receive federal funding. it is the 50th anniversary of the legislation. later on mike madrid and chuck rocha talk about their podcast, the latino vote. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning. saturday, july 2, 2022. the supreme court ended term on thursday. this morning, we are asking you about your confidence in the supreme court, not just this term but in general as an institution. give us a call on our phone lines. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents.

you can send us a text, (202)-748-8003. send us your first name and city, state. we are on social media, facebook.com/cspan and send us a treat at @cspanwj. welcome. before we get to your calls on your confidence in the supreme court this morning, i want to show you this gallup poll, headline "confidence in supreme court sinks to historic low." the graph going all the way back 1973 over 40%, 25% down here. the article says these results are based on a june 1-20 gallup poll. it was completed before the

major rulings were issued for that term. many institutions suffered a decline in confidence this year but the 11 point drop for the supreme court is double what it is for most institutions that experienced a decline. here's an op-ed on foxnews.com by jonathan turley "supreme court's term closes with political media leaders questioning legitimacy." since the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, we have seen extreme views of the institution service and witness a startling crisis of faith. the article starts by saying for justices, the end of the supreme court usually brings welcome vacations out of town. this week it seemed more like they were fleeing the jurisdiction with a mob at their heels. six justices and their homes are

targeted because they dared to interpret the constitution in a way that is opposed by many in the political, media and academic establishments. after the overturning of roe v. wade, many call for impeachment and disciplining justices. what is chilling is that these calls have not come from extremist groups but political and media figures who are challenging the "legitimacy of the supreme court." president biden was at the nato summit. there is a press conference. he was asked about how global leaders view u.s. leadership in the world following the supreme court decision. [video clip] >> -- was your motto last year. you have come to the summit and the one in germany after the u.s. supreme court overturned constitutional protections for abortion, after the shootings in buffalo and texas, at a time of

record inflation and a new polling this week showing 85% of the u.s. public think the country is going in the wrong direction. how do you explain this to those people who feel the country is going in the wrong direction including some of the leaders you have been meeting with this week who think, when you put all of this together, it amounts to an america that is going backward? >> they do not think that. you haven't found one person, one world leader to say america has gone backwards. america is better positioned to lead the world than we ever have been. we have the strongest economy in the world. our inflation rates are lower than other nations. the one thing stabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the supreme court of the u.s. and overruling not only roe v. wade but challenging the right to privacy. we have been a leader in the world in terms of personal and privacy rights and it is a

mistake in my view for the supreme court to do what it did. i have not seen anyone come up to me, nor have you heard them say anything other than thank you for america's leadership. you have changed the dynamic of nato and the g7. i understand why the american people are frustrated because of what the supreme court did. i understand because of inflation. inflation is higher in almost every other country. prices at the pump are higher in almost every other country. we are better positioned to deal with this than anyone. the supreme court, we have to change that decision by codified roe v. wade. host: that was the president at the nato summit, thursday. mitch mcconnell, the senate minority leader, republican said this "attacking a core american institution like the supreme court from the world stage is

below the dignity of the president. beyond that, his attacks on the court are unmerited and dangerous. he is upset the court said the people through their elected representatives will have a say on abortion policy. that does not destabilize democracy. it affirms it. by contrast, it is behavior like the president's that undermines equal justice on the rule of law. the president launched a this inappropriate attack when he was asked whether or not we are on the right track as a country. the president needs to take a look in the mirror. the supreme court is not responsible for inflation, high gas prices, crime in the streets, chaos at the border. he is. no amount of blame shifting on the global stage will change that." we are asking you about your confidence in the supreme court in general as an institution. we are taking your calls. let's start with david, kent, ohio, independent. caller: good morning. thanks.

your topic is good. i'm glad you chose it. it is unfortunate it is even a question. i don't have confidence in the supreme court largely because the conservative appointments are about protecting big money interests. i care more about consumer rights and environmental rights versus corporate power. a lot of it is conservative justices who were chosen on the basis of how they ruled in the past before they were even nominated for the supreme court. citizens united, where they wanted to reveal, the people wanted to have dark money sources revealed so voters would know where the money for some of these commercials and campaign contributions were coming from, and of course they ruled they

did not have to reveal it. one case after another favors big money. that is the biggest threat to our democracy. we were teetering. right now, we are more of an oligarchy than a democracy, which to me, means big government controls the three institutions, i'm sorry, big money controls the three institutions of power. it is not the government that is the problem. it is corporate government. people government is the only force strong enough to protect against the abuses of private power. private power is unchecked. they can buy their way into political offices and politicians. host: bob, waxhaw, north carolina, republican line. caller: good morning. i'm ok with the supreme court as

far as 100% confidence all the time. just my opinion. i'm ok with the rulings. there are certainly, there can be some goofy rulings, for example whenever they came out with the ok for obamacare and it is a tax but it is not a tax. host: you are confident as long as you agree with the rulings? caller: i didn't say that. host: tell me. caller: i can live with obamacare. i can live with the rulings. i'm just saying, i just gave you an example, where the ruling and the justification for it sounded very unusual. it is kind of hard to hold that opposing thought in my mind at one time, tax versus not a tax.

overall your comments about making a political? i have to agree with the fact, the politicians are the ones that are making a political. host: mitch mcconnell's comments? caller: let me give you a better example. even before the roe v. wade decision, when chuck schumer was on the steps of the supreme court, might be a good idea for you to show that, stating, i will tell you this, neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh, you will pay the price for these awful decisions. hell, that was even before anything to do with the roe v. wade decision. you might want to play that. and show it on tv. host: kevin, cap it, arkansas, democrat. caller: thanks. i think i have more of a lack of

confidence in the american people to understand the very complicated u.s. political system and branches of government, united states constitution. one example of that is from mitch mcconnell's statement that you read, where he blamed the president of the u.s. for high gas prices or inflation. mitch mcconnell ought to know from his ninth grade civics class, maybe he doesn't know this because he had a poor civics teacher in high school, but he should know the u.s. federal government does not control gas prices or any commodity prices and has not since the office in world war ii . have a good day host: steve, independent line, fort pierce, florida. caller: good morning. [indiscernible]

the supreme court is supposed to uphold individual rights. [indiscernible] -- a baby has individual rights. it is a person. the women have had a choice, whether to have sex with somebody and get pregnant. that is a possibility they have that choice for. if you answer the question about a baby being born, you think about this. it is not the woman's heart that is being torn and stopped, it is the baby's. the baby has a body. it is not the mother's skull that is getting crushed during late to warm abortions. -- late term abortions. as a people, we have come to

this point to devalue life. we judge everything on what is prevalent right at the time. host: i was going to ask you about your confidence in the supreme court. caller: the confidence of the court is supposed to uphold the rights and not be political. we just went through judges, they are saying it is all political. that is why they wanted the last one in. that is why they want four more. people want the judge, not the constitution, how it is written, they want outside of it. they have the media and the public form and we don't let the justices judge it by the constitution. host: here is a pole from yahoo! news --poll from yahoo! news. 33% agree with the decision to

overturn roe v. wade. chris, simpsonville, kentucky, republican. caller: good morning. i have faith in the courts. that has to be some pretty rough decisions. can i tell you what is going on? we got this fbi guy from jackson, tennessee chasing people around with a drone for 10 years at a cost over $10, half $1 million -- it is a terrible thing. this prosecutor, retired from northwest tennessee, these guys are chasing people with a drone. it is absolute horrible. it is one of those stealth ones. it is hard to see. i got faith in the courts.

that's got to be some tough decisions, got to be pretty tough. host: let's take a look at a tweet from derek friday. "it's a hypocritical court. it's a stolen court. it's a federalist society court. it's an insurrectionist court." robert calling from rock hill, south carolina, democrat. caller: [indiscernible] host: mute your tv. talk on the phone. caller: [indiscernible] hold on one second. i believe any court should be an equal court, side-by-side with the same amount on both sides so you can get a fair one even if

it takes a month. people they go on there until we are not going to change nothing, all of a sudden they do the opposite they did. just like donald trump. when i grew up, you went to school, you went to scion school and you set stuff on this scale, how much do you weigh? you pick your foot up? how much do you weigh now? same weight. he put a magnet on both sides of that, you put a bigger magnet on the other side. when you start taking off the earth, it moves. it will pull tighter to one side than the other side. the last 15 years -- i am 60 years old -- it is crazy what is going on with the world. yes, we do have a big problem with the earth spinning and getting pulled closer and closer to the sun. host: mary, fort washington,

democrat. caller: good morning. i have zero confidence in the supreme court now. it has been tacked with people who got in and live there behind's off. -- lied their behinds off. we need term limits for the supreme court. desperately. we need for the president to add more people to the courts. i get tired of republicans who want to go back to the founding fathers. they are not my founding fathers. when they wrote the constitution, they did not include people that looked like me. i would like to see a new constitution or this one heavily amended. you need to take out the part that says people of color are 3/5's of people. this is a constitution people still believe in. i have no confidence in the supreme court now. we have a bunch of liars who lied under oath about what they

wouldn't do. time for a change. host: take a look at cnbc, headline "the supreme court justices are the only federal judges who are exempt from the code of conduct." the house judiciary committee advanced a bill that would issue an ethics code for justices of the supreme court and currently high court justices are the only federal justices exempt from the code of conduct and justices are also currently allowed to trade stocks of private companies which could create a conflict of interest. patrick, palm beach gardens, florida, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have total confidence in the court at this point in time.

