear about it. on the case on the new supreme court justice, there was a case we were supposed to hear about, she said she couldn't get access to it. after the event, we are finding out you could get access, she had the authority to give access to it. so once again, we have to make decisions without a full deck of cards. the other thing is, on the border, people come in the border, do not have to pay insurance -- host: we will hold off on some of the other topics.

we have a few minutes left. we still one to talk about the supreme court confirmation. but we have open phones at the bottom of the hour. but let me get through some of the rest of these calls that been waiting. westfield, indiana, independent, good morning. caller: hi, everyone. i don't care what sex you are, what color you are, i do think a supreme court justice, character matters a lot. and i do think lying under oath is a flaw for a supreme court justice. i say this because obviously the woman is a woman. ms. brown is a woman. she was picked by a black woman under obama, and i do not know because obama does not have a biology degree -- host: joe biden nominated her. caller: excuse me. she herself does not know what a

woman is paid i think that was an obvious lie. if no one can tell us what a woman is, how do we know that ketanji brown jackson is a woman? host: one other column this morning with the washington post, longtime watcher of the court. this is what he writes, from the front page of the washington post. he writes the 83-year-old stephen breyer will be replaced by 51-year-old ketanji brown jackson, but it is difficult to of an issue before the court that will be changed because of the swap of jackson for breyer. the conservative members of the court will still hold a 6-3 conservative edge, but the no holds barred battle over her confirmation underscores the new reality that, for now, feeling a supreme court vacancy has been dependent on a party controlling both the white house and the senate. that could mean even more

strategic decisions about when a justice retires, said a supreme court historian. member that they love their job and are generally unlikely to give up their lifetime appointments. -- justice ruth bader ginsburg missed the window, and her death allowed president trump to nominate amy coney barrett, the last of three nominees he put on the court. after breyer was confirmed in 1991, 11 years passed before a new justice was added, and it is possible a new -- similar situation could play out. with jackson's arrival, the court will be comprised entirely of baby boomers and gen xers.

anna, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i hate to pick on lindsey graham, but the reason i called is when he said "these people." "these people" -- i'm 73. i'm like, the new justice jackson's parents grew up through segregation. we were always told you had to be 10 times better, to be -- to get to where you want to get, and that you do not worry about what someone says about you or think about you, you just do your job. as a manager at a luxury retail store, i know. i was put through the wringer, but that is ok. you handle it. they talk about her being a liberal -- he is not a liberal. you can tell she is not a liberal. when you are raised under segregation, your parents, you

are definitely not a liberal. they put it to you. and it irritates me when he says "these people" -- i have two nieces in the military, one who served five tours of duty in afghanistan. she praised joe biden for doing that. i am not praising anybody, but i think president biden did the right thing when he chose her. he knew she was not a liberal. and very few -- i mean, we grew up -- we were republicans before we ever became democrats. her parents and, i guarantee, her parents' parents. when lindsey graham talks about "these people," these people go out and fight wars. and woman, you got to stand up in america, all women. this was not just a moment for being black.

this was a moment for every woman in this country. you got to look at yourself and your daughters and granddaughters, and you look and see, when you are looking at them, what kind of woman do you want them to be? host: staying in the lone star state, this is jewel springs, texas, last caller in this segment. caller: good morning. i've been a watcher center first day in 1979 and a daily viewer since the first time "washington journal" came on. host: thanks for watching so long. caller: thank you, and i appreciate your service, i truly do. but a lady called up just a moment ago and she referenced what she thought to be two white women have called in. i have seen you hang up on people immediately when they referenced that a person was black and called in. please don't have a double standard, sir --

host: callers do not often referred to their race when they call in -- caller: no, she surmised that, as other people have somebody being black. so just be fair on that issue. second, you said some while back that you did not want to have two opposing guests on at the same time with differing views, because you were not looking for a crossbar talk atmosphere. every other host has said it was based on covid and not on an absence of decorum. it was done for many years -- host: are you talking about members coming on together? caller: yes -- host: we would love to have -- caller: an absence of decorum will be found quite quickly, and we are capable of dealing with that -- host: and we would love to have members coming on together -- caller: you said the other day

you did not want a crossbar atmosphere, sir -- host: correct -- caller: i find fault with that. now, third, i do not believe justice jackson is the proper person for the court. she definitely has an agenda. she is not an originalist, she is an evolving constitutionalist. so no, i am not for her. but please take those two things under consideration. host: thanks, and thanks for watching for so long. we do appreciate it. that is our last caller in this segment of "washington journal." a reminder, again, that if you want to see more on this topic, there will be plenty more, including a white house ceremony at 12:15 p.m. eastern. president biden and judge jackson appearing together to mark the senate confirmation vote. you can watch on c-span, c-span.org, and the free c-span now video app.

later this morning, we will be talking about border issues. we will befor now, we will retue phones over to you. we want to hear your thoughts after another busy week on capitol hill. any public policy and political issues you want to talk about, you will lead the discussion. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. start calling now and we will get to your calls after the break. ♪ >> foot tv features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. 2:00 p.m. eastern, from the new orleans book festival, discussions including historians walter isaacson and john berry

and john meacham. the legacies of james baldwin and john lewis. authors on race and history with jarvis to very, clint smith, and mitch landers. 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, former australian pie minister and asian society president and ceo kevin right talks about "the avoidable war," and how his thoughts on the u.s. and china can coexist and avoid war the future. he's interviewed by institute of peace senior expert on china: freeman. watch -- collin freeman. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story.

11:00 a.m. eastern on lectures and history, professor benjamin wetzel on the life and career of theodore roosevelt. his rise in your politics, his presidency and post-presidency international expirations. 2:00 p.m. eastern, part six of our eight part series "first ladies: in their own words." they look at their time in the white house and issues important to them. this week we feature laura bush. >> i will say sometimes first ladies are trivialized by a pet project. our contributions to the united states from first ladies in many cases are much more profound. >> exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturday on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history.

