news's scott wong. then christian hall previews the upcoming midterm elections and a discussion on america's attitudes toward big tech on social media -- and social media with utah state university's taylor barkley. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, september 12, 2022. the senate is back in session at 3:00 p.m. eastern today. it was during an interview on meet the press that vice president kamala harris called the supreme court and activist court, adding she has great concern about the court's integrity. those, every ignited debate over the role of the supreme court in america today -- those comments have reignited debate over the

role of the supreme court in america today. if you do, (202) 748-8000. if you disagree, the number is (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text this morning. that number, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media. on twitter, it is @cspanwj. on facebook, it is facebook.com/cspan. good monday morning. you can start calling in now as we play you the vice president's comments she made on meet the press in an interview with choctaw that aired yesterday -- chuck todd that aired yesterday. [video clip] >> how much confidence you have in the supreme court? >> it is an activist court. we had an established right for almost half a century, which is the right of women to make

decisions about their own body as an extension of what we have decided, privacy rights to which all people are entitled. this court took the constitutional right away. we are suffering as a nation because of it. that causes me great concern about the integrity of the court overall, especially as someone who -- my life was inspired by people like thurgood marshall. the work on the court of earl warren to bring a unanimous court to pass brown v. board of education. this is the court where once sat earl warren and thurgood marshall. sandra day o'connor. very different court. host: the president -- that

interview aired yesterday on meet the press. it was taped friday. also friday, chief justice john roberts was having his first public appearance since the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. it was at a judicial conference in colorado. here's one of the headlines from his comments at the conference. robert suspends the legitimacy of the court -- defense the legitimacy of the court after a difficult year. [video clip] >> the court has always decided controversial cases. the decisions have always been subject to intense criticism. that is entirely appropriate, that citizens feel free to criticize our opinions and how we do our work, but lately the criticism is phrased in terms of because of these opinions it calls into question their legitimacy of the court. i think it is a mistake to view

those criticisms in that light. the legitimacy of the court rests on the fact that a set of fights the requirements of the statute and that the constitution needs, as john marshall put it, somebody to say what the law is. that is the role of the supreme court and that has not changed just because people disagree with that opinion or this opinion or with a particular mode of jurisprudence. people can say what they want, but -- and they are free to criticize the supreme court. if they want to say its legitimacy is in question, they are free to do so, but i do not understand the connection between opinions that people disagree with and the legitimacy of the court. the court does not retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, i am not sure who would take up that mantle.

you do not want the political branches tell you what the law is and you do not want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is, so all our opinions are open to criticism. our members to a great job of criticizing from time to time, but similar because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court. host: chief justice john roberts there. those comments from friday. we are asking you about the vice president's comments calling the supreme court an activist court, asking whether you agree or disagree with the assessment. we have phone lines for both. that is the conversation we are having for the first hour of the washington journal. aaron is first and washington, d.c. agreeing with the vice president. good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for having me on. i agree with that. it is not a good thing, but i think the legitimacy of the supreme court is in question and that is not good. i think if you look back to when obama was president and they held back merrick garland, which did not seem to make any sense, it points to the fact that it is pretty obvious they have been wanting to do this for a while in terms of abortion. host: when was the last time you questioned the legitimacy of the court? did you feel that strongly about it during mayor garland's nominate -- merrick garland's nomination that did not happen? -- nomination and the confirmation that did not happen ? caller: i remember thinking about it and wondering what is going on.

there was some feeling of this seems corrupt or biased in some way, does not really fit with what most people would think would happen, but when you have such a polarized society you have people who are going to argue the opposite. i think that is kind of where we are at and the way power affects people. host: a polarized society perhaps reflected in the supreme court. this gallup poll on supreme court approval ratings was in early august. republican approval of the supreme court at 74%. democrats, 13%. the lowest recorded for democrats. it was a relatively steady 40% of independents who say they approved of the court.