most of them are originalists. a lot of people don't understand what that means. that means they are going back to what the original intent of the constitution was when the founders wrote it. it is very important they are exempt from being reelected or whatever. they were nonpolitical body. they are the only a political body we have and one of the major things that just past was holding back the executive branch from making these kingdom decisions. decisions made by kings, that started with obama, and then went on, and everybody else begin to pick it up, trump included, where they said we will make the rules. host: you're talking about the epa decision? caller: that decision was not

about so much the epa. it is related, yes. basically, underneath it is saying the executive branch, you can't just make edicts without consequences. it is a good court. the pendulum swings. for all those liberals about to throw up something at the television right now by what i am saying, understand for 50 years in regard to roe, we all dealt with the same thing on the other side. i am a conservative. yes i believe roe v. wade was a good decision, based on a mistake. you can look back at the lady, roe, who started it all, that was used by the dnc to just ramrod something the rest of the american public did not want, now the pendulum is swinging back the other way. host: let's look at what the

president said yesterday. this was a day after he said he supports a filibuster rule change, specifically to codify roe v. wade. he acknowledged his allies don't have enough votes to do that. [video clip] >> congress is going to have to act to codify roe into federal law. the filibuster should not stand in the way of us being able to do that. right now we don't have the votes in the senate to change the filibuster at the moment. that means we need two more votes now, not now, when we vote, probably after november, more senators and house majority, and house majority elect november to get this bill to my desk. the choice is clear. we either elect federal senators and representatives who will codify roe, republicans who will elect the house and senate, who

will try to ban abortions nationwide. nationwide. this is going to go one where or the other after november. let's remember, the reasoning of this decision has an impact beyond roe. to the right to privacy more generally. justice thomas himself said that, under the reasoning of this decision the court should reconsider marriage equality and contraception. there is a lot at stake here. in the meantime i want to hear with the governors are doing, talk about my plans and discuss what we can do until congress acts. this is not over. host: that was the president speaking yesterday. we are asking you about your confidence in the supreme court and taking your calls. eddie, peoria, illinois, democrats. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good.

caller: i have confidence in the supreme court for the simple reason, they are trying to right a wrong that was presented in roe v. wade. i have confidence in people being elected to it. the congress, i have confidence in people. in doing so, the society, the government, not to get off subject but they legalized marijuana. i think that will become a problem in years to come. i probably won't be around to see it here. i got confidence in the supreme court. they will probably reverse that

right, that is wrong. host: henry, georgia, independents. caller: good morning. i don't have any confidence in the supreme court. appears they are taking on cases , out of their round. they should have kicked a lot of these cases back down to lower level courts. these other decisions recently made, seems like they are doing the job of congress. roe v. wade. you hear everyone talking about the opinion of the baby versus the woman, especially the life of the woman and the life of the baby. life is the main subject in this situation.

that a go to congress and come out with something in the middle , make it sufficient for each side. as far as the supreme court itself, i think what has happened is we as a people -- [indiscernible] -- power has become the situation here. host: walter, north carolina, republicans. caller: [indiscernible] host: walter? caller: yes? how are you? host: good. did you mute? caller: yes. i'm looking at you. host: talk in the phone. don't talk to the tv. caller: ok.

i used to have confidence in the supreme court. now, they are getting involved in things they really don't know anything about. they struck down the epa right to control climate change in this country. i think scientists should decide this. host: ok. the headline, front page of the new york times this morning. the court's term was its most conservative since 1931. trump's picks make imprint up and down the docket. this is by adam liptak, the supreme court moved relentlessly to the right, it says, in his

first full term with its six justice conservative majority issuing far-reaching decisions that will transform american life. it eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, recognized a second amendment right to carry guns outside the home, made it harder to address climate change and expanded the role of religion in public life. i one standard measurement used by political scientists, the term that ended thursday was the most conservative since 1931. we are asking you your opinion and confidence in the supreme court this morning. matt, bladensburg, maryland, democrats. caller: hi. i think first of all the first thing we need to do and not just for the sake of expanding, i

think it needs to be expanded now so it can be balanced and once it is balanced, it needs to remain balanced. i don't know why they left this out. there should be a balance in the supreme court so we don't have fanatics like these completely raping the constitution -- host: you want there to be more justices on the supreme court? how many? caller: i don't know. what do we have? enough to balance it currently. right now, that is important. once it is balanced, we have to keep it balanced. that is what is important. the right wants to control it. that is why they won't expand. my suggestion is, i think most people feel this way, we want it balanced so it can be fair, as it currently is not.

host: jeremy, madison, wisconsin, independents. caller: hi. pleasure to talk to you. thank you for c-span. i would like to echo mary's comments. i would like people to question your premise regarding faithfulness, regarding confidence. the faithfulness of how republicans take the idea of a right arm, how the democrats take the left arm, and the faithfulness of how a kindergartner takes his arms? thank you for c-span. host: an event in may, dallas, justice clarence thomas

commented on the leaked draft and called it a threat to the u.s. judicial system. [video clip] >> the idea, your point about institutions -- i think we are in danger of destroying the institutions that are required for a free society. you can't have a civil society, free society, without a stable legal system. you can't have one without stability and things like property or interpretation and impartial judiciary. i have been in this business long enough to know how fragile it is. the institution i am a part of, if someone said that one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone and you would say that is

impossible, no one would ever do that. there is such a belief in the rule of law, a belief in the court, and what we were doing that that was verboten. it was beyond anyone's understanding. or at least anyone's imagination that someone would do that. look where we are. we are now, that trust, that belief is gone forever. when you lose that trust, especially in the institution i am in, it changes the institution fundamentally. you begin to look over your shoulders, like infidelity. you can explain it but you can't undo it. i think you are seeing it go through any number of our institutions, whether in the political branches or in the

universities. host: justice thomas commenting on the leak of that draft opinion. we are asking you what you think, your confidence in the supreme court. russ, west harrison,, new york democrats,. caller: to the caller who was so patronizing when he explained what originalism was -- he should look at the ninth amendment. the forefathers said rights are not limited to the rights explicitly mentioned in the constitution. it is a living breathing document. maybe people who are stuck on originalism can use a little more intelligence. i have not much confidence in the court, congress or the president. did you hereby denominated -- did you hear biden nominated a judge in kentucky? host: i did not. caller: every post office is a federal property.

post offices should be the focus of the people's resistance. every post office should be occupied and a demand made a women's health center and a daycare center be set aside, every single post office in this country and we can occupy post office after office because the government lies to us constantly. host: robert, the bronx, new york, republicans. caller: how you doing? host: what do you think? caller: at the end of the day, i feel as if, i honestly feel the democrats are ruining the country. trump needs to get back in office. he needs to take over. they need to impeach biden. unfortunately, roe v. wade is ally -- a lie. host: you have confidence in the

supreme court? caller: absolutely not. host: you don't? ok. caller: they are failing us. the nation is going to hell. biden isn't doing anything to make this country better. it is getting worse and worse. kamala harris, absolutely not. nope. host: don, petaluma, california, independents. caller: hi. i haven't had much confidence in scotus for years. they have been making political decisions on the other side, 5-4 for as long as i can remember. i always found it irritating it was completely down political lines, which is exactly what they are doing now. nothing changed. it seems to be getting worse. my biggest concern is more with external forces. the media beats the drum for

whatever their agenda is. legislative branch, the democrats, biden, schumer, have been making really derogatory comments about scotus. they shouldn't be doing that. we have three branches of government. the politicians, the legislative branch should not be criticizing the judicial branch, even if they disagree. that is fine. they can say that. ridiculous. we have liberal decisions for years 5-4. that was ok. the media have no problem. they never called it out. i was listening to npr the other day and they were talking about the conservative core and making all kinds of comments about the decisions passed down by the court being political. they never said that at all when it was on the liberal side. basically, we have a hard-core fence in the media the liberals.

people will say it is just an arm of the dnc. it is not like i can disagree. a little bit ridiculous. it is out of hand. we're hearing a lot about the country is on the wrong track. the country has been on the wrong track for a while. i am not a conservative or liberal. i find myself in the middle. when we had trump in, we had independent energy, gas prices, control at the border, all kinds of things like this. things have gone insane under biden. it is like the country is falling apart. host: canton, ohio, democrats, jonathan. caller: good morning. i'm glad to speak. i'm dismayed at the fact everybody wants to say about

god, what they think about what our principles are supposed to be implemented. in the old testament, adam and eve were tempted by the devil to make the lord look like a liar. before jesus died on the cross, the pharisees took an adulterous, jesus was the only 1 -- [indiscernible] -- he who is with only, he who is without sin cast the first stones. i don't understand. the devil is the ruler of this world. [indiscernible] host: a tweet here from american joseph who says "i'm not sure about this theory of big money or corporations controlling everything." at an event in early june, justice sotomayor was asked about declining public trust in

the supreme court. [video clip] >> on the topic of current events in the world, we are living in a time where public confidence in institutions generally seems to be declining. until recently, the judiciary, especially the supreme court have enjoyed relatively steady confidence from the public. gallup's reporting for the first time since they started pulling on the issue, public confidence in the court has plummeted and it is at its lowest point. why should the public continue to have confidence in its institutions of government including the supreme court? >> institutions are made up by human beings. because we are humans, by necessity we make mistakes. it is nature of the human enterprise that people as people

as judges as politicians as presidents as whatever, that we are going to make mistakes. we are going to have errors of judgment. what you believe in is an institutional structure, our government. how it operates together, the three branches of government, the checks and balances in the way they operate. and in the people who created this. you are equal if not the fourth branch of government. perhaps most important, because you vote. you are the ones who indirectly appoint the other branches. to that end, when we, as institutions have made mistakes,

other parts of the branches, thefour work in tandem, remember i created the people as the fourth now, the people have worked to make changes. host: we are talking about your confidence in the supreme court and taking your calls. sanford, florida, republicans, patrick. caller: host: patrick? caller: [no audio] host: paul, cornwall, new york, republicans. caller: good morning. thanks. i think they need to teach civics in high school again. people in this country have no idea how government works. i am so sick and tired of hearing everyone screaming and crying when they don't get their way. i want my mortgage paid off.