♪ >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. you will find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sundays, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: it is time for open forum, letting you lead the discussion on clinical issues you want to talk about. we like to do the segments on friday after another busy week on capitol hill. we will turn the lines over to you. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents,, (202) 748-8002. we begin on the line for independents. jason from birmingham, alabama.

good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is awesome soon to be justice breyer will be on the court. i think it is funny. the republicans keep mentioning that she got confirmed. if she was so great and wonderful they would not have picked white men to be nominated on the supreme court over her. they were so adamant about seeing diversity on the court, wanting to support black women. they would have done it when they had the opportunity. not to mention they could not find a justifiable criticism of katanji brown jackson. they did all this obvious reaching. they say she is soft on crime. so many police organizations support her. they say she does not follow the guidelines. come to find out 80% of justices -- judges don't follow the

guidelines. she has a wonderful character but we don't support her ideology. the fact is they can say we don't want to see a black woman on the court. i guess that would be too harsh. they can't just say it. lee atwater said he cannot say the n word over and over. yet to say bussing in this other stuff. it is overt and obvious they just did not want her on the court. they did not have any justifiable criticism of her. that is not her job on the court. her job on the court is to take a case, not to be a webster's dictionary. host: marvin from colonial beach, virginia. republican. what is on your mind? caller: i wanted to make a statement. this was a victory for islam, the election -- confirmation of

the new judge. host: why do you say that? caller: it's a victory for islam, because in islam a woman's voice is only -- of a man's voice. you can look down the line from the start of everything when women were allowed to vote. there are many articles written that this was the beginning of the end of america. host: ok. joe in north plainfield, new jersey. a democrat. caller: my goodness. that was amazing, what that man just said. astonishingly not saying all people are created equal and they have the right to express their ideas and participate in this government regardless of

them being male or female, or any particular color or creed, religion and race. but before that, the man who called from alabama, i agreed with everything he said. i want to say to the people who called the men from wisconsin and taxes that complained about how clarence thomas was treated -- texas that complained about how clarence thomas was treated, it seems that anita hill was put on trial. immediately after clarence thomas says something about it being high-tech lynching that the committee and everybody else completely shut down any questioning of him whatsoever. i don't understand your perspective. it seems the same thing happened with kavanaugh. i don't know if kavanaugh was as justified, but i think when he said and screamed at the senators they stopped

questioning him. no woman would have ever been able to do -- behave like that. that is the privilege of men. host: we mentioned this morning -- you saw this yesterday that speaker nancy pelosi tested positive for covid-19. more news on the covid front. senator raffaella warnock tested positive that's raffaella warnock -- rafael warnock tested positive. 117 members of congress have tested positive. 71 members this year alone. 31 since march 1. 11 and just the past three days. allen from farmington, michigan. what is on your mind? caller: good morning. i would like to say to ms.

jackson brown that is what happens to african americans. everything is going to be daubed. -- dogged. people will give us a lot of trouble even though we are overly qualified for a position. that is just the way it is in america, i think. what i am most proud of is the way she handled herself under that pressure. it shows she deserves to be there. also, the people that don't look like us that recognize what the republican party now is doing, the democrats that don't look like african-americans that are real americans that remember a time before hate came into it. just because you are a democrat that you were hated. president obama said something very important in his farewell speech. they will always use of

well-deserved, hard-working white man against an undeserving african-american. that is the weight america is -- way america is. i'm glad young people realize what is going on with the trumpers. host: this is vicki in lakeland, florida. caller: good morning. two things on my mind. the first thing being the news, the media. they bombed the train in ukraine that are giving out information that they should not do. i have been watching this thing since it started. it is unbelievable. they need to be protected. you cannot tell everything. putin has nothing better to do than be a coward in his bunker. i'm saying our news media is letting things out that i think are causing people to get killed. secondly --

host: what about social media? essentially watching award in real-time on social media? caller: true. i watched this thing yesterday. i saw the people on the last train out of ukraine. the reporters on the train. today, they bombed the train. all those people, maybe 30 people dead. did shows them on the ground and 300 wounded. why did they have to tell everything like that? i don't understand it. it is crazy. secondly, why would our nation want to take in 18,000 people a day when they can't even take care of us? we should come first. this is something -- it is -- i don't get our government. we the people. don't we have say in what our government does? i thought the government works for us. i just think it needs to be shut down. i don't care about no pandemic.

the 42 rule, whatever it was. what matters to me is our people, our children in schools, us having jobs, not letting every -- all these people in our country to take stuff away from the americans that deserve what we pay for. host: two stories on the topics you bring up. first on the russian invasion of ukraine. newsom capitol hill yesterday. congress gave the final approval to a suspension of normal trade relations with moscow, giving president biden leeway to slap tariffs on russian products and we can russia's economy --weaken russia's economy. part of a broad trade restriction imposed in coronation with european union seven countries. the bill yesterday passed in the senate and the house. plenty of action on that this week. on the immigration front from the washington times, texas

governor greg abbott once illegal immigrants caught and released by federal agency to his state to be quickly shipped to washington, d.c., seeking to bring the pain of border communities to the doorstep of the biden administration. the republican governor saying the transport would be voluntary. it is too early to guess how many migrants would be interested. tens of thousands expected to reach that state each week in the near future. projections on increases coming from that action by the cdc to lift title 42. we will talk about title 42 in the next half-hour. eddie from elizabethtown, kentucky. -- betty. caller: i'm concerned as i listened to lindsey graham talk about when we get in power. our country is so divided politically. it has to stop. their job is to go to washington

and do the work of the government. not to be so party minded. we have lost the real purpose of our country. it is dividing our country even more. one of the things about the confirmation hearings, i saw them trying to push her buttons. they were trying everything they could to push her buttons. this think about her being liberal on pedophiles. you have to remember that so many things have changed with the internet and with electronic access. you can pick up your computer and all of a sudden without even knowing you have got porn on your computer. that is congress's job to take care of it, not the judge. we have to understand that was

just something to push her buttons. i think what they wanted to try to see was the angry black woman come out and lambaste them. i thank god for her poise. i am praying for our nation. lindsey graham and all those who said when we get in control we will socket to you, they need to rethink. host: this is harry from georgia, independent. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for letting me on. there is an embarrassment of riches to talk about. republicans talk about pedophiles. they have to start looking at their own. jim jordan used to be a wrestling coach. he overlooked some of that. i wanted to talk about ms.

jackson. here is a woman who bears the burden of her middle name being brown, which kind of describes her. for last name being jackson -- her last name being jackson by marriage, that was really the last proud racist slaveholder president and america. andrew jackson. yet he adopted several of these children of his slaves into his family and put them into his will. it is a really strange mix of emotions that comes over somebody. i will just have to say i have to denigrate the republican for

having fallen into such a really deprived kind of situation they are in. host: that was georgia. this is florida, christopher, st. petersburg, republican. caller: good morning and thank you for letting me on the show. there's an old saying called hocus-pocus shifting focus. a lot of things we are listening to our shifting our attention off really. designating the border as a high topic in my thoughts. $700 billion funding approved for the defense department. i did not hear anything in that budget that discussed defending the homeland and putting soldiers -- we are at war on our

borders. whatever is coming across the border is bringing drugs, new drugs, isa fennel. they are attacking us on a different spectrum. people are not dialing into the fact we have overdoses by the hundreds of thousands of year. people don't really understand the truth. that is one epidemic. when you have the cost of the burden of housing and transportation and benefits and medical benefits for these folks that are crossing the border. i want the best for everybody but this is why we are in the united states. we were fortunate enough to be born here. i'm sorry i was not born somewhere else with horrible conditions. this country worked hard to put us into the position to help other countries like ukraine. all i want to share is we are at war at the borders. this country can't mobilize. we have 100,000 troops in europe. we can mobilize troops on this