a 58 point gap where approval -- approval among republicans reach a closed at 18% back then and democrats were at historic highs in the week of the ober falvey hodges decision -- wake of theo -- wake of the oberfell v. hodges decision. there is a chart that goes along with the latest poll. you can see that wide gap between democrats, 13% approval rating, and 74% among republicans, independents in the middle at 40%. you can see the fluctuation over the years dating back to the early 2000's. this is joe and bradenton, florida. this assessment that the supreme court is an activist court, what do you think? caller: i agree with the first

female president in the future. she supports women's rights and she supports roe v. wade. she supports voting rights. she supports human rights. she protects democracy and women. when i say she sports democracy -- supports democracy, she is against trump and he is a hitler-wannabe. he is a dictator want to be -- wannabe. the rich do not pay not even a penny when we are minimum-wage workers or middle class and pay more taxes than the wealthy. no wonder they are wealthy. they do not pay not even a penny. insane. host: joe and florida.

this is cindy in connecticut on that line for those who disagree with the vice president's assessment. caller: host: host: hello. go ahead and turn down your tv and go on with your comment. caller: i do disagree. i agree with the caller about merrick garland, but that does not have anything to do with what is going on now, but i feel like this is all payback for that. they should have had an up or down vote on merrick garland. it was a year until the election. republicans are paying a thousandfold for that. as far as roe v. wade and what kamala harris said, i do not think it helps the climate furthering the divide.

you may not agree with the decision, but even -- she mentioned thurgood marshall, sandra day o'connor. she left out ruth bader ginsburg because she disagrees with kamala harris. she said roe v. wade was a flawed decision and should go to the states and should be a state. nobody trusts the american people's vote anymore. nobody complained about the supreme court and turned down donald trump's cases. and when it comes to the 2020 election, they let pennsylvania law stand where they changed election laws illegally through the courts and not the legislature. nobody complained about the supreme court then. when there is a decision that

you do not like, it is corrupt. you cannot do that. host: you say her comments furthered the divide in this country. this is one of the headlines from today's front page of the washington post, one of their stores but remembering september 11. unity then and division now. what do you think it would take to bring unity in this country at a time when the divide is furthered? i think we lost cindy. perhaps joe has thoughts on that matter in georgia. go ahead, sir. caller: love c-span. been calling your network 30 years. i like the court now. it is not an activist, liberal court. it is a conservative court, and

we in georgia are working hard to elect herschel walker and brian kemp, who will keep it that way. they will work to approve conservative judges and not liberal judges. i predict that brian kemp and herschel walker will win their elections and republicans will take over the house and senate. i think that will be a great thing for america. host: what you think about these election horserace stories saying there has been a distinct shift in the past two months, that democrats have regained momentum on the national level? what do you make of those horserace stories and election 2022 stories? caller: i think republicans are going to win huge. we will take over the house and senate and win the presidency back in 2024. we will all be able to sing the song happy days are here again. the republicans will have a huge wave election in november and nobody could be happier about it than we conservatives here in the great state of georgia. host: how is that class your

teaching on leadership? i know that is something you have been working on. i think we lost joe, a regular caller on this program. it is once every 30 days when you can call. happy to hear from you every 30 days, especially people like joe who have been calling for years. this is carl in l.a. for those who agree with the vice president. caller: i will start by saying united we stand, divided we fall. i have been calling since the program started as well when i can get through. host: thanks for doing that. caller: sure. i used to love this program. this program has become something between fox news and whatever hearing let's start with the courts. we have three illegitimate judges put on during elections and held up during the election.

we have ginni thomas saying what the activist court is doing during the election. this is the reason i started voting when i turned 18 and i am in my 60's, because of judges appointed by presidents. i started voting for judges because when i was young i saw a botched alley abortion. she bled to death. it is personal to me. america, please. i love this country to death. my family has served for this country. i pay my taxes for this country. the division on the internet and on the news, please have common sense and come together. thank you. host: about brian lamb, i saw

him this morning. he is just down the hallway. i will tell him you said hello. jim in new jersey, you are next. are you with us? stick by your phone. this is michael at pensacola. caller: i agree with the vice president. this is an activist court. alabama earned another congressional district, a black congressional district. the supreme court nullified that . the same thing happened in louisiana and the supreme court nullified their congressional district for another black district. that is an activist court.