joe biden, pay it off. student debt? fine, pay my mortgage. i have made payments for many years. host: how does that relate to the supreme court and your confidence level? caller: you just put someone on the supreme court that cannot define what a woman is. i have zero confidence. host: albert, saginaw, michigan, democrats. caller: [no audio] host: albert? caller: yes. this thing been going on ever since they got clarence thomas in. the media fools us by telling us we wanted clarence thomas but

thurgood marshall said way before, you have to watch who we put on the supreme court, which we didn't. a bundle of lies from people who have no respect for respect. i know that sound kind of messed up. no respect for respect. there is no honor amongst those thieves. the supreme court is a rigmarole. that is how i feel. host: brock, newark, new jersey, independents. caller: hi. thank you c-span. appreciate you guys. first, i thank the forefathers for giving us a framework. i feel like as far as the supreme court goes, it is another one of those political

tools at this point. i wish that civics -- i do believe as a unit, as an american unit, we just don't all have the same morals, which is why i feel bad for the women with the roe v. wade thing that was affected. coming from new jersey, i have a certain perspective on the gun law. i recently moved to texas because i feel like you should have the right to protect your family. because new jersey had it to where you had to give a reason, i mean, just saying i live in a high-risk neighborhood, that is reason enough i should be able to protect my family. whether you want to educate our kids -- how can 16-year-old kids be given the skills to know how to hunt in montana but the kids in chicago shouldn't no how to

use those same weapons? we have to teach our kids and trust they will make the right decisions. host: a tweet from jason "my confidence in the supreme court? i am confident the three newest justices perjured themselves during their confirmation hearings." we got a text from chris in elgin, illinois. "this suggestion we need to expand the number of justices is ridiculous. where does that end? we have 17 justices? 29? 177? the problem is not the number but the hyper-partisanship that has infested our government." let's talk to david, albany, georgia, republicans. caller: good morning. the framers have done this

correctly. it is not up to the courts. the courts threw it back to the state. they are not killing anybody. not doing anything to any women. they are doing with the framers set up as supposed to be. let the states control it. host: do you have confidence in the court? caller: yes i do. the president elects supreme court justices. trump happened to have three of them put on. biden had his one. he may have one more. two more. that is where it is going. that is how it is supposed to work. i have confidence. vote it back to the states. they are not killing babies. the way to solve abortion? don't do anything.

give birth control. don't just have abstinence. host: kathleen, democrats, lawrence, kansas. caller: i've turned off my tv. there is a lag. anyway. i have confidence in the supreme court. but i do think they have been wrong in the past quite often. look how long they upheld segregation. i'm wondering why nobody references the fourth amendment against illegal search and seizure as a reason, no matter what you think about abortion, i just don't think anybody should be looking at the people's private affairs. it should be protected under the fourth amendment. if we have to have a warrant to search someone's house or tap their phones, how can we go into

peoples medical decisions that are private? i think the supreme court was wrong on the citizens united decision. also on the second amendment. the framers of the constitution were distrustful of standing armies. in these demonstrations, the best line i have seen is what about well-regulated don't you understand? they can't take apart the second amendment and forget about the well-regulated being a member of a militia part. maybe there needs to be as one caller said there needs to be some kind of ethics guidelines for the supreme court. they need to be transparent.

they should recuse themselves from anything that has a conflict of interest. host: take a look at this article from the washington post. the supreme court to review state legislature's power in federal elections. subheading, the justices will look next term at a case from north carolina where republicans want to restore a redistricting map rejected by the state supreme court. it said, supreme court unser -- on thursday will consider a fundamental change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures sole authority to set the rules for contest even if their actions violated the state constitution and resulted in extreme gerrymandering for congressional seats. that will be next term. robert is next. frostburg, maryland, independents. caller: good morning beautiful

young lady. i am a vietnam veteran. it breaks my heart to see the division in our country now. i'm reminded of what st. paul said in romans, first chapter, about my country. he said proclaiming himself to be wise, they became fools, talking about the roman empire. this country has beautiful principles. the thing is, it doesn't follow those principles. division is growing in this country. it is breaking my heart. until we get back to truth, that made this country great, we just go back to rome and destroy ourselves. this is crazy. now the supreme court justices

have to have security around their homes for protection. we have to get back to being truthful, to being honest with each other and ourselves. this division is destroying us. we have to stop it. get back to where we respect. get away from this division. host: larry,, dallas, texas, republicans. caller: good morning. thank you. as far as my confidence in the supreme court, it is zero. the supreme court says leave it up to the states to make their own decisions. they meddle in new york's gun laws. they deal with the abortion laws. we learned at an early age there should be a penalty for lying. they lied at their confirmation. i think they should be impeached.

when i hear individuals talk about how great trump is -- why are you even mentioning trump? i'm a former financial advisor. this economy took off in 2009. guess who was in power? obama. ok? trump inherited a society and economy that was on the upswing, not on the downswing. imagine if you shut your house down or did not work for 18 months, what kind of challenges you would have. the whole world was shut down for 18 months. that means you had zero manufacturers, zero distribution. these high prices and everything now is a result of someone not handling the pandemic correctly. that is why we have a crisis. you are blaming biden for the high oil prices? that is ridiculous. there are oil prices all over the world.

the president and australia, britain,, germany, they also have high gas prices. host: ken, livonia, michigan, democrats. caller: hi. i would like to say off the bat i have absolute confidence in supreme court. i want to tell you why. the supreme court basically are the top gun lawyers of all lawyers. you didn't get there because there was a trip up or someone pushed you in. you are nominated because of your accomplishments and you were put on because everyone vetted you. right, wrong or indifferent, you were put on for that. what is your job? interpret the constitution. the piece of paper we started with with all the amendments in it and try to figure out a tussle. host: sorry. you think they have interpreted it well? caller: you have to look at it

and what they had to do. they did interpret the constitution. the second thing they do is they are trying to solve a conflict. it doesn't just come to them willy-nilly. they don't decide to talk on social issues. this isn't the congress. the senate. it is not the president pontificating. a problem gets handed to them. they have to decide, is this something that is related to the constitution? or is this something that follows the democratic way of voting, if they enact something and say this is nailed, it is nailed until the next congress or someone else tries to put up another conflict. when they choose to put it back in our hands, that allows the voters to control the issue. . if they codify it into law, voters do not get a chance to change it. it is in. everyone has to abide by it.

that is what our republic is based on. when they put it the hands of voters, voters can control it. that is exactly what they have done. the issue everyone is worried about and i hear the rest of the colors is around this -- this is about federally funding the issue. the problem starts to become, if it is not law, it cannot be federally funded. how are we trying to get around it now? use federal land to federally funded this issue. i am just trying to put some logic and reality behind this. the supreme court really does make sound decisions. anyone who is a smarter lawyer than they are or anyone on the calls who thinks they are a smarter lawyer than someone sitting on the court, you should probably look at what their job description really is and then figure out if they made a decision that was logical. i think they did. i have confidence. host: laurens, st. paul,

minnesota, independents. caller: people also need to stop reading with these decisions are, not just what the media says they are -- start reading what these decisions are, not just with the media says they are. what citizens united spoke was people at a corporation are exercising their rights of assembly and speech. i will close on this. i thought it was prolific. in justice jackson's confirmation hearings, she used the word more eloquently and basically said "if congress crafted better legislation, the courts would not need to intercede." people are finger-pointing at the incompetency of the supreme

court when their frustration in fact needs to be directed at congress, who really do in fact write nebulous legislation that requires intervention. host: susan, seattle, washington, republican. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. you are asking my confidence in the supreme court of the u.s., it is up in the high heavens. absolutely. i think they are doing a good job. also, abortion is not in the constitution. there is no first, second amendment or whatever amendment. i don't know what story -- i guess they are scared their lust is being curtailed. how will the country survive if you try to kill all your future citizens? it saddens me now we are breaking up the confidence.

one caller said lying. who is lying? our president. right in front of me. i'm watching him on tv. he criticizes. it saddens me when he goes to another country he criticizes. [indiscernible] -- the third branch of government. i really so sad for this country that we are going down in the wrong path. i do hope the supreme court, still some people watching over for the health and welfare of the conscience of this country. i have prayed so hard we should go back -- you know lying and everything on television. inflation. people cannot afford to pay the rent and buy food. we are giving so much money. host: we are getting off

subject. one more call from lou, highland park, illinois, democrat. caller: good morning. my impression of the supreme court is very low. i think it is a court of avoidance. they are sending huge issues back to the states. for example, so many states have different gun laws. you can get a gun in arizona without a permit. you can get an abortion in new york but you cannot get one in texas. i don't think they are making federal guidelines. to me, it is avoiding problems. host: that will bring us to the end of this segment. thanks to everybody who called in. we have more opportunities later to weigh in on the subjects. up next, emily martin of the

national women's law center who will discuss the recent 50th anniversary of title ix and its impact and legacy on american women and men. later, our spotlight on podcast segments featuring democratic chuck rochs and republican mike madrid, cohosts of the podcast the latino vote. how it could impact the midterms in the fall and in 2024. we will be right back. ♪ >> join washington journal every sunday for our special six part series on landmark legislation. each week we explore a piece of legislation that helped shape today's america including the federal highway act of 1956, social security amendments of 1965, immigration reform act of