border. host: this is bob out of utah. logan, utah, democrat. caller: good morning. i will follow up on what this guy is talking about at the borders. we should build a wall down there is like building the china wall. the only -- we have laws right now. if our politicians on both sides said we will start making them by abide the laws and the people who hire the people coming in will get a fine like they should, all that would go away. they are afraid to because it is all about money. they don't hurt the wealthy guy

hiring all these people. i feel sorry for the mexicans and everybody down south that would like to come across. they can come across legal and right. let's -- thanks for letting me on your station. host: mike from cleveland, ohio, independent. caller: good morning. i really enjoy the fact that katanji brown is now justice. a couple of quick points. the lindsey graham they had that one black female judge. all the judges dominated by the senate and confirmed where from the federalist society, as was the brown -- the judge that lindsey graham had mentioned. apparently there is only one

black woman justice or judge where the other federal society, and that is why no black females were nominated by the gop since her. thank you. host: it was chuck schumer who took to the floor yesterday. this was right before the confirmation vote. in his remarks he talked about diversity in the judiciary system. and democrats' efforts to increase diversity over the years. this was yesterday. [video] >> 115 individuals have been confirmed by this body to serve on the supreme court of the united states. of those, 108 have been white men. only four have been women. only two have been african-american. but katanji brown jackson will

be the first african-american woman ever to hold the title of justice. think about the impact that will have on our democracy. untold millions of kids will open textbooks and see pictures of justice jackson among the highest ranks of our public figures. how many millions of kids in generations past could have benefited from such a role model. how many would-be justices, lawyers, doctors, business people have been lost to history precisely because their history books had few if any role models they could relate to? we certainly have a long way to go on the road to true justice, but by confirming judge jackson today we are taking the bold step forward towards reaching the full realization of our country's promise. we will make it far more likely

that girls across america will feel precisely what judge jackson felt herself when she was a kid. nobody can stop me. i can do this. i am brilliant. i've along t -- i've along -- i belong too. increasing diversity has been one of my highest priorities and of the democratic majority of whom i am so proud. justice jackson is the most important example. we have been working on this for over a year. of the 58 senate confirmed federal judges since we took majority, three quarters have been women. two thirds have been people of color. it is not just racial or gender diversity that matters. we have strived to lift up judges that bring diversity through their experience. more public defenders in our courts. more civil rights lawyers. more election lawyers.

when americans of all walks of life come before the court, they should have confidence those who don the rope have the ability to walk in their shoes, to see and understand their side of the story and apply the law properly according to the facts. one judge at a time. one judge at a time. this majority is expanding the possibility of who merit consideration to the bench. host: senate majority leader chuck schumer yesterday on the senate floor. about five minute left in our open forum segment. any public policy issue you want to talk about? caller: good morning, c-span. i like to state the fact that the judge being selected is a great thing for america. it once again proves we are not a racist country. the only time we become a racist

country is when we are dealing with politicians and the people talking about blacks and the past that worked itself out, moving from a system set up with slavery. the world had slavery. indians had slavery. they would take over another tried, taken -- tribe, taken prisoners and make them slaves. the idea that blacks are deprived because the white man is holding him down is a sick reverse racism. white men had as many bad people as they did good people. black people had as many bad people as they do good people. the idea that this is a one-way street is beyond ludicrous. as a society in the year 2023 -- excuse me, 2022, this is beyond the pale. we should take our dna, compare the races, show the differences

so all the science can be proven that we are all god's children. host: this is lillian in california, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. it's a great day. it looks like it will be a beautiful day. host: it is beautiful out. thank you for noticing. caller: i was just going to say it is not quite the sunrise here yet but it will be a great day. it is opening day. opening day for the -- that is lovely. i was worried the last six months if we would even have an opening date. will we really have baseball starting in san francisco, and we do. i just think that is wonderful. i think the confirmation of

justice jackson yesterday was another opening day. it will be an opening day for the rest of our lives as she sits on that court. i so respect everything that she responded to. the racist comments she responded to. the sexist comments she responded to. she was just an affirmation. it is opening day. host: this is jack in champaign, illinois. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i want to make three points and i will make them quick. if it is true that they are not as good as people thought, i would think some of the people

that don't like them -- don't like russia should be think attention. maybe give them a little grief. they are not as good as we thought. the second point would be tribalism in politics. the lady said i don't like how political and each party is so tribal. luckily we have the ability to vote. if you pay attention to the people running, if there are some moderates that aren't quite so far left or far right, that is the way to correct tribalism. support moderate candidates. the third thing is illegal immigration. it seems like i don't know that anybody, no matter what party, i don't think anybody would like the fact that people are just coming over the border illegally. i think most people -- does not

better if they are republican, independent or democrat, most people support having this, having people come over legally. host: a lot more on illegal immigration and the border coming up in the next segment. stick around for that. danny from maryland, republican. caller: good morning, sir. it is obvious that oil prices are high because of joe biden's policies. i realized that when i listened to the oil executives that testify before congress. chuck schumer is a clown. number three, jackson is the beneficiary of affirmative action. joe biden's affirmative action. number four, can't wait for the democrats to meltdown when the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. thank you. host: the last caller in this segment.

when it comes to be soon to be justice katanji brown jackson, there will be a ceremony at the white house to mark the confirmation vote yesterday. president biden biden, appearing alongside judge jackson. 12:15 p.m. eastern. you can watch online at c-span.org, listen to our coverage on the c-span video app, c-span now. up next we will be joined by the national border patrol council president brandon judd, and we'll talk about the end of title 42. stick around for that discussion after the break. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 2:00 p.m. eastern from the new orleans book festival, author and historian

discussions, including walter isaacson and john berry. on the legacies of james baldwin and john lewis. and authors on race and history, with jarvis deberry, clint smith, and clint landry. on afterwards, former australian prime minister and asia society president kevin rudd talks about his book "the avoidable war," and his thoughts on how the u.s. and china can coexist and avoid a war. he is interviewed by united states institute of peace senior carlo freeman. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at tv.org -- at booktv.org. ♪ >> april 15, 20 22 march the 70 fifth anniversary of the day jackie robinson broke the caller

barrier in major league baseball. since 2004, april 15 has been known as jackie robinson day. in honor of the brooklyn dodgers player. sunday on q&a, former senior writer for sports illustrated talks about his book "true: the four seasons of jackie robinson," where he writes about robinson's life, career, and role in the civil rights movement. >> one way to think about this is to realize that when he made that debut, martin luther king had still never given a public speech or sermon. he was not a large figure yet, so what we think of as that era of the civil rights movement had not really begun, and jackie was truly a pioneer in that sense. so when you think about dr. king, probably with a little characteristic generosity, but also being true, he would not have been accepted as he was if