roe v. wade was proved law. authorized law. all those voted against roe v. wade, so they told a lie in their confirmation hearing. host: that is michael out of florida. this is david in flint, michigan. caller: good morning. i agree with the vice president and anybody who is honest with themselves would agree with her. this court has become so activist for the republican party. the last three justices they have put on our straight conservative republicans. there is no doubt. the decisions they are making are going to have a bad effect on the united states and that guy from georgia that thinks republicans are going to win, he

is going to be surprised because we are doing everything we can to get votes for the democrats so we can hopefully expand the court and get some balanced judgment. at the point they are at now, they are going to try to change the united states into a conservative, fascist government. have a nice day. i am just telling the truth and i hope everybody will be blessed and have a nice week. host: in terms of getting democrats to the polls, democratic campaign committees think the abortion issue will do that. the democratic senatorial campaign committee with a recent ad in arizona criticizing republicans like masters on the issue of abortion. here is that 32nd ad. >> i was 14. he was 18. he was so abusive.

choosing to end the pregnancy was not easy, but it was the right choice for me. it is personal, complicated. >> blake masters wanted to ban all abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest. he has no idea what i went through and no business making a decision for me or any woman. >> the sec -- dscc is responsible for this advertising. host: that airing in arizona. here is how the issue of abortion is playing out in the state of washington. it was republican tiffany smiley with a new ad last week responding to attacks against her on the issue of abortion. she is running against democrat patty murray for the senate seat in washington. >> patty murray has spent millions to paint me as an extremist. i am pro-life, but i oppose the

federal abortion ban. she showed a picture of me and trump does not show you this or mention i was there fighting for veterans health care. what is extreme? 30 years in the senate and nothing to show for it. patty murray wants to scare you. i want to serve you. i am tiffany smiley, and i approve this message. host: those are a couple of the ads in the senate races now. we will talk more about the midterm elections with christian hall joining us at 8:30, in about an hour and 10 minutes on this program. we will look at any congressional campaigns you want to talk about this midterm election season. right now, asking you about the vice president's comments yesterday about the supreme court, calling it an activist court. we want to know if you agree or disagree with those comments. if you agree, (202) 748-8000 is

the number. if you disagree, (202) 748-8001. laura in washington, that line for those who disagree. caller: good. -- good morning. i am here from spokane, washington. smiley has her heart and the right place and is going to be a civil servant and not expect us to serve her. that is what i like about her. as far as the supreme court goes, harris staged that nasty mess against judge kavanaugh. that was awful. none of that was true. it is heartbreaking to see our supposedly elected officials trying their best to tear apart a human being just because they do not like who picked him. that is just awful. i do not like it. the same is true for justice thomas. they have been after that man since the day he was nominated. he is one of the best we have ever had, justice, i should say.

that is how i feel. i feel this woman is paying crooks to come out and commit robberies and everything else. what her opinion is sucks. it has hurt this whole country. we have children by the thousands coming over the border and being used for organ harvesting and sex trafficking and she does not do a thing about it. it needs to be sealed. we have to stop the slavery. host: this is mariam in troy, new york. caller: i am certainly in agreement with harris calling the court activist. that was her argument. however, justice roberts argued another argument, whether it was legitimate. activist and legitimate do have a difference.

it is certainly activist in terms of roe v. wade. i would argue against roberts. if it was a tacit law to allow sitting presidents to nominate their own people, they refused to even vote on one supreme court nominee of obama's. they forced through the nomination of amy coney barrett, which i would consider tacit law to be completely legitimate -- illegitimate. so another law that is tacit is

that thomas should know how to recuse himself under the circumstances where his wife is an activist. it makes him activist, too, doesn't it? you cannot argue a different argument when harris says it is activist. host: miriam in new york. in washington, d.c., you are next. caller: this is the nature of democracy at work. it has nothing to do with the vice president. the nature democracy is a push-poor relationship -- push-pull relationship dealing with demography -- with demographics and political and social changes are look at the 1960's and the black power movement and feminist movement.