1986, the americans with disabilities act of 1990, welfare reform legislation of 1996 and the no child left behind act of 2001. we feature historians and experts discussing how the bills became law while answering your phone calls and questions about how those laws continue to impact our lives. we will look at the social security amendments of 1965. watch landmark legislation on washington journal, live at 9:00 eastern on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile in the no child left behind act of 2001. we will feature historians and experts talking about how it became law and how those laws continue to impact our lives. we will look at the social security amendments of 1960 five. watch landmark legislation on washington journal or on our

free radio app. >> live sunday on in-depth, emory university professor carol anderson will be our guest to talk about race in america have that in rights and gun regulation. she is the author of several books including -- either through official processes or by force. aaron thompson, professor of art crime at the city university of new york and author of " smashing statues," >> after the death of george floyd, millions of americans marched in protest of racial disparities, to say that black lives matter, and often these rallies focused on monuments as

a symbolic meeting .4 showing who was honored in america, whose lives mattered, and whose lives did not. >> erin thompson at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of their podcasts on the c-span -- our podcasts on the c-span app. >> breast through our latest collection of books, home decor and accessories. there is something, for every c-span fan and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span.org -- >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back to washington journal. i am joined by emily martin.she

is the vice president for education and workplace justice for the national women's law center. . we are talking about title ix. i wanted to put on the screen what that was. this goes back to 1972. " no person in the united states shall on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving financial assistance." before we start taking calls, i want you to talk about the history of title ix, how did it come about, and what was going on in the country at that time. guest: title ix was signed into law 50 years ago. 1972 was a moment of a rebirth of the women's movement. among other things, my

organization, the women's law center was founded in 1972 when women were coming together, recognizing and naming sex discrimination for the first time. one of the reasons title ix came to be was a woman named bernie sandler had got in her doctorate in education and could not get a job. she was being told specifically why they would not like to hire women. they were unreliable. bonni -- sandler started researching whether there was a legal remedy this kind of discrimination. there is not the most direct law. there were laws around federal contractors, and she tried, she day to try to draw attention to the discrimination women were

facing in colleges and universities lead in a straight line to title ix being adopted in 1972. host: i will remind people they can start calling in. you can call on these phone lines -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002. we will also be taking tweets @cspanwj. what was the reaction to the legislation at the time? guest: a lot of people did not notice when it passed in 1972. there were a lot of fights about busing and other issues that were taking up the public attention. when richard nixon signed the bill that included title ix, it did not talk about sex discrimination in education.

that was under the radar. in the months and years that followed as women lawmakers -- there were a few in congress then -- as women lawmakers, as women activists started to demand that the government take action to employment and enforce title ix, more and more people started to realize that this hugely dramatic change in what we could expect from educational institutions had taken place. frankly, there was some initial backlash, precisely around that issue we now associate title ix with now so much -- athletics. athletics departments got nervous about what this meant. they realized this was transformational given the extent of sex discrimination, which was normalized in the 1970's. once title ix passed, there were

a lot of battles about whether it really meant what it said when it came to sports. the first big title ix moments or reaffirmation's, but i flew -- moments were reaffirmations. host: are there any legal challenges now in the pipeline that could come before the supreme court? guest: certainly, there are a lot of active ongoing legal sites about -- the fights about what title ix means. some are in the context of sexual harassment and sexual assault. the law has become established that title ix places obligations on schools to address sexual harassment and sexual assault, but what that means, when can schools be held accountable, those are all very heavily litigated still. there is also ongoing controversy, legal battles

around the obligations that title ix places on the schools. the biden administration proposed new title ix rules that would say explicitly sex discrimination in schools includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity. host: the department of education just released a that recently, and these were changes from the previous administration under nancy divorce. -- under nancy devoss. guest: i think they are incredibly important. they released to these on the 50th anniversary of title ix. they make explicit that sex discrimination in education includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

the trump administration had tried to pull back those protections, and had even asserted that may be it is against title ix to allow trans students to use the locker room or bathroom of their choice. that is an important shift. the other thing that is important is mostly undo some harmful rules that they trump administration put in place limiting title ix's protections against sexual harassment, rules that push schools do not investigate many types of sexual harassment complaints, and rules that place to onerous complainant procedures for schools to investigate sexual harassment investigations that do not apply in any other sort of investigation into student misconduct.

if someone complained of sexual harassment, someone had to do something that they would not have to do if someone had hit you in the face. they had put those in place presumably to protect those who have been accused of sexual harassment. they responded to men's rights activist who claimed that schools taking sexual harassment more seriously undermines the rights of male students, but really the rules that they put in place seemed, in general, to be based on the idea that when somebody complains of sexual harassment that, that sort of complaint needs more scrutiny than other sorts of complaints, that somehow complaints of sexual harassment are uniquely untrustworthy, and that is an incredibly damaging perception that builds on so many deep gender stereotypes in this culture. we are excited to see the biden

administration taking concrete steps to restore what had been long standing understandings of title ix. host: let's start taking some calls. we will start with michael in maine on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i'm not a lawyer, but i was wondering are there any ramifications or extensions of title ix to be amended into abortion rights for women? i will listen off the air. guest: it is a very timely question that we are thinking a lot about in this moment. one of the things that title ix does, which is one of the less known parts of title ix, is it protects students against pregnancy discrimination. in addition, it protects

students from discrimination on the basis of termination of pregnancy. what that means is schools are not permitted to retaliate against students, to allow harassment of students because a student has had an abortion. that being said,, we fully expect there are going to be so many legal battles, but some of the legal battles will be about enforcing those protections in this moment when reproductive rights are under attack. it is important to recognize that title ix provides the strong framework of rights against pregnancy discrimination, against discrimination on the basis of termination of pregnancy, and also about some schools will want to uphold those rights, and some schools will be looking for loopholes. " we are not expelling her because she had an abortion, we are expelling her because she broke the law!"

in -- host: let's go to lawrence, kansas and talk to mitchell on the independent line. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: when i was 14, i was on the swim team. for the first time we beat the team that mark spence was on to win the western championship of the united states, and part of that process was every woman was in the weight room every day, just like i was. this was before title ix, but there was a realization that it was stupid to not have women be as strong as men.

it appalls me that there are going to be restrictions about title ix. it goes back to your previous section where 4 of the 9 judges have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and how that affects all of us. host: let's get a response. guest: one of the things, one of the reasons title ix has been revolutionary is because it really did shift expectations of what women are capable of in athletics. in the early 70's when title ix passed, many people believed that, for example, it was a dangerous for women to play basketball on a full-court. they had to be on a half-court, or otherwise it was too strenuous! one of the world shifting parts

of title ix is how it has changed people's understanding of what women are physically capable of. on the supreme court, i do think there are a variety of threats. one example is a case you probably did not hear of in this really momentous term, a case called cummings. it came out a week before the abortion decision was leaked. it seems like a very technical matter. it was a case about disability discrimination, and whether or not you can get compensatory damages for stability discrimination. because of the way that title ix follows the law in question in that case, what it meant is that there has been this stealth

attack of the ability of title ix plaintiffs in cases like sexual harassment cases to get any sort of meaningful award from the courts for their emotional distress, for their pain and suffering. that seems hyper legal, hypertechnical, but it threatens to have a huge impact on the ability of title ix plaintiffs to find legal representation and to go to court to win some meaningful remedy when they experience other forms of discrimination. it is one example of the ways in which this court can weaken title ix piece by piece without much of the public even noticing. host: bob is next in arlington, virginia. caller: my big concern is protection of free speech on campus. the rules that were put out in

2002 carefully track the supreme court's decision in davis versus munro county, which drew the line between what is permissible speech versus what was sexual harassment. the, proposed rule would repeal that leaving a word salad of nothing specific to draw the line between what people have the right to say under the first amendment versus complained that their feelings were hurt and therefore that was sexual harassment. universities are put in a possible situation where they could be sued by the department of education. they could be sued by individualss, an yet they do not have any basis to discipline students for real sexual-harassment as opposed to vague free speech. host: one of -- guest: one of the things the proposed new rule would do is adopt a standard for when things

come to sexual-harassment, but more so the rules that we apply in the workplace. that standard asks whether the harassment is severe or pervasive, whether it is subjectively and objectively offensive and whether it has affected somebody's ability to fully participate at work are in their education. the standards that the proposed rules that the biden administration has put forward would put back in place in schools are the ones that our employees and employers, have understood for a long time, and it seems to me that students, the kids in school should have at least as much protection against sexual harassmentas

-- harassment as i do when i go to work each day. host: we got a question by tweet. " can the guest explain why it would have been imprudent for a good times you brown jackson to answer their stupid -- fork at hundred brown jackson to answer their -- for ketanji brown jackson to answer their stupid question about what is a woman?" guest: there are a lot of comments about title ix protections that seek to vilify, to exclude transgender women and girls from the protections of title ix. one of the things they supreme court has recognized very recently in a decision is that

when we discriminate against people because they are transgender that that is sex discrimination. that is discrimination based on gender stereotypes about what we think a man should be or a woman should be. it is the case that that kind of discrimination is not just harmful to people who are transgender, it is harmful to anybody who departs from traditional gender stereotypes about what we think is feminine or what we think is masculine. when ketanji brown jackson refused to engage in that line of questioning, i think it was both because when you are in a supreme court hearing, you have to be very careful about not answering questions, but maybe -- that may be arriving in legal cases before you, but she was

rejecting that gameplaying that was suggesting there are people who we can carve out of the protections of sex discrimination because they are transgender. host: bob is next on the republican line in virginia. caller: i wanted to ask a question on whether you think an additional law has to be passed to provide further protection for women or whether you feel the existing laws are not being stringently or effectively enforced? thank you. guest: it is both and. there is improvement in enforcement and implementation, and that is one of the reasons why the aydin rule proposed last -- biden rule proposed to last week is so important.

i think there is definitely, there are definitely places i would love to see the law strengthened in part because a supreme court decision over the years that have interpreted title ix narrowly and weakened those protections. we have been at the national women's law center working with champions in congress around a bill that would align title ix's protections against harassment more closely with the protections that title vii, the law against workplace discrimination provides against harassment, that would close some of the loopholes the courts have put into the law over time. there are protections for students that go beyond antidiscrimination actions. -- antidiscrimination

protections. in order to ensure that pregnancy does not derail educational opportunities, we need other things beyond discrimination roles. we need widely available -- beyond antidiscrimination rules. we need robust reproductive rights. all of those pieces are important to ensure that pregnancy does not lead to students dropping out of schools altogether. so both and. the laws we need -- we have need to be robustly enforced. host: connie is next in new jersey on the democrats' blind. caller: good morning -- on the democrats' line.