not for what jackie had done. host: sunday night -- >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on q&a. you can also listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. ♪ >> weakens on c-span2 are an intellectual feast every saturday find events that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sundays, book tv brings you the latest on nonfiction authors. it is serious television for readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us at the end of another busy week, brandon judd. he is the border patrol agent,

president of the border patrol council. her mind viewers how many border patrol agents the council represents, what your mission is. guest: we represent 12,500 border patrol asians -- troll agents nationwide. --patrol agents nationwide. all of my elected officials, we are all agents ourselves. we put on the uniform and go out and patrol the border, but we also do this as well. host: as he do this, last week the cdc announced it is going to terminate title 42, may 23. what does that mean for you and your agents, may 23? guest: when we look at what is currently happening, how we are concerned on, what is the explosion this is going to cause in illegal immigration, we are already dealing with a crisis we have never dealt with before. when you look at the numbers of people crossing the border illegally, we don't not brash --

we do not have the resources to handle what we are dealing with. once title 42 goes away it is expected to go up more. just to give you an idea, and border patrol arrests 3000 people crossing the border on a daily basis, we barely have enough resources to manage that. then it jumps up to 5000 a day, and at that point gaps are created in coverage, cartels are able to exploit those gaps. at 8000 a day, which is what we are at right now, we have stretches of border that are completely wide open. nobody is out there patrolling the border. the reason why that is so dangerous is because then the organized crime cartels can then run their higher-value products -- whether that is opioid, criminal aliens, aliens from special-interest companies -- they can then exploit those gaps. they use illegal immigration to create these gaps, so they can generate more profit.

again, when you look at those numbers, once title 42 goes away, or at eight thousand apprehensions right now. it is expected to go as high as 18,000. that is absolutely unsustainable. there will not be any agents in the field at that point, and the border will be completely wide open. host: what are you asking congress for? do you want title 42 to stay in place? if so, how long? guest: when you look at how to 42, that is a public health order. i believe title 42 should stay as long as there is a pandemic. there is a belt -- i don't know if it was introduced yesterday or going to be introduced today -- but there are five democratic cosponsors. this bill is being introduced by james lankford. it is called the public health and security act. you have tester and hassan all democrats that are cosponsoring this bill that say, title 42 cannot go away until the surgeon general declares the pandemic is over.

and even once he declares the pandemic is over, there is also 60 days to allow cbp to get together policies that will help secure the border and not cause a huge influx of illegal border-crossers. it is a very important act. i think congress is doing the right thing by asking for this. until the pandemic is declared over in the united states, title 42 should not go away. host: you mentioned this is a public health policy. the commissioner of customs and border patrol, chris magnus, a statement this week. i'm certain you have seen it. this is what he said. title 42 is not a border management of authority. he said, throughout our agency's history we have capably managed immigration at the border, utilizing the authorities under title eight of the u.s. code. these authorities allow noncitizens appropriate access to make asylum claims and include a range of enforcement

options to hold individuals accountable for entering the u.s. illegally. this means most individuals who cross the border without authorization will be properly placed in removal proceedings. take me through the difference between an encounter using these title eight authorities he is talking about and an encounter using the title 42 authority. guest: first and foremost, that statement is very irresponsible. when he says that people are going to be placed in deportation proceedings, he is not lying, but he is not telling the american public what is going to happen when they are placed in deportation proceedings. if ice does not have the space to hold people, then they have to be released into the united states. right now ice does not come close to having the space to hold a number of people crossing the border illegally. what he should have done -- and if he would have been honest he would have told him what happened when we process individuals under title eight. let's talk about the differences

between title 42 and the differences between title eight. under title 42, under the public health rule declared by the centers for disease control, it says anybody that enters the united states, whether illegally or legally, are subject to immediate expulsion. that means the border patrol or any other immigration officials can take those individuals into custody and send them right back to mexico, or where they entered the united states from. they can immediately send them back. under title lake you must process them and put them in deportation proceedings. when you process them and put them in deportation proceedings, that means they have a right to go before a judge and make a case on why they should not be deported. this is a legal right that they have, which we support 100%. the problem with that is, if there isto hold individuals or if the courts are too backed up, then these people are released into the united states, pending

a future court proceeding. the problem with that court proceeding -- and ice the two sticks bear that out -- the vast majority of people, when it comes to that last hearing -- because this is a series of hearings -- that last hearing where they have to prove they have a right to remain in the united states, they don't show up and they disappear into what president obama termed as the shadow society. the system is broken, and in his statement he does not explain to the american public what happens when you put them in title a proceedings. the vast majority of the american public is not agree with rewarding illegal border-crossers with release into the united states, where they will never be removed. host: what is the union's relationship like with magnets? do you think he should remain commissioner? guest: we have not had very many dealings with magnus. this is the first statement i have heard that i'm disappointed in, to this point.

again, his statement is correct, it is true. it just doesn't tell the whole story. that is what we want. we want the american public -- whether you agree with me, disagree with me, that doesn't matter. all i want is for the american public to have all of the facts so they can develop their opinions based upon all of the information. not just part of the information. that is where magnus went wrong. he only gave the american public part of the information. host: let me invite the american public to join this conversation. lines, republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. for border state residents, (202) 748-8003. taking your phone calls. as folks are calling in, help me understand this aspect of the use of title 42 over the past

couple of years. this is from today's washington times story. under the trump administration 90% of illegal border-jumpers were expelled under title 42. the rate under the biden administration is only about 50% in the number of people trying to cross has surged as more people are successful. why that difference in the use of it? guest: each administration, they used it judiciously to look at, specifically vulnerable individuals. the trump administration did not -- issued cutouts for certain individuals. the biden administration also issued cutouts for certain individuals from certain countries. the problem, again, is part of the reason why we have had the explosion in illegal immigration -- when you look at president's administration, we were at 45-year lows in illegal immigration. we were able to go after the

cartels, we were able to go after their products, dangerous things crossing our borders. when we saw the explosion in illegal immigration to the point it is a crisis, that is where we started to see more overdose deaths in the united states. that is when fentanyl flooded the streets. if you speak with counterparts in law enforcement all the time, they say the amount of product on the street right now is more than they have ever seen before. that is why we have somebody overdose deaths. the cost of the product, the cost of the fentanyl is extremely cheap right now. that clearly shows you that drugs are flowing across our borders and it is harming united states citizens. when you look at title 42 and the way president trump exercised title 42 and when you look at the way president biden is exercising title 42, president biden has given a great more deal cutouts to individuals from around the world would i giving those cutouts, it has invited people