we look at different sociopolitical movements in this country and how things change based on regions of the country, how some sections of the country lean more conservative, how some sections of the country are more liberal. so it is that mix and that political bowl. we are dealing with politics, time, demographics, social and political conditions. we look at the 1980's. we see the era of crack cocaine the conservative movements against drugs. so this is the nature of democracy. it ebbs and flows. it pushes and pulls, simple as that. if you cannot deal with that type of relationship with democracy and politics and social conditions of the time,

we have to really question ourselves in reference to are we just being unrealistic in how things contract and expand? because this country is becoming more conservative. it really is. host: to that point, the new yorker with a recent piece looking at a study of the proceedings of the national academy of sciences my study of the supreme court. since 2000, that study found the court is estimated to have moved to the ideological right by roughly three quarters of all americans. they feel, three quarters of americans, that the supreme court has moved to the ideological right. caller: what is going to happen? in the next 50 years -- happen

in the next 50 years? we might go back to the other extreme. the keywords here is push, paul relationship -- pull relationship. host: the overall system you think is working? caller: this is the nature democracy. over time, demographics change. people change. then we have more immigrant influences because we have a huge south american population flowing in. a lot of these people are catholics. they do not believe in abortion. so all this will have an effect on the demographic shifts and changes of this society. host: this is the editorial of

the washington post with her column today, with the chief justice misses is the headline. here is some of what she writes today in relation to those comments we played earlier by the chief justice, who says it is wrong for people to deem the court illegitimate because his decisions are unpopular. he is right, she says, but his defense misses the point of why the court has fallen so far and public esteem. she says the chief justice's framing -- fails to capture or knowledge what is going on, inflamed public reaction stemming from the fact the law change because court membership changed. the ruling in dobbs b jackson was the culmination of a political and politicized process to bolster the conservative majority by any means necessary. this stacked court has time after time but most flagrantly in overruling roe v. wade abandoned normal rules of

restraint, twisted or ignored doctrine, and substituted power to retrieve -- achieve its desired result. this is how the institution undermines is only jenna missy, behaving like another political body and losing the only power it has of achieving public acceptance in his rulings. -- its own legitimacy, behaving like another political body and losing the only power it has of achieving public acceptance of its ruling. the vice president saying yesterday this supreme court is an activist court. janet and brooklyn agrees. why? caller: the supreme court is a stacked court. you have the federalist society who pitched judges. it is not people who are picking judges. and these members, half of them on the court now, a majority of

them would not even have written an opinion. you have one now sitting on the case regarding number 45 and this person has only written three opinions. the rest of the opinions have been dealing with some hobby she may have had. representative al franken was on cnn this past weekend. if you could find that you understand why it is a stacked court hearing that court has been stacked for years. look was senator graham did. how can he deny a president -- president obama should have been able to pick. that was denied because the court was being stacked.

-- opinion based on the fact that they represent a certain group of society and that society is making rules for the whole country. host: you mentioned former president donald trump. an interesting story with stone -- still no explanation. donald trump still in his golf shoes flies unannounced back to d.c. the question is why. the daily beast story picking up on that and the former president's unannounced return was captured by a youtuber journalist and set off a flurry of social media speculation. and plenty of rumors about that.

if more develops on why the former president is back in washington, his second since leaving office, we will keep you up-to-date. a lot of twitter stories about that last night and still waiting to see exactly why the president is back in town. this is george in ohio. good morning. caller: first, i would like to say prayer in remembrance of the people affected by 9/11. the whole country suffered, but especially those who lost their lives during that time. as a senior citizen, i have never seen anything like that in my life. i want to say condolences to all those. this is related. what the vice president said is related to the abortion ruling. 19 million black babies have been aborted since 1973.

evidently, she does not have a problem with that. host: this is kermit and virginia. -- in virginia. caller: thanks for taking my call. the vice president -- a supreme justice -- should be the theme. there should not be such a thing as a conservative judge or liberal judge. it is about impartiality. a true supreme justice is neutral. it is not about politics, but it seems presidents prefer certain leaning judges leaning certain ways. our system is flawed when that

happens. a judge should be neutral period. they should not have any political leanings. a little learning is a dangerous thing. that should be wisdom. there is a level above intelligence. it is called wisdom. a true supreme court would have wise men or wise women. there is no such thing as a real judge if they are democratic or republican, liberal or conservative. no such animal. host: is there a justice, as we show a picture of the so-called class photo of the supreme court, is there a justice on the court right now who you think is truly impartial? would you point any of those justices now and say they are

what you want a justice to be? caller: it would have to be one of the women. none of the guys, no. it would have to be one of the ladies but not the guys, no. our guys were flawed from the beginning. host: this is jeff, rapid city, michigan. caller: good morning. c-span, prominent -- communist spreading propaganda ad nauseam. is this the insurrection against the supreme court firing up here today? it is interesting. i disagree. the court is not activist. they are conservative. conservative means they adhere to the rule of law. i want to ask one question.