caller: good morning. one thing i understand is about abortion. i'm 81 years old. in the 60's i had my two children and did not have food to feed them. i type my tubes. in the 50's -- i tied my tubes. in the 50's that was illegal. i didn't care. it was my understanding that lee braun, -- i always thought the

supreme court interpreted the law, but they did not make laws. that was not the case, in my view. host: let's get a response. guest: i think that one of the things the caller was bringing for her word was that no matter what the -- forward was that no matter what the law says, people always seek abortions and reproductive health care, which is exactly right, and i think that, that means that the protections that title ix offers based -- will be more important than ever.

right now we will be seeing really desperate circumstances for people across the country, including many students, and to ensure that pregnancy or abortion does not diss rail or disrupt -- dis-rail or disrupt their ability to get an education is really scary. host: -- is really scary. host: " patsy mink is the unsung hero of birth control." guest: she was one of the mothers of title ix. she came to this issue because she had, wanted to be a doctor and she could not get into medical school because she was a woman and it was in the 1950's.

women need not apply. she became a lawyer instead, and then she could not get a job, because no one would hire women attorneys. she ran for office. she became the first woman of color in congress. she worked to pass title ix, then was a champion defending it for decades. she successfully defended attacks that would have carved athletics out of title ix, along with many other fights over the years to ensure that title ix remained robust, and in fact after her death in 2002 title ix was named after her. it is now the patsy make equal opportunity -- it is now the patsy mink equal opportunity law. caller: can you tell the viewers

who amended the equal opportunity act to include race and gender? guest: richard nixon signed title ix into law, and i think that it both is a credit to the fact that republicans and democrats have over the years affirmed the importance of title ix's protections and education. worth noting, as i mentioned earlier, title ix was a small piece of that bill. richard nixon's assigning statement at the time did not even mention it -- richard

richard nixon's signing statement at the time did not even mention it. it is an example of bipartisanship you would not see today. it is an example of bipartisanship you would not see today. i'm not really that he was very aware that title ix was part of the legislation he was signing. host: i'm wondering about how title ix impacted men both historically and bringing it up to today? guest: there are a few dimensions of that answer. title ix protects anyone against sex discrimination. it does not just protect women and girls. those protections are really important for men and boys because it is not good for anyone to have their opportunities constrained because of gender stereotypes and gender expectations. in the 1970's when title ix passed it was common to say " only boys take shop, only girls take home ec. that closed" off more opportunities for girls , but if you were a boy that wanted to learn how to cook and

so, if you are a boy that wanted to be in theater and do things people that were more feminine, it wouldn't be great for you to go to school in a time and place with rigid gender expectations. it is related to the importance of title ix's protections of gender identity discrimination which are important for people of all genders. it is also the case that i think it is good for boys and men when women and girls have greater opportunity in the world. this is not a zero-sum game where more right for some people all mean less rights for other people all, that when women and girls have the fuller ability to compete, succeed, and win, that raises the bar for everybody in ways that are really positive by giving men and boys better thought partners in school and in the workplace.

i also think that, unfortunately, over the years there have been efforts to use title ix to stoke division. for example, there are examples of schools saying " we are going to cut this boys team, but it is really title ix's fault. it is not what we want to do. it has led some people to have this false impression, but more opportunity -- that more opportunity for some means less opportunity for me. host: let's talk to sam in colorado on the republican line. guest: i think the person mischaracterizing the whole thing with betsy devoss's role

-- rather than having police involved in a crime. secondly, what does she feel about transgender men competing in women's sports? anyone who would accept that is a huge hypocrite. guest: starting with betsy devos's role, there is a misperception out there that title ix is criminal law. there is a separate bed of criminal proceedings that title ix says nothing about. if someone is raped and once to go to the police, title ix does not change that. what title ix speaks to is what must schools do when they are responding to sexual harassment or sexual assault against

students or employees. what sort of investigation, what sort of supportive measures, how do schools prevent and address these sort -- address sexual harassment? the devos rules said that schools had to hold something that looks a lot like criminal trials, even though schoolteachers are not judges, they are not attorneys asked it to litigate these issues. the devos rule had provisions that do not have any parallel in real court proceedings. for example, if a witness was not cross-examined in a school hearing, nothing that, that witness had said before could be taken into account. if there was a police report the

police officer who wrote that report or the doctor who wrote a medical report did not show up to the school disciplinary hearing, you could not take any of those documents into account. schools armed courts. they cannot subpoena -- schools are not courts. they cannot subpoena people. they are asking people to take time out of their day. that rule threatened tothey cans are not courts. they cannot subpoena outlaw evidence from disciplinary proceedings. even if a student had raped another student confessed in a text message, if that student refused to be cross-examined, you could not rely on the written statement the student have made confessing. that piece of the devos rule was set aside by a court in a lawsuit my organization brought,

but it is one example of the ways in which the rules set out by the trump administration really this distorted process to bear that had the effective making it very difficult to address sexual assault in schools. regarding trends students and death -- trans students and athletics, what i think is a lot of people who are very upset at the notion of trans women participating in sports and are asserting that they care because they care so much about women and girls and athletics, have not really been showing a lot of interest in making sure that women's and girls athletics have equal resources, that women and girls have true athletic opportunities, that title ix is fully enforced, and so i often question whether this purported concern for the rights of women

and girl athletes has been borne out by those who are asserting that trans women and girls are somehow a threat. the other thing i would say is that when we discriminate against a students because they are trans, that hurts anybody who departs from stereotypes about femininity or masculinity. if we have a law saying -- and states are passing these laws -- that anyone can assert saying a student is trans, that student has to prove whether or not they are transgender. that provokes a lot of complaints -- " that girl looks to masculine. i don't think that girl is a real girl." that is harmful for both trans and non-trans athletes,

especially black women who are most likely to be targeted when deciding who is feminine enough to participate. host: let's talk to stu next in port charlotte, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? my issue is has a soul's ever been -- has sold ever been addressed -- my issue is has assault ever been addressed. my grandchildren don't feel safe

using the restroom. they are not comfortable. we had to pull our little girls out of public schools because they do not want to use the restroom. the second thing is title ix -- if the school administration finds out that a student is pregnant, do they have to notify the parents and get the parent'' approval before they talk about abortion? host: first on the bathroom issue. guest: on the bathroom issue, i guess what i would say is i have been going to women's rooms a long time, and i have never seen

anyone genitals of any sex -- anyone's genitals of any sex. i think that the notion that somehow letting trans students go to the bathroom consistent with their gender identity is threat to anybody is ridiculous and not borne out by evidence. there are stalls. they are private. it is hard for me to understand how it is harmful to allow a child to go to the bathroom. regarding the question about title ix and abortion, title ix does not speak to those issues. title ix is a nondiscrimination statute. what title ix says is schools are not allowed to discriminate against students because they are pregnant. they are not allowed to discriminate against students because they are lactating and

need to space or to express breast milk. schools are not allowed to discriminate against students because of their reproductive health choices. that role is a very important one -- rule is a very important one. host: juanita is next. guest: everything this emily marden stands for is wrong and that is why this country is rising up and giving proof. we were created for one reason, and it was not to be about holding to crazy ways that ms. emily martin professes. thank you. guest: i think that actually the country when polled there is

th -- an incredible amount of support for title ix, for the idea that women and girls should be free from sex discrimination in schools. while there are certainly moments of backlash, it is not a story of uninterrupted backlash, but in those 50 years that we have seen such transformational change in the opportunities that are available for women and girls, but now for example, women are the majority of law students. they are the majority of medical students. there are millions more athletic opportunities than there were in 1972. we should expect that in school your opportunities do not turn on whether you are a boy or a girl. host: that will bring us to the end of this segment. i appreciate you coming in.

the vice president for education and workplace justice. nice to see you. guest: good to see you. thank you. host: that brings us to the end of this segment. coming up is more of your phone calls. after the break we will take your phone calls on that same question we started with about confidence in the supreme court. later, chuck rocha and mike madrid, cohosts of the podcasted the latino vote. they will join us and we will ask how this footing block could impact the midterm elections and in 2024.

stay with us. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the events that tell the american story. on the presidency, we look back at the first lady's legacy, her years in the white house through photography, staff remembrance and a new postage stamp that honors nancy reagan. we will feature bruce ragsdale, winner of this year's george washington book price. he won for his book " washington at the plow: the founding farmer and the question of slavery>" watch american history tv every weekend, or watch online any time c-span.org/history. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker " listen to c-span radio," and listened

to washington journal every morning. catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the events of the day. just tell your smart speaker " play c-span radio." >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at noon eastern join our live conversation with emory university professor carolyn arson. she will discuss race relations and our latest book. douglas murphy and -- discuss what they see as attacks on traditional western culture and the need to embrace conservatism as a political philosophy. watch book tv on c-span2.

find a schedule in your program guide. ♪ >> listen to c-span radio with our free mobile apps now. get complete access to what is happening in washington wherever you work with hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more. plus analysis of the world of politics with our informative podcast. c-span now is available in the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. c-span now -- download it for free today. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back to washington journal. we are taking your calls for about half an hour about that

first question we asked you this morning, which is what is your confidence level in the supreme court as an institution? articles and polls are showing that confidence in the supreme court is at historic lows. here is an article from business insider with the headline " new poll indicates most americans want to end lifetime appointments for supreme court justices." i would be curious to know what you think about that.here are a couple of points from that article. it says " a new poll showed 63% of americans backed term limits for supreme court justices. president biden has assembled a commission to study possible reforms within the judiciary." feel free to give us a call and let us know what you think about that and your confidence level in the supreme court.