from those countries to cross our borders illegally, and that is why we have an explosion in illegal immigration today. host: first question via twitter. why is there not a permanent title 42, like a program that screens are people who want to cross the border to ensure they are not bringing infectious diseases? this would not be anything new, he said. many past immigrants were pace -- were placed back on ships if they showed signs of infectious diseases. guest: if you look historically that might be true. the use of title 42 has not been done in my career. it is interesting that that question would arise, because we do see diseases from around the world that you just don't see here in the united states. title 42 is not just for a pandemic. it is for any communicable disease that the cdc says cannot be controlled, right there on the border or at ports of entry. so, yes, i believe the cdc should take a harder look at

this, to see if there are other diseases that just do not exist here in the united states. we do see an awful lot of diseases. host: how long have you been doing this job? how did you get into it? guest: i'm going on 25 years. i come from a law enforcement background family. we believe in the rule of law. i personally believe this is the greatest country in the world is because we exercise our laws better than any other country. it is not that the laws on the books are so much different than other countries, it is just that we exercise those laws a lot differently, which has made us the greatest country in the world. once we get away from that, once we get away from the rule of law we become no better than a lot of the countries these individuals are trying to escape from -- trying to leave from. i think we have to look at the rule of law and say, that is the best way to keep our country as safe as possible, to keep citizens, keep the freedoms of

our citizens intact. we have got to enforce the rule of law. host: no surprise, plenty of calls for you. joanne in nevada. good morning, you are up first. caller: good. mr. judd, i just want to say, i feel so bad for our border patrol. you have been put in a position to protect united states, and you can't do your job, your hands are tied. the thing that the media is not covering this the way they should. the only people i get any answers from is fox news. you know, and when you are on there, and telling us about the -- we are going to have a big problem coming up. i don't know how you guys are going to protect us. i have called my senators. of course, they are democrats and they liked this open border stuff.

catherine cortez masto's, she is just something else. i don't know. i don't know what we are going to do to get rid of them, what we have to stand together and keep our borders safe. that is important to us. thank you very much for the job you do. guest: oh, thank you. you look at what law enforcement -- it doesn't matter whether it is border patrol, it doesn't matter if it is counter sheriffs or city police. when you look at law enforcement, the vast majority of us are very good individuals that all we want to do is protect our fellow citizens. put that uniform on and go out there in hopes we can secure the freedoms that all of us want to have. we are not able to do that, when we go out there and we see what is currently happening and know that it is driven by policy, we do feel beaten down, we do feel defeated. again, if it was not for that great desire to protect our fellow citizens, it would be impossible right now to put that

uniform on and go out and do that job. host: to freddie, indianapolis, indiana. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. and welcome aboard. i'm glad to hear you speak this morning. i am glad i managed to get in. since ronald reagan i have been listening to information regarding the border, and all of it is politics. we seem to have a tendency, especially those of you who are republican, to put all the blame on what is going on on the border on the president. but we love our senators, we love our representatives, we never put the blame on them. look, it is our congress who is responsible for the border. trying to get money from the military or any other reasons to build a wall. if anyone should make up their mind to it -- to do anything about the border, to build a wall or anything else, it is

congress. republicans, wake up. host: mr. judd? guest: first off i'm going to go back to the secure fence act of 2007. that was a bipartisan bill. even joe biden was in favor of the secure fence act in 2007. look, this could be solved by congress, but the administration also has executive authority the constitution allows for that executive authority. in fact, president trump's policies on the border were upheld by the supreme court, by lower courts. the court determined that he was within his right as per the laws and per the constitution to do the things he did my even taking money from the department of defense to build the wall. so there are -- you know, we have a separation of powers here in the united states. part of that separation of powers allows executive authority to issue executive

orders to do certain things throughout the united states, including on the border. president biden does have the authority to end this crisis immediately, and it can be done through policy. does not have to be done through laws. we have seen it before. host: president biden's homeland security secretary, this was his announcement after the announcement of ending for the -- title 42. once the order is no longer in place, dhs will process individuals pursuant to title eight, which is the standard procedure we use. he goes on to say, we have put in place a comprehensive whole of government strategy to manage any potential increase in the number of migrants encountered in our border. we are increasing our capacity to process new arrivals, evaluate asylum requests, and remove those who do not qualify for protection. we will increase personnel and resources as needed, and have already redeployed more than 600 law enforcement officers to the border.

your thoughts on those resources that he says are there and coming? guest: so, when he talks about redeploying 600 additional law enforcement, all he is talking about is robbing peter to pay paul. we have a finite number of border patrol agents around the nation. when you pull from one area and send them to another area you are just creating those gaps in the areas you just pulled from. when you look at the border right now, historically we have fought on two different fronts. generally speaking we have fought on two different fronts. right now it is southwest border-wide. everywhere we are being hit hard. just do not have the resources to rob peter to pay paul. what he failed to do is, he failed to tell the american public what happens when we put people into title viii proceedings. he is right. we do process people for removal, but they get released into the united states and they

are never removed. all you have to do is look at statistics. fewer people have been removed by ice in fiscal year 2021, and going into 2022, and in past administrations. people just are not removed even though they are put into title viii authority. you also have to remember that sec. mayorkas is a political appointee. he is there to do the job that the ministrations wants him to do. he is not a career employee. chris magnus, the commissioner of cbp, he is also a political appointee. political appointees will do exactly what the administration wants them to do. if not, they will be removed. so, sec. mayorkas is going to parrot what the administration wants him to say. host: what were those two fronts you are mostly having this battle along before the -- before it became border-why? guest: it is dependent on what era. when my career started in 1997, those fronts were san diego and

el paso. in the early 1990's, those were the two fronts. the u.s. border patrol thought that if they threw all of their resources at those two core doors, which are very urban core doors, they thought they could control illegal immigration. they did not think they would create a funnel through their hearts -- the harsh desert of arizona. cartels have to generate profit. they are a business, although it is an illegal business, and they have to generate profit. if they do not generate profit, then there is going to be turned over. when i talk about turnover, it is not that you are fired, it is that you are killed. these cartels have to generate profit. they will move their operations to where they need to move it. in the mid-/early 19 90's, it was el paso and san diego, then it moved to tucson and rural areas in texas. now it is throughout -- i'm

sorry, in the latter parts, the last 10 years it has been mcallen and yuma, and now we are seeing it across the entire border. host: keith in ohio. you are next. caller: good morning. i have a question about the border wall. there was a representative from texas, a spanish guy, he said the wall is a tool. so think of it as a tool. how important is that tool if that wall or barrier was completely done, how important would that finished two will be to the border? guest: it is extreme important. i will just use my old stomping grounds in arizona. for we had a wall, a short 56 mile stretch of border -- just 56 miles -- we were apprehending over 100,000 individuals, herein, your out.