if this is an activist court, how about the fact that the last liberal woman put on the supreme court cannot define what a woman is and yet she wants to tell us that a baby in a womb is not a baby in a womb? talk about a lack of wisdom. god bless america. we have to fight the fight and this is just an ms 13 d&c brought -- ms 13, dnc broadcast partner. host: this is in brooklyn, new york. caller: i am pleased with the guy who spoke a little while ago and said the supreme court should be impartial. we have no liberals or conservatives. the supreme court should be

impartial. they should be the people who try to keep the country together as one. that means they agree the states are not the united states of america. this is the divided states of america. the judges themselves are divided. it shows the country has not gone one way or the other. it took one vote to overturn a president that was standard for over 50 years. roe v. wade was the wisest decision made because the country was so divided. they sought a middle ground. host: you agree with the caller who said justices should be impartial.

do you think the newest justice on the bench is impartial? what did you think about her going through the confirmation process? caller: the judges should not be conservatives or liberals. they should be judges. the supreme court should be the one place that should go with what is just for the country, not what one party thinks. they should be voting and giving decisions on what is best to keep the country as the united states of america. what we have now is a divided states of america. you are either conservative or liberal. on the supreme court, you are

the persons who should keep this country as the united states, so any decision they make should be to keep the country, not to accentuate the point that there is a divided state in america. host: a few comments from viewers watching this morning, steve writing in, money is speech and corporations are people's bad jurisprudence. they would justify your anything on the side of a building as free speech. this from the c-span review on twitter. typical democrats, the c-span review rights. they lose by the rules and try to change the rules, and part right and quit without restructuring the supreme court will not regain its legitimacy for at least 50 years. about 20 minutes left in this segment. (202) 748-8000 if you agree with the vice president's statements

about the court being an activist court. (202) 748-8001 if you disagree. you can also join in on twitter. a twitter pole this morning and plenty of yours interacting with that. 78% of those who responded to that twitter pole saying they agree with the vice president on this being an activist court. 22% so far saying they disagree. this is mark out of pennsylvania come online for those who say they disagree. caller: good morning. the reason i disagree is because the issue is whether the supreme court justices are originalists or activists. activism is when you legislate from the bench and do not want to follow the constitution or rule of law. that is why liberals do not like decisions based on the constitution.

the whole reason the abortion case came to the supreme court was because of democrats suing states because they want to change abortion rules in their states to limit to i think a 12 week ban. they knew the supreme court had changed demographics and was more originalists, so they should not have took the case there but they did anyway. i do not know what they expected to happen but the supreme court justice decided correctly because it is based on state rights. the federal government does not have a right to step all over the states. that is what the supreme court found and they let the state to decide abortion issues. nobody took any rights away because it was never a right to begin with. it was an activist supreme court decision that was trying to legislate from the bench. it was not from the constitution. harris is also lying saying that if you vote for a democrat they will change this. host: is this an originalist court at this point?

caller: i think it is majority originalist. anytime you see when they try to legislate from the bench that is when you have an activist court. host: when was the last originalist court before this one? when was the court not an activist court? caller: not every decision is an activist decision. a lot of times they agree on decisions. on social decisions, they tend to go war activist. in my life, i do not remember one. this is the first time i think it is more originalists. it used to be a minor shift back and forth, but now it is definitely a majority originalists up there. host: do you think john robert is doing a good job captaining this ship? caller: i do not particularly care for him because i think he is middle. he goes back and forth between being an originalist and activist.