by party affiliation, democrats, (202) 748-8000. publicans, -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002.i want to show you this segment from president biden. he was at the nato summit on thursday. he was asked by reporters about the impact of supreme court decisions on the world. [video clip] >> you have come to the summit after the supreme court overturned constitutional protections for abortion at a time of record inflation. polling this week shows 80% of the american public thinks the country is going in the wrong direction. how do you explain this to those

people who feel the country is going in the wrong direction, including some of the leaders you have met with this week who believe when you put all of this together, it amounts to an america that is going backward. >> they do not think that. you have not found one world leader who has said america is going backwards. we have the strongest economy in the world. our inflation rates are lower than other nations in the world. the one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the supreme court of the united states. we have been a leader in the world in terms of personal, rights and privacy rights and it is a mistake in my view for the supreme court to do what it did, but i have not seen anyone come up to me, no have you heard anyone --

i can understand why the american people are frustrated, because of what the supreme court did. i can understand why the american people are frustrated because of inflation, but inflation is higher in almost every other country but inflation is higher in almost every other country. . we have a way to go and the supreme court, we have to change that decision by codifying roe v. wade. host: that was the president speaking. we have a reaction from mitch mcconnell who is the top republican in the senate. he said this in response to those comments -- " attacking the supreme court is below the dignity of the president." president biden's attacks on the court are in merited and dangerous. he is upset that the court through the people's elected representatives will have a

voice. , by contrast it is behavior like the presidents that undermines equal justice and the rule of law. the president launched this inappropriate attack when he was asked whether we were on the right track as a country. the supreme court is not responsible for crime in the streets are chaos at the border. he is. no amount of blame shifting on the global stage will change that." i want to hear from you about your confidence level in the supreme court. we will go first to allison in oracle, arizona. caller: you are a great moderator. i am really concerned about next term. i heard that 4 justices have already agreed to take up a case that would give votes back to

the state legislators and override the people's will. they are just waiting for amy coney barrett to sign onto that, and i believe she will. would you please read the texts and tweets and things like that, because i do not have a good speaking voice and i do not like to call in. host: allison mentioned the case. here is the front page from today's washington post. " a case that could reshape elections -- voting groups fear worse as states gain more power. it says " voting rights advocates expressed alarm friday, a day after the supreme court said it would consider a conservative legal theory giving state legislatures unchecked

authority over elections, morning it could erode basic tenants of american democracy." let's go to richard. caller: i have full confidence because of the history of america with the supreme court that it is the foundation of how we do rulings on questions like this. i am not seeing right or wrong row versus wade. -- roe v. wade. unfortunately, this has come up. the epa has come up.

president biden did misspeak overseas about our judicial system. the highest court is the supreme court. thank you so much. host: that this next in florida on the republican line -- beth is next in florida on the republican line. caller: i came into this world in the walter pershing suite of walter reed hospital. one of the first things i can remember being taught by my parents was that i was born on the ratification date of the declaration of independence. i would like to wish everybody a happy ratification day. the first person i knew that i shared a person with was

thurgood marshall, so i would like to wish him a happy birthday and rest in peace. host: sergio is next is illinois on the democrats' line. caller: i wanted to say that i lost confidence in this supreme court going all the way back to bush v gore. when that happened, that was it. now, if you look at the supreme court now, it is to slanted to the right, and everybody knows that. the majority of americans, if you look at the polls, they are totally against what the supreme court is doing right now. i want to be fair, there are a lot of americans out there. they see it. it is a shame. john roberts actually lost his

court. he does not have control of his court, and we know that. you look like the lady from my cousin vinny! host: ray is next in north carolina on the republican line. caller: hey! i agree with the supreme court. i think they are just mad because of this abortion stuff. i think they are doing a great job. talk to you later. host: jim in kentucky on the democrats' line. hi, jim. host: -- regardless of what your name is, go right ahead. caller: it's just. -- it is jeff.

i am a longtime democrat. really listening to your previous guest, i took home economics for one reason, and that was so i would not have to take a foreign language. there were girls in the room. i was a best shop student, and i enjoyed learning a lot of stuff. i had a babysitter in louisiana a long time ago that took care of me and taught me how to treat people right. host: -- treat people right. host: we are a little off topic. we're talking about the supreme court. caller: i have confidence in

them. they are ruling right the way the founders have done it. i'm ready to leave the democratic party. a lot of others are too. host: let's talk to bob next in oklahoma on the democrats' line. caller: i appreciate the washington journal quite a bit. i wish more people had time to call in. i think the supreme court has long been over stuffing the boundaries of what it -- overstepping the boundaries of what it was meant to do. it would be better suited as an advisory board rather than anything supreme. that is so hypocritical. i would love to see the supreme

court abolished and congress to actually go to work for the country. host: let's hear from -- or let's see what justices breyer, set a meteor and kagan said in the dissent -- sotomayor and kegan said in the dissent. " that things should stay decided, unless there is a very good reason for change. it is a doctrine of humility. those qualities are not evident in today's opinions. jack is next in the gust, georgia on the -- the augusta,

georgia -- jack is next in augusta, georgia. caller: it is so typical of the left. these decisions make sense. they are rational. they overturn a horrible decision in roe, and now the left has lost its mind. so typical. so pathetic. host: susan in california, republican. caller: the justices did not lie. it is called the ginsberg law or the ginsberg rule, and it says no hints, no forecasts, and no previews. i watched all of the interviews and hearings when they were

being sworn in or when they were giving their testimony. even though they were asked, none of them said what they would do. they said the ginsberg law. caller: good morning. i think the judges were appointed by trump committed perjury when they took an oath

that said they would honor. susan collins said when she had a private meeting with some of them, they would honor and not vote against roe v. wade. they did. because of that, they should be cited for perjury. i would like to see the court expanded. i would like to see but in put two or three more supreme court justices on the supreme court. host: here is an article from roll call. it says supreme court conservatives full of controversial cases. the trajectory of the court

seems unlikely to change, even with a new justice. mary is next in las vegas. caller: -- good morning. i am down on the supreme court. can you hear me? host: go right ahead. caller: hello? can you hear me? the supreme court is making bad decisions. you've got the wife of clarence thomas who shouldn't be on the court because he never disclosed the money his wife was making. you've got others that were pushed through by mitch mcconnell. you have alito going back 400 years to pull from a decision out of a time in our country when there were witchcraft trials going on it. to think that people think it's acceptable that in the case of

rape or in sass or the mother's life is acceptable? that a 12-year-old girl should carry her father or brothers baby? it's disgusting. if this were happening to manic, this would be a nonissue. -- men, this would be a nonissue. they don't want to give you health insurance. what are women supposed to do? the epa decision, they need more specifics? it's right in the name. how much clearer do you have to get? they've been put in the heritage foundation's, charles koch money. this has been 50 years in the making. we need to have a more fair supreme court.

may be make it where each president gets to supreme court justices. we should have 13 on the supreme court. i think their terms should be 18 years. they are making generational changes and some of them are in the dark ages. host: let's go next to michael in california. caller: thank you. the new york times did a review of the book dark money in which it documented how the coke brothers were orchestrating

covert meetings every year of other members of the upper 1% and who were putting at the time $1 million a year into promoting it conservative fronts. the real agenda is the financial self-interest of the upper 1%. it seems like the established corporate news media has a hard time outing them. these are really people like trump and republicans. the second thing is, i've been saying a long time that the worst problem in the u.s. and the world has been the established corporate media.

host: how does this relate to your trust in the supreme court? caller: the media proxies like fox, the only way out is the internet. i encourage what you're doing on c-span. host: margaret is next in texas. margaret? caller: good morning. something i have not heard mentioned is the founding fathers did not believe in political parties. there were no political parties when the constitution was formed. they assumed the judges would

come from the well-educated elite in this country, there weren't very many at that time. that's with the founding fathers thought. over the years, it has become politicized. mitch mcconnell really conserved that when he would not let merit garland even come to be discussed in the senate. i think people ought to think about that. it was not supposed to be a political organization. it was supposed to be independent of -- completely independent. now, it is not. that is the disaster and misfortune of the court now. it is making decisions on

political opinions of the judges, not on what was originally meant to be. host: miya is next in lexington, kentucky. are you there? hello? caller: i'm sorry. can you hear me? host: not very well. caller: i am very dissatisfied. can you hear me? ok. i'm very dissatisfied with the supreme court and the decisions they are making. thinking about what their duty supposed to do, upholding what the constitution has in place. i think ruling based on privacy

makes a lot of sense that they are reversing these decisions. i think that's the fault of congress, it's not in our constitution that we have a clear explicit right to privacy, bodily autonomy. i don't want the supreme court to fabricate things within the constitution, especially due to the climate we are in right now. there is so much influence on the supreme court outside just the law. they have their own opinions and their parties and they are being influenced by their ideologies instead of interpreting the law. the decisions they are making, they are coming from a bad place. they are in the business of taking our rights away, our right to bodily autonomy.

that is not explicitly in the constitution, that's a fault of congress. it's really sad to watch. i understand legally where they are coming from. their intentions are not in the favor of the general public. it is awful to watch. host: st. petersburg, florida. caller: good morning. it's ironic that you pose this question on fourth of july weekend. as we celebrate the birth of independence, we did not have such rights in 1776. i don't have a favorable review of the supreme court. i am wondering what could come

down the pike as terms of other rights that african-americans have gained over the years. voting rights. it seems as though we've had to fight for every right we've been given. the voting rights act, being in an interracial relationship, will we do loving versus virginia next? everyone points to the original framers had in mind, i can say that they did not have myself in mind and those that looked like me in mind. i wish that argument would not be made. i don't have a great opinion of the supreme court. thank you. host: this is the wall street journal headline it. supreme court marks new era of

ambitious conservatism. decisions make a decisive turn away from the more liberal judiciary legacy of the 20th century. larry is next from cincinnati. what do you think? caller: these recent decisions could be more -- give me more confidence. in the 2000s, they seemed to be going in the other direction. i don't know who's controlling the court. they didn't want to pay attention in 2020 or 2000. they seem to be going back to the constitution. it should be left up to the states. like the person who called immediately before me, the founding fathers had every man

in mind. it wasn't socially acceptable at the time. the constitution is the greatest document ever conceived by man. i think we've done the best we can. we are trying to improve. the recent decisions, if they go back to the constitution and they follow the rules, i think we will be all right. we need to move in that direction. as far as expanding the court, we only have two parties. if we have three or four parties, maybe you could expand it. i think it's fine. the recent decisions give me more confidence. have a good day. host: that will be our last call for the segment. up next, we will be joined by strategists, they are cohosts of

the podcast the latino vote. we will talk about how this could affect the midterm elections and in 2024. our spotlight on podcasts segment is next. >> join watch the journal for our six part series on landmark legislation. we will explore a piece of legislation that changed america, including the federal-aid highway act of 1956, social security, immigration reform, the americans with disabilities act, welfare reform, the no child left behind act of 2001. we will feature experts discussing how the bills became law while answering your phone calls on how the laws continue to impact lives.