once the wall built those apprehensions dropped to 10,000. it allows us, it allows the border patrol to dictate illegal boarding crossings take place. it also allows us to dictate where the border of -- the full of drugs coming into the united states. if we can dictate those crossing points we can be more effective in controlling the border, in apprehending the vast majority of what crosses our border illegally, and we can keep the american public safe. the walls are very important. host: the pushback on that is that a wall is a stationary barrier you can go over it, you can go under it. walls traditionally are always preached. so why does that allow you to dictate the chokepoints? guest: it is all about creating time. without a wall, you can flood illegal alien -- i'm sorry, illegal border-crossers can flood a specific area. with a wall they can't do that. by creating time it allows us to respond and get to areas much

quicker. you could cross 100 people without a wall in a matter of seconds. with a wall it takes several minutes to cross just two to three people. so, you cannot cross the number of people, and it creates the time that allows us to respond to that area to be a lot more effective. that is why the walls are so important. i will say, i will admit that you can go under the walls, but that is cost-prohibitive to cartels. it costs an op a lot of money -- it cost an awful lot of money to provide the infrastructure in those tunnels, whether it is electricity, whether it is ventilation. it costs an awful lot of money, so that sash -- so the cartels want to stay away from digging as much as they can. but if we can drive them underground, then it becomes an intelligence issue. and it is a lot easier to gain the intelligence bennett is to

chase after several hundred people because you do not have a wall in a specific location. host: coming up on 9:30 on the east coast. if you are earlier this week brought up on this program, can you explain, or more illegal drugs coming in through the ports of entry and shipping containers, or are they coming in across the southern border? guest: common sense would dictate this is coming between the ports of entry. the reason why i say that is, look at the amount of products on the street today. that coincides with the number of illegal aliens -- illegal immigrants crossing between the ports of entry. have to remember that ports of entry are extremely secure locations. when you present yourself at a port of entry you do not have any constitutional rights. the officers at the port, they are able to go through every single vehicle with a finetooth comb if they have the resources to do it. so, you take a huge risk if you

are going to cross large quantities through ports of entry. whereas, between the ports of entry all you have to do is create those gaps. flood a specific area with illegal border-crossers, pull border patrol agents out of the field, then cross your products through. the fact of the matter is, we just don't see -- we do not detect and sees, whether it is at a port of entry, between a port of entry, we do not detect and sees it. the proof of that is the amount of product that is on the street. host: speaking of early this week, we were joined by congresswoman annette varick and on this issue. a member of the homeland security committee. we talked about title 42, her reaction to it. this is a little bit of what she had to say. >> what did you think about the biden administration's decision to resend it? >> i think it was overdue. ted a 42 is a center for disease

control authority. it is not an immigration authority. it was past time and it was welcome news. >> as far as the health aspect, what was the justification for removing and at this time? >> this was put into place this was a stephen miller proposition on how to shut down the border. for us, we see this as, number one, there was really never a justification i was very solid. we are beyond the time of when covid started, right? we have vaccines, we have masks, we have testing. there are now things in place so you and i can meet in person in the studio, just like we could not do two years ago. >> as far as republicans, some of the concern expressed their if title 42 is removed, you will see more people looking for entry. what do you think about those claims? are they justified? >> again, they are using title 42 as an immigration policy,

when it is not. our immigration system is broken. that is the bottom line. congress needs to fix it. need to act to make sure there are pathways to citizenship. using title 42 to basically shut down the border is not the way to do it. it. that is what they are trying to do. >> as far as the about of people, do you think that is a legitimate concern? >> it is legitimate because for two years immigrants have not have access to come to a port of entry and claim asylum which is legal under the u.s. system. imagine you have two years of pent up rage and desperation of migrants who come to the border who have been turned away who are now waiting on the mexican side of the border to be able to use the laws we have in place in the united states. host: she is the chair of the border security subcommittee of the homeland security panel. brandon judge, a lot there,

specifically on the pent-up demand for asylum claims and what that is going to mean for you and your agents? guest: i have to break down a little bit of that conversation. she did not answer the question when she was asked is illegal immigration going to go up. she failed to answer that question. she said this was a stephen miller policy. stephen miller never had authority over the cdc. the cdc did not have to listen to stephen miller. the other thing is this administration, stephen miller has not been an advisor to the president for over a year and this administration continues, meaning they continue to uphold their was a reason to uphold that. it is disappointing that politics would come into this rather than just answering the questions and looking at stephen miller to blame for why the cdc

implement at this policy in the first place. title 42, when it goes away there is going to be a huge increase in illegal immigration. we have already seen that. the evidence is already there. once this administration gave more carveouts to more areas we saw those areas explode. i would argue there is no open to frustration because over the last year we have seen more illegal border crossers that in the history of the border patrol, not just in the last 10 years, not just the last 20 years, but in the history. that illegal immigration continues to go up and up. not down. if there was that pent-up frustration, that could have played out in the first six months. we continue to see more and more people crossing our borders illegally. when she talks about the ports of entry, it is legal for people to present themselves at a port of entry and claim asylum.

the cartels do not allow people to do that. the cartels force them to pay a fee and force them to cross the border illegally. what this is doing is playing right into the cartels hands, allowing them to cross their higher value products by distracting border control agents. that is politics that is very disappointing. i would expect honest clear, and total answers from elected officials. host: team in west virginia. republican. good morning. you are on with brandon judd. go ahead. caller: i want to say biden has no policies except for undoing the policies of trump. what is going to stop the cartels from engaging in the united states? guest: brandon judd -- host:

brandon judd, you got that one? guest: transnational criminal organizations, what is different as we now have transnational criminal organizations. they do not just operate in mexico. they operate around the world. if you look at what we have dealt with in years past, we are dealing with 95% of illegal border crossers from mexico. now we are seeing it from around the world. east african nations, european nations, nations in asia. we are seeing people from 157 different countries. not something we have dealt with before. that shows this problem has become a problem where cartels are now operating in all countries around the world and they operate in the united states as well. one of the reasons you did not see as much violence on the border right now is what there could be is because cartels

recognize that the more they do that is dangerous, the more they do that is harmful as far as attacking, assaulting, shooting or killing law enforcement, they know that will bring a larger microscope on their operations. that larger microscope makes it more difficult to process their valuable products such as drugs. they do it, and killing our citizens in the united states. it continues to escalate. right now we do not see the violence on the border that could exist, but it does continue to escalate it we could see that violence very soon. host: independent in missouri -- independence, missouri. bobby, democrat. good morning. caller: my nephew died just two years ago from a heroin overdose. he started on opioids not

because of a drug cartel, but because purdue pharma started him on fentanyl and other opioids. drug cartels do not start you on heroin. it is the pharmaceuticals that do. there is a problem in my book. there is a class-action lawsuit against purdue pharma. i am not making this up. ronald reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. they are not illegal, no human being is illegal, no human being is an alien. aliens are from outer space. i think you're being too partisan. asylum is something legally allowed in our constitution. it doesn't matter if a person is lying about it. they are allowed to apply for asylum. host: let me give brandon judd a chance to respond. guest: let's be clear on the