i cannot figure him out. he is doing an ok job. as far as jackson being impartial, i think that is false. here is how they should pick supreme court justices. it should be based on experience. they should be in the appellate court. they should never have had a case overturned by the supreme court. that way they know they have been following the law and have not been just activists like jackson because she had her case overturned with immigration. she should not have qualified, not because i do not like her or anything about her. you should not have judges up there that are getting appealed by the supreme court in losing. that would eliminate this political nonsense we have. it just should be judges interpreting laws and the constitution as written. that is all it should be, as simple as that. host: so justices should have to

come up through the ranks. caller: that shows they have the experience. this is a higher court and it will be appealed occasionally. if have never been appealed -- they should qualify this takes politics out of it and we can stop this argument about it because they are qualified individuals who have never had a case overturned. let me explain one other thing. i hear all the time -- to get in the constitution, you have to have the majority of the house and senate and it has to go through all the states to vote on it. then it becomes an amendment to the constitution. abortion was never an amendment. everybody knows that. they could not get it through. now this issue is here that people are fighting over and it should not be that way. we should not be fighting over this stuff. if they want to have a right, go through the process in the constitution.

it is not difficult, but they do not have the votes to do what they want. that is why. they want late-term abortions and that is not a middle ground position. something like 12 weeks people could agree to but i am a christian conservative and i do not agree with any abortions but i agree there has to be -- we are a country. we have to accommodate everybody for what they want. i think it is only fair. host: so you will be able to live with a 12 week limit. caller: there is no heartbeat at that point. in my state, life begins at conception, but i am also a scientific person and i say to myself, if it does not have a heartbeat, it is not a life. it is a bunch of cells that are still forming. once it is a heartbeat, it is a living person. you need a brain to have a heartbeat. maybe it does not look like a human, but at that point a lake -- it is a human life. the rest of the world agrees

with me. we are one of the most barbaric countries when it comes to abortion. we have late-term abortion. no one agrees with that except a small part of the country. the democrats want to push that. that is why they got that case to the supreme court. why did they sue to try to get mississippi to not have the band? that is what caused this thing. it was not republicans that did it. it was democrats. host: tom is next out of california. good morning. caller: thanks for having me on. host: go ahead. caller: i agree as far as an activist court but it has also become more of a religious court . the way they are picking justices and stuff is pretty much -- i think they are more religious people in this country

and all the courts, not just the supreme court. host: you are concerned about the separation of church and state? caller: definitely. since trump come into power, it seems religious people on that side have gotten their foot in the door. mcconnell's thing was to get conservative judges, but the people pushing those conservative judges is the religious right. even if you look at news stations that come up, a lot of the pond and's -- pundits are catering to the religious. host: would you consider yourself religious? caller: no, i am an atheist. host: is this the most concerned you have been on the issue of separation and state?

caller: yes. i am 59. i never paid attention to any of this stuff until wendy 16 happened. it just became obvious who is trying to get whose foot in the door and the religious are getting in left and right. republicans are buying into it because they want to the votes. it is all about the votes so they will bend over backwards. host: this is carol out of boca raton and florida. -- in florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. i disagree with everyone who agrees. first, vice president harris needs to do her job as far as the border goes. she has never been there to see these immigrants come through the border. we have had 3000 now since joe

biden took office, our president. host: the numbers are higher than 3000 of this point. caller: does not know if she is a man or woman. i think that john roberts approved obamacare and that proves he is middle of the road. i think the country was founded on judeo-christian philosophy, so i found the man who just called complete leave wrong and i cannot thank you enough for taking my call. host: about 10 minutes left, a little more from that column in today's washington post. the headline, what's chief justice -- what chief justice

john roberts misses on the issue of legitimacy in the court. this is what she has to say. it was justice elena kagan who was asked about the legitimacy issue less than a month after the dobbs decision. she offered this diagnosis. the way the court retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like a court, by doing the kind of things that do not seem to people like partisan moves, by not behaving as though we are just people's individual political or policy or social preferences that we are making everybody live with but instead acting like a court, doing something recognizably law like. that is where we gain legitimacy, she says. she says acting like a court means respecting precedent, applying traditional methodologies irrespective of outcome and not budging to make decisions more far-reaching than

the case requires. people are suspicious if one justice leaves the court and dies and another justice takes his or her place and the law changes. that does not seem like law, she said. she stopped short, taking pains to insist she was not talking about any particular decision or set of decisions, but it was hard not to miss her meaning, especially if you had read dissents in the term that had just concluded on the supreme court. that is from the washington post on this issue we have been talking about, the legitimacy of the supreme court and whether it is an activist court. this debate was stirred up again after the vice president's comments on meet the press. she was talking with chuck todd, calling it an activist court. we want to know what you think. stella and utah agrees with the vice president. -- in utah agrees with the vice

president. caller: i agree with the activist court statement that the vice president made. what bothers me is that several of the judges expressed their views and changed their views down the road. to me, that is a lie and they should not be able to be on the court if they are dishonest. everything has gotten so partisan and political. this country needs to unite and divide, and it is so divided. it has been for years, probably since president trump got in. all these people that want to blame the democrats -- the republicans are horrible as far as not letting the president do some of the good things that he wants to do.