we will look at the social security amendment of 1965. watch landmark legislation on washington journal live at 9:00 eastern. >> book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. join our live conversation with carol anderson. at 8:00 eastern, the author of the war on the west. what they see as attacks on traditional western culture. watch book tv every sunday on

c-span2. you can watch online any time. >> roughly 214 public monuments of been taken down across the united states, through official processes or by force. sunday night, the professor of art crime at the city university of new york talks about the history of american monuments and the current debate over which ones should be taken down. >> millions of americans marched to protest racial disparities, to say that black lives matter, these rallies often focused on monuments as the symbolic meeting point for showing who

was honored in america, whose lives mattered. >> you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our c-span now app. >> now available, the 20 congressional directory. go there today to order a copy. this book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress. also contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. you can scan the code with your smart code. >> c-span has unfiltered

coverage of the january 6 committee hearings. go to c-span.org. we will have reaction to members of congress and the white house. go to c-span.org for a fast and easy way to watch when you can't see it live. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of hearings from the u.s. congress. stay current with the latest episode of washington journal

and find scheduling information for the c-span network. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it today. >> washington journal continues. host: we have two of the cohosts of the latino vote podcast. they are going to talk to you about the influential latino voting bloc as we head into the 2022 midterms. welcome. mike is a lecturer on race and partisanship at the university

of southern california. he is a gop strategist to his work for several u.s. presidents and is a cofounder of the lincoln project. chuck was a strategist for the bernie sanders campaign. he is president of solidarity strategies. they are two of the three hosts of the podcast. can you talk about how long you've had your podcast and why you decided to start it? guest: it's exciting to be on c-span this morning. we want to wish everybody a happy fourth of july weekend. i think that we started this because we wanted to pull the curtain back and talk about an issue we think will be talked about a lot. we just recorded our ninth episode. when people think about bipartisan work and doing things across the aisle, most of the time it's just talk. me and mike proved we can talk

and disagree, we can also promote our community and what we think is best while calling up our own parties for their lack of focus on our electorate. what we want to do with the podcast is let america see behind the curtain, under the hood at how these campaigns should be talking to this non-monolithic voting group that is going to get a ton of attention this year. we want to bring 60 years of experience to talk about what's really going on early enough to where both parties would have a chance to correct mistakes they are making to amplify the vote and give as much attention as possible. host: we've mentioned you and chuck come from different sides of the political aisle. your third post is also on the republican side. why was that an important perspective to bring it your podcast? guest: it's no secret that there

is a shift happening with his panic vote -- hispanic vote. as a practitioner in the southwest, this is a dynamic that mexican americans are undergoing. we've known for many years that cuban-american vote is more republican then the average hispanic. this is beginning to happen in every state. as a result, we want to get a perspective from a practitioner's view. it's rare to have one person from the highest level of campaigns really open up or look under the hood as to what's happening with campaigns and explain to people what the

process is of reaching voters. to both sides is particularly unique. what i will say is we are not talking about policy differences. we are sharing with americans what is the best practices? that's what i think the benefit is. you're probably not going to find it here. we are professionals first and foremost. we are both advocates for the latino community. behind that, we are partisans and bring that approach.

that makes the discussion very different. host: we are going to get to your calls in just a second. the number is (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. we are asking latino voters to call (202) 748-8003. you can also send us a tweet. let's come back to you. we know the latino vote is not a monolith and it can range based on age, gender, nation of origin, even where you live in the united states. can you talk about those variations within the latino population? guest: i think it may be the most important point. i want to talk on this before the professor gets to talk. the average age of a latino

compared to the rest of america is 27. latino people, hispanic people have not then here as long as white people or black people. they have come here a long time ago, most of them came recently. we are new to this country is in east los angeles, there are multiple generations of latino committees. i am third generation from east texas. if you talk to me on a cell phone, you couldn't tell i'm latino. me and mike madrid are great examples of how different our community is. we show as 50-year-old latino men. we are very different. we knew start adding in people that are from cuba that live in south florida that have immense political power that vote for nominally republican, you think

about people in the same state that came from puerto rico who are u.s. citizens that vote the polar opposite in. the new sprinkling dominicans, colombians, people from the dominican republic and the homes and you will see more and more reference. the problem with the weight campaigns are run as we are not making up for the nuance and eclectic electorate that is the majority. we are becoming more multicultural, not just old mexicans like me and mike. there is a different tapestry of americans. host: did you have anything to add? guest: that's exactly right. we are witnessing what i call the latin is asian of america. we are watching a democratic transformation that will have

latinos as the largest ethnic majority come largest plurality in this country. that transformation is asking questions about the differences within the community to figure out who we are, who is america becoming? what are we becoming? what does that speak to? chuck is right. we are younger than the rest of america. we offer largely isolated in the southwest. florida,, the northeast, illinois. we are increasing in number in every state in the union at such a dramatic pace. a new latino is registering to vote every 30 seconds. that is going to have extraordinary impact.

there is the potential to change some of the challenges our democracy is currently facing by both parties getting a better understanding of how to appeal to the community, how to best engage with the fastest growing group in the country. at the moment, we see a lot of room to be made up by my party and the democratic party. that is the wisdom we are trying to bring to this discussion. host: let's get to a couple of calls. we are going to start in texas. go ahead. caller: yes. the reason i'm hispanic is because of my dad.

he said the democrats are the party for the poor. ever since i've grown up, i've studied the agenda. i agree with the philosophy of the democratic party. they do more toward helping the middle class and lower class. i was really poor. the help of the government, i was able to become a teacher. i pay my taxes and so forth. i wanted to ask the republican podcaster, what are the policies the republicans have that are going to help hispanics? guest: that's a really great question. the first way to understand what is happening in texas where the shift is most notable, the republican party is becoming the

party of the working class. it is becoming the party that is advocating on the interests of those without a college degree. the trajectory is to work hard. a lot of our brothers and sisters do not have a college degree. the reason they are voting increasingly for the republican party is because it is very much viewed as the advocate for the jobs where they make their living and feed their children, jobs like energy production, transportation, construction, manufacturing, agriculture. everything you are seeing noncollege educated people who are the essential workforce, the

working backbone, are increasingly voting like their white counterparts. u.s.-born hispanics are voting increasingly like u.s.-born white americans. there is very little difference by people between those. i think that is probably the most interesting part of what is happening with this community as it emerges. the republican party, whatever our own perceptions, are viewed by the working class as protective of the industries of people without a college degree and their voting accordingly. guest: i think as the only one on this thing whose and to texas, my sister is right. what she was saying about her family saying why she was a

democrat, it's the same reason i was. i have never been to college myself. i don't just represent the blue-collar worker, i worked in a factory when i was 18 years old. i was told you're going to be a democrat because they are with the workers and the republicans with the supervisors to mike's point, i still think democrats have a better position of helping blue-collar working class people. we have lost the narrative to the republicans. we have allowed them to come in and start having conversations that we used to have, that we walked away from start as a gene that is comparable to elite college-educated white women in the suburbs because that's where the growth of the party was, leaving behind the blue-collar

messaging that we grew up on. we talked about me pulling the democratic party back. host: jan is in los angeles. caller: thank you very much. as far as jobs are concerned, republicans are hostile to renewable energy. renewable energy provides far more jobs than fossil fuels. the other point is the demonization of immigrants is really wrong. it is inaccurate. there was a study a few years ago that looked at the cost benefits of immigrants.

they came to the conclusion that immigration if it's made possible provides the wealth of $240 billion a year compared to policies that restrict migration. host: we are going to let chuck go ahead and respond. guest: we don't go into these deep analysis. the color is right about renewable energy. you can also see that we do talk about the issue of immigration on the podcast a lot. it cuts both ways in different areas. the call is right about the economic benefit of immigration. the cop -- thing we forget about is how close low teen's are to that story. it was our tio eduardo who came

here 15 years ago. we are tied to that story. we seen republicans demonize immigrants. the inaction of democrats on the left, we can't seem to get anything done. there is this underbelly of aggregation. host: thoughts? guest: i think the caller poses an interesting point. there is no state in this country that is more latino or more focused on renewable energy than california. it is untrue that latinos are being hired into the workforce. the renewable energy space overwhelmingly is a job -- place

of employment requires an advanced degree. our public school system in california are not providing or preparing our students adequately for the industries of the future. it's not true to say there are more jobs, it depends on how you want to classify them. if it were true, you wouldn't see the massive levels of poverty you see in california specifically with the latino community. california is the poorest state in the nation, those numbers on our roles are people of color generally and latinos specifically. there is a lot i think the democratic party believes, the reality of what is happening on the ground in our communities

does not reflect that reality. i think it's really enforcing. the democratic party has not yet come to terms with the fact that it does not represent the views of working men and women in this country. that's the working men and women of this country saying that. they are saying it the way they are voting. that's a huge problem the democratic party has not come to terms with. if you want to argue facts and policy, we can do that. we do get on those topics somewhat with the podcast. what we are really focused on is less of a debate on right and left and more about winning campaigns. that's where we focus. immigration is one of those areas. this is one of the policy areas

where we do agree. we need more immigration. i say that from a policy perspective, the economy doesn't work without people keeping the economy going. host: we will get to another caller in pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: i'm a republican, i don't leave and what they are up to. i think the republican party needs to get the criminals out of it. there are some that are leading it. it's very criminal. i agree very much with chuck, the democrat there. i think they are on the right line. let's not stir stuff up, let's not make problems. let's try to solve them. host: do you have a question for the guests? caller: i'm sorry? host: thanks so much.