definition. an alien is someone for into a specific location. that is a legal term in our law. illegal means they cross the border illegally. this is the term in our laws. they are called illegal aliens. you can violate the law and once you violate the law you are in illegal status. that is why it is legal term. when you talk about the pharmaceutical companies, i will not argue with that. i will not say people do not get hooked on drugs because of pharmaceutical companies. what i am saying is because once they cannot get that legally, then they have to find it in other means. that is this illegal operation. that is where the cartels, in. you can think you are partisan -- you can think i am partisan. all i want is the american public to have the full

understanding of what is going on. all of the facts. if you disagree with me after you have the whole facts, that is up to you. i do not have a problem with that. what we want the media to do is cover this properly. we want people to talk about what is actually happening, allow the american public to make their opinions based on all of the facts. host: back to twitter. jim is one of those folks who watches and tweets about our program. i think he might be a bit older than you. he says our immigration system has been broken for most of my adult life. you talk about your 25 years in this job. are you optimistic at all that this gets fixed, that the immigration system has some -- in the future? guest: i think it depends what you're talking about. there is a legal system and any legal system. nobody disagrees we should have

a legal immigration system. we should be the most generous country in the world. in my opinion we are the most blessed country in the world. we should be generous and we take in more immigrants per year on average than any other country around the world. we believe in a legal system. what i'm talking about is illegal immigration. illegal immigration must stop. there should not be open borders, we should not be rewarded people for crossing our borders illegally. do i see a fixed? i think so. this continues to garner more and more attention. it continues to be a political issue. as long as it is applicable issue -- when i started i talked about a bill being introduced that is a true bipartisan bill. you have 10 senators, five democrats and five republicans, that does not mean there will be

more democrats. people understand there must be a legislative fix to this issue and more elected officials are coming under a great deal of scrutiny because this issue continues to rage. i believe there is going to be a legislative fix. it might not be until the next congress. host: about 20 minutes left with brandon judd. keep calling in. the line for border state residents. we take you to the northern border. this is brenda in washington. good morning. caller: if you give me a moment, there is a lot on the airways. i am in northern border state. terrorists were apprehended in washington state wanting to bomb a building in l.a.. the problem is -- there is a problem at the southern border. the gentleman keeps referring to open borders.

nobody wants open borders. we just find different ways we want to fix it. i think technology is better than a wall. the gentleman might disagree. i am glad to hear you getting knowledge it needs to be a legislative fix. executive orders can be overturned. i want to remind everybody that during the obama administration there was a bipartisan, comprehensive legislation that never went to the floor of the house because paul ryan refused to bring it up. i have to disagree with who is truly hindering comprehensive immigration reform. thank you for what you do. i'm sure it is a very tough job. democrats do not want open borders. we just think the fix is a

different fix. thank you. guest: i did not think i've mentioned democrats or republicans wanting open borders. technology is extremely important. the problem with technology is often times technology counts gotaways. all the technology does is sees who is crossing the border and count the number of people getting away. we have to have physical barriers as well as technology. i never said physical barriers are the only solution to this. we have to look at that and say the walls are a tool. infrastructure and technology is another tool. we have to take those pieces of the puzzle and put them together to create the entire landscape in order to control what is currently going on as far as

illegal immigration goes. we have to be able to control illegal immigration in my opinion for the safety and security of the american public. as long as we continue to have open border policies, as long as we continue to reward people for violating our laws and crossing our borders illegally, releasing them into the united states after they cross our borders illegally, then we will continue to have this problem. there is a simple solution to this. i spoke with the biden transition team prior to the inauguration. we told them that if they do not replace the migrant protection protocols with another program or policy this is what we are going to see. that is what came to pass. nobody is saying people should not be able to claim asylum in the united states. people should be able to claim asylum. there is no reason we should be releasing people pending their

deportation or asylum proceedings. has this administration decided to hold people in custody pending that deportation or asylum proceedings we would not be in this situation. that is why am talking about open border policy. his policies that create the problems we are seeing today. host: 25 years of doing this. can you recall a border encounter that most impacted or frustrated you? guest: i can. early on in my career -- unfortunately i have had to witness several deaths on the border. it happens. we see the criminal cartels will literally leave people behind if they cannot keep up. early in my career we got a 911 call of an individual in the mountains just west of el centro california. we responded to that area. unfortunately the person had

already -- was basically unresponsive. i watch the person take their last breath. she was a 24-year-old young women. the group of illegal border crossers left her behind to die in the desert. that is something that will stick with me for the rest of my life. it is something we never want to see. we do the best we can to get out and try to rescue as many people. i remember a border patrol agent in arizona. there was a group of chinese nationals that cross the border illegally and were in the colorado river. he went into the river to save those individuals and he did save several. in the process of doing that he lost his own life. i apologize. host: not at all. guest: he left behind three young children and another child

on the way. border patrol agents do the best we can every single day to assist individuals while also enforcing the laws that are on the books in order to keep the american public safe. guest: phoenix, arizona. this is benjamin on the line for those who live in border states. go ahead. caller: first of all i want to thank you for all of the hard work you and all border patrol agents do. i grew up in tombstone, arizona which is 30 miles from the border. i can tell you, having gone down there recently to my family home , there has been incidents of innocent people that have been killed in accidents from smugglers that are fleeing from the border patrol causing car crashes. the thing that has upset me the most is our two senators have

been quiet on it and then suddenly kristin cinema is squawking about this and that now she is trying to get sensible whatever done. my question is when you talk about border patrol were reform, how do we get the message across to these people in washington who talk about somewhere they have never been, or these liberals calling from other states and saying it is not a problem. it is a problem and i've seen it firsthand. i hope that makes sense. guest: it does. i know tombstone extremely well. i am from a town just north of tombstone. when you look at politics, elections do have consequences, whether that is republicans, whether that is democrats. what we see in washington, d.c. is a political logjam where people refuse to get along.