i agree it is an activist court because they are taking away rights instead of -- they are not taking the views of the american people. when they do poles and say people are for abortion rights -- i do not believe a bunch of people that are so partisan and so political should be able to decide what a woman does with her own body and there are a lot of men on the court. and they were brought in by president trump. they should be impartial, like i have heard callers talk about. i appreciate your taking my call. host: that is stella on the issue of men and women and their views of the supreme court coming back to that gallup poll from august.

the percent of those who disapprove of the way the supreme court is handling its job, the number of men who said they disapprove at 49%. the number of women in this country who say they disapprove of the way the supreme court is handling its job at 61%. a gap there between men and women's approval of the supreme court. the polls available online. it was their first polling on the supreme court in the wake of the dobbs decision, the top line finding democrat approval of the supreme court at 13%, all-time lowest. steve come outline for those who disagree with the vice president -- steve, line for those who disagree with the vice president's assessment of the supreme court. caller: i cannot agree with her.

people have disagreed with decisions in this country dating back to george washington. it has nothing to do with donald trump. president trump became president . he had the right to elect judges. president reagan, president nixon, truman. we can go way back. if people would just read history, there is nothing in the constitution -- i am conservative. i'm a constitutionalist. it may be crazy or weird, but i do not think they were talking about abortion then when the constitution was written. these people being atheist and their feelings, that is up to them. it is up to them with republican and democrat. host: on the issue of presidents and it is their job to nominate

justices, a couple of callers have brought up merrick garland, saying he deserved to have a confirmation hearing, citing the fact that he was nominated and did not get that chance. i wonder your thoughts on that. former president obama, should his nominees gotten that hearing? caller: it is controversial to my opinion. he was in the last term of his presidency. the people were getting ready to elect a new president. it is kind of an iffy decision. now if you look at merrick garland decisions with the doj, it is scary. i believe the doj and merrick garland are out of bounds and it has nothing to do with president trump. it is wrong, what they did, and the decision that was made. our vice president cannot control the southern border. i heard her speech over the weekend. , there is nothing wrong with

the southern border, she said. that is a disgusting remark. you have governor abbott being screamed at every day bussing migrants and she sits there in fantasyland. i do not get it. also, justice roberts, he is another one. i do not care for him. it is disgusting. justice thomas is bashed because he is a republican. it is unreal, what is going on. we have had that since george washington. it does not bother me. i think the decisions coming out are sound. i think it is constitutional. there are activist judges, but that is up to them. i think the supreme court is within check. it has nothing to do with republican or democrat. as long as they go by the constitution, i could care less. i heard justice sotomayor over the weekend.

she made a sound decision about lgbt people. she is going by what is on the books. ruth bader ginsburg, everybody loved her. she agreed with scalia quite a bit. she ate dinner at his house. i do not think people read history. the supreme court is made with checks and balances and thank god for the supreme court. host: you mentioned the leak investigation. this is from the washington times. justice neil gorsuch said it is important to identify the leaker and said he expects a report on the progress of the leak investigation soon. he condemned the leak, as have

other justices, as improper efforts to influence judicial decision-making from whatever side are a threat to the judicial decision-making process, he said at the conference, the one that chief justice john roberts spoke at friday. let's try to get in greg in chicago. thanks for waiting. caller: i have to give credit to the vice president. this is an activist court. i know these conservative heart flakeswhen you hear someone say original list that just means i love the constitution as long as the constitution serves me. we have justices that when they were nominees raised their hands under oath and they lied. they lied in their senate confirmation hearings and that is a dealbreaker. you only trust the court as long as you trust the people that are

there. only 15% of democrats agree with the court. it's not just women it's meant of conscience. the only thing amy coney barrett shares with sandra day o'connor is a gender. these are activists, angry white