the next collar is nelson in pembroke pines. caller: i am of cuban descent. i was born in connecticut. my parents were immigrants from cuba. they met in bridgeport. at the time, there were a lot of cubans in bridgeport working at the munitions factory in world war ii. in 1960, we were kennedy democrats. we were told the same thing the democrat guest stated, that the democratic party was the party of the poor and the republican was the party of the rich. as time has gone on, the majority of hispanics in southport become increasingly

republican because we feel the democratic party has become very leftist, pro-marxist, pro-abortion to the point of insanity. host: can you speak to that? particularly in florida? whichever one. guest: i will jump in. with the caller is saying is true. that's the typical trajectory for hispanics regardless of our national origin. the narrative of the democratic party is the same narrative i grew up with as a mexican-american in los angeles. it's something we are taught.

as a young person, i didn't want to be poor. it was a simple as that. i would rather be with the party that promotes the rich. i believe in the idea that you can be in america. if you accept the idea that you expect to stay that way, you will stay that way. the cuban american experience is fascinating. it's interesting to hear this story during world war ii, before the castro revolution. they were coming to work in manufacturing jobs in the economy of world war ii. that type of labor changed significantly from cuba during the castro revolution. they were coming from cuba and were highly educated. there were a lot of landowners

and people with influence. that dynamic has defined the south florida experience. there is a growing belief that is multi generational. i don't know what that means. i can explain what that means. i don't want to write it off as propaganda coming from the american right. host: chuck, you are hearing from the collar that the democrats are becoming too far left and to regressive. that is something the democrats across the nation are dealing with. how do you respond to that? guest: i think we have let republicans label us and we have not stood up for the working class and wrongly let them label us socialist. i ran a presidential campaign for literally a

democratic-socialist and overwhelmingly won the latino vote in every contest. i wrote a book about it. bernie sanders one every order county. we dominated in nevada and california. we went to talk about the sanctity of work and the pride of work and showing up for work and the cricket system that benefited the rich while leaving working-class americans behind. if you have that conversation, you see this as a republican talking point on many of their media outlets. they want to keep you voting for them against your own interest. we want to raise working standards and raise wages and do good things for workers. you have to push back. we are not tough enough to push

back aggressively on a narrative. we let the republicans wrongly label us. host: edit is in leavenworth. go ahead. caller: first of all, nobody wants to be poor. it's true that the democratic party is the party for the working class people. the republicans are consistently against unions. the only union i see them supporting are the police unions. you are being disingenuous talking about working-class people being for the republicans. or the republicans being for working-class people. host: we are going to let mike respond. guest: that's working-class voters saying that. you can disagree with my position. i'm not arguing that position.

what i'm saying is that's what the voters believe. the people you're trying to convince aren't buying that argument. those are the actual voters. your argument is with them. host: the next collar is carol in texas. caller: good morning. i'm enjoying the respectful conversation that's going on this morning. what i hear among a lot of people in texas is there is a fear that if the republican back in that has a dictator tendencies like desantis or trump, all of these things go out the window because what is it going to matter if the party is hijacked in that way that these ideas don't matter to

people. that is the fear i think no one is addressing. thank you. host: do you want to address that? guest: i was born and raised in tyler, texas. it's good to hear somebody that sounds educated like me and you. i was born in medical center hospital. i grew up by the airport. i came from a working farm. the values we grew up with, there's a lot of debate about his party. about dictators and people pulling his party in one direction, and my party there is a push to the left and the center. sometimes that's healthy. we can make a decision that that party is not best represented of our country, the donald trump's. in other people, it may not be the bernie sanders for you.

let's have that debate. we center our podcast on what's best for our community, me and mike vehemently disagree on many policy issues. we ground our conversation in what is best for our community. we know what's best. we may have two different paths and how to get the result. that's the beauty of the podcast we created. host: the next collar is from pennsylvania. caller: thank you. good morning. i've got a question for both of them. do either of them know of grover norquist, he's doing away with all of the union jobs, having them sign affidavits. are you both aware that every time a republican is in office,

jobs seem to disappear and people get laid off. it's been going on since the 70's. i'm a retired and i know the history. host: let's start with you, mike. guest: there is a lot of truth to the fact that union membership has been in decline. traditionally, republicans have not supported the idea of workers unions can be at excessive in the amount of control they have. i think that's very true. in some cases it's not it's not as true. it's a good part of the discussion. the bigger challenge more than republicans or democrats is the

outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to other countries, away from united states. that's not something you can legislate. you can't stop companies from moving abroad. you have to develop the workforce that kim compete. we have not done that in the united states. host: any thoughts? guest: i went to work in a union factory when i was 19 years old. i think it's healthy to hold companies accountable. unions are one of the best things that built the middle class in america. there is no doubt about that. it is fact. the other fact that mike is talking about affected me. they took that factory i was working at and moved to china. my dad worked there. it was the best job. i made $26 per hour. these plants have shut down all

over the country. there's a lot of aggravation because both parties want to blame each other. i remember lobbying against republicans and my own president will clinton with nafta. these are the things that have affected our supply-side economics all the way around. host: beverly from california. caller: this is for either of the two hosts. what solutions do you have regarding protecting grocery stores, malls, outdoor events, churches, schools? i saw my first shooting when i lived in north carolina at the

shopping center where we would shop. i haven't seen things have gotten any better. i've listen to some of the arguments for hardening schools. i question if that would work. in the tops grocery store, there was a good guy with a gun who was unable to take down the shooter. host: we are going to let chuck start out. guest: latino vote podcast, we talk about how the policy affects the vote and our community. we've been having this debate. the podcast is called the latino vote. the uvalde shooting was in a densely latino community. we talk about what it would take to keep this from happening.

there is one thing that is interesting. when we dissect this issue, look at this issue differently if you're living in downtown l.a. or downtown chicago, differently than in brownsville or tyler where i am from. we look at those nuances. i don't want to speak for mike, we agree that there should not ever be these tragedies happen. from my own point of view, i run a latino super pac. we put out the first spanish-language ads for them not illuminating assault rifles. guest: i think the podcast is not about policy. we would agree overwhelmingly that there are weapons that shouldn't be in the hands of

civilians. i don't think we need to have weapons of war. chuck grew up in rural texas. he comes from a different culture than i did when relates to guns. that's ok to have a disagreement on issues. there is a second amendment that we should respect, i don't think it's unlimited and you should have the weaponry that is built for killing human beings. that's absurd. i think we've gone too far. i think we could probably agree on that and find more common ground on issues like that. host: the next collar is a latina. go ahead. caller: i'm here. this is very interesting.

i was born in texas. my family is from texas and we moved up to illinois when i was five years old. i moved to georgia. i retired about -- it's been four years now. i retired early because i was able to do very well for myself. now, i've got a little side business where i'm doing some house flipping. i've been trying to keep -- i'm trying to be conscientious about the fact that people aren't paying what they should be. i'm not trying to take advantage of their situation or charge them something they can't live off. that morally is it right.

host: what is your question? caller: how do you guys see the latino population as far as it being educated? i have been going to texas recently. i have a mobile home i'm trying to renovate. as i've been driving through the area, i'm impressed. with the education they are providing the latino kids down there. also in illinois, -- host: mike, you can go first. guest: what i find fascinating is how many texans there are. i'm talking about the time distance. i bring up because we spend a

lot of time. we have a specific episode. it is the political battleground for what's happening with the community. is this tremendous economic diversity which is going to be determinative on how this fast-growing segment decides to vote. i think it speaks to the strains in our community. we are decidedly younger. our children are in the public school system. are we preparing them for the economy of the future? are we relegating them to second-class status. will we be limited with our job

opportunities? i think the caller is asking some fantastic questions. host: we do have one more collar from california. go ahead. quickly. caller: i think it was mike say something in response to a question about unions. there is an organic process that caused jobs to go overseas. there was nothing the government could do. i know that everyone in government knows how a bill is made. i don't understand why if corporations, if they reward or punish different behaviors, why

congress can't come out with a policy that says we are going to reward companies that keep jobs in this country. host: i'm going to let chuck have the last word a quick answer to the collar. guest: i will say that we can do that. whoever is in power, we can stop globalization at some level. we can only dictate what we do in america. we should be holding politicians accountable to keep every job in america. host: thanks to our guests, their podcast is called the latino vote. i am going to remind you that we have c-span podcasts. you can check us out where ever you get your podcast. they are also on our website.

you can go to c-span.org. that brings us to the end of the show. we want to thank you for joining washington journal. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> spans washington journal, everyday we are taking your calls live, on the air, on the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. we will talk about the political impact of recent supreme court rulings, campaign 2022, and the

rules of the day with democratic and republican strategists. during part two of our series landmark legislation, the 1960 five social security amendment that created the medicare program. we speak with a professor of political science and urban studies at brown university and a boston university professor. watch washington journal at 7:00 eastern sunday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages messages, and tweets. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with community centers so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready

for anything. >> comcast support to c-span as a public service along with these television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the january 6 committee met tuesday. members listened to testimony from cassidy hutchinson, a former aide to president trump's chief of staff mark meadows. you can watch the hearing in its entirety tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> since the summer of 2020, roughly 214 public monuments have been taken down across the united states either through judicial processes or by force. sunday on q&a the professor of art crime at the city university of new york and author of smashing statues talks about the history of american monuments and debates over which ones should be taken down.

>> after the death of george floyd millions of americans marched to protest racial disparities to say that black lives matter. often these rallies focused on monuments as a symbolic meeting point for showing who was honored in america, whose lives matter and whose did not. >> the book smashing statues, sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on the c-span now app. ♪ host: good morning. saturday, july 2, 2022. replacing retiring justice breyer. this morning