i am very happy to see senator sinema and senator kelly signed on to this bill that will shortly be introduced. i believe this has been introduced. i am encouraged to see that. i'm encouraged any time i see democrats and republicans working together to try to solve a problem. it does not mean i support either one of those senators, does not mean i support any of the senators that signed on to that bill. it does give me hope something might change, something could happen because this problem continues to rage, it continues to be discussed. i just wish it was discussed properly. host: the public health border security act introduced yesterday. you mentioned the two arizona democratic senators on that. also maggie hassan of new

hampshire. joe manchin of west virginia. republican cosponsors, john thune of south dakota, john cornyn of texas, thom tillis, shelley capito of west virginia, rob portman of ohio. you mentioned james lankford as the author of that legislation. guest: is an important piece of legislation. it is bipartisan. this is not just introduced by one side of the aisle. any bipartisan bills, there is a better chance. just because these are the cosponsors does not meet these are the only people that support the bill. you have to start with a sponsor and then cosponsors than people can debate it and decide whether or not they want to support the bill. because it starts with such strong bipartisan support, there is a good chance it could get past. host: 10 minutes left in our

program. this is joe in new jersey, a republican. caller: this discussion on immigration typifies everything that is wrong with america right now. anxious to blame someone. you see that in the oil. it is a global oil challenge. we blame biden. the immigration thing, partisan talking points back and forth. the fact of the matter is congress and the president need to get together and solve this issue but they do not solve this issue because they want to have partisan wedge issues. they want to have people to blame to the situation to score political points. both parties are responsible for this mess. this gentleman on the phone, who was on your show today, i cannot believe how partisan he has.

he is talking about open borders. he is an example of a guy who is not taking any blame for the open border situation. guest: i don't know how rank-and-file law enforcement can be blamed. all we do is enforce the laws as the laws are written and as they are on the books. we do not create the laws. rank-and-file law enforcement does not create laws. that is whether you are a police officer, a county deputy. we enforce the laws on the books. we want to enforce those laws because we believe in the safety of the american public. if the opinion is this is a partisan issue i am not going to disagree with that. i will discuss how this problem can be solved and it can be solved many ways.

this is an issue that has to be shouldered by the taxpayer, this is an issue that can be solved very quickly. we have seen that. as long as we get rid of what is called the catch and release magnet, that is the magnet that draws people across our borders illegally, if we release people into the united states after they violate our laws, or if we reward them, people will continue to come. that is the reason we have seen the explosion in illegal immigration. all of the evidence points to that. there is no evidence that points to anything else. host: before our segment ends, i want to ask what you and your agents are seeing at the border when it comes to ukrainian refugees. are you starting to see them come across the border? guest: illegally we are not. this is one of those issues that

shows how intelligent criminal organizations are. the cartels recognized -- the cartels recognized world politics. they understand that if they force ukrainians to cross the border illegally there would be a huge outcry. to cross the border illegally you must pay a fee. the cartels allow the ukrainians to enter our country through a port of entry, claim asylum at a port of entry, not violating any of our laws. the cartels know exactly what they are doing, they know what needs to be done. most people think there is only one entity that operates on the border. that is not true. there are three different law enforcement agencies that operate along our border, and then there is another one which is -- falls under dhs but is a military branch, that is the coast guard.

you have four enforcement organizations that patrol our border. you have the border patrol, that would be who i work for, then you have the office of field operation that works at the ports of entry, and you have the office of air and marine, they are the ones that fly the helicopters and the drones. then you have the coast guard that controls the coast. there is a lot of nuances that exist on the border as far as illegal immigration goes. we'll have to try to work together the best we can to try to create a state -- a safe and orderly legal immigration system. host: in terms of bodies available to do the works, which of the four organizations is largest, where do you fit in? guest: the largest is the office of field operations. they also operate in the

interior, which are ports of entry as well. if you fly into the united states, directly from london to chicago, even though chicago is not on the border, that is considered your entry into the united states. that would be a port of entry. the office of field operations works at our airports and ports of entry. they are the largest law enforcement agency in the entire country. the border patrol, we would be second. host: tyler in texas. thanks for waiting. caller: i think the wall is a political symbol created by donald trump to divide us, very successfully and stir up racism in the country. my question is i do not believe all the people approaching the border or anything to do with drug cartels. my question is is there such a

market in the united states that they have to come here to sell the product? what does that say about our country? thank you. guest: i am not going to blame our citizens for cartels operating in the united states generating a profit. as far as the wall being political, laws have to be passed in a bipartisan fashion. you cannot pass a law if you do not have bipartisan support. if you want to talk about the exercise of the law and how that law is enforced, that is different. the laws are not political. laws are passed with bipartisan support otherwise you cannot get a law enacted by congress. to try to point the finger at our united states citizens for drug use because the cartels make it available, we have children, children that are dying from fentanyl overdoses.

i'm not in the mood to blame children for fentanyl overdose. that is directly linked to the cartels. we have more overdose deaths in 2021 then in an awful long time in the united states. in 2022 those numbers are already on pace to exceed the number we had in 2021. host: last call, ellen out of california, and independent. caller: here in california we are having gangs from south america there specializing in home invasions. the occupants are there, that does not deter them. there has been some deaths. i think one thing that could be added is that each embassy and consulate should be manned by

personnel, and people need to go and apply there. if they are threatened within their country, the first country they reached, they should go to the consulate or the embassy and apply there. that would possibly stem some of this chaos going on in having to have personnel man the border. host: might that work? guest: is a very interesting thing and it has been talked about. right now our laws do not allow people to present themselves to the consulates and claim asylum. you have to be in the united states to claim asylum. that is what our laws are. let's talk about international law. what is interesting about that comment is international law says people that want to seek asylum must seek it at the first safe country they come to. not go to a country just because

the economic prospects might be better in that country. mexico is considered a safe country. if people enter mexico prior to the united states, by international law they should be asking for asylum in mexico, not coming to the united states just because the economic opportunities are better. host: brandon judd is the president of the national border patrol council. i appreciate all the time and you coming on this program. guest: thank you. appreciate your time. host: that will do it for us this morning. will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern. in the meantime, have a great friday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> coming up today on c-span, president biden, vice president harris, and judge ketanji brown jackson will be at the ceremony marking the confirmation of judge jackson to serve on the supreme court. at 2:00 p.m. today press secretary jen psaki holds her daily briefing with orders from the white house. at 3:30 p.m., we hear from pentagon press secretary john kirby who will provide an update on the administration's response to russia's invasion of the ukraine. you could watch on c-span, online or on our free c-span video at, c-span now. ♪ >> april 15, 2022 march the 75th anniversary of the day that

jackie robinson broke the color barrier in major league baseball. 2004, april 15 has been known as jackie robinson day in honor of the brooklyn dodgers letter. sunday on "q&a" a former senior writer for sports illustrated talks about his book "true." where he writes about robinson's career and role in the civil rights movement. >> one way to think about this is when he made that debut, art was the never given a public or sermon. what we think of in that era of the civil rights movement, and hadn't really begun. jackie was truly a pioneer in that sense. when you think about dr. king probably was a little characteristic generosity could he said he would not have been accepted as he was or gotten

where he was if not for what jackie had done. >> you can also listen to "q&a" on our free c-span now app. >> c-span is your on view develop -- uncured -- unfiltered view of government. >> pops -- cox is committed to providing affordable internet. bridging the digital divide one connection at a time. bringing us closer. ♪ >> cox support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front proceed to democracy. >> testimony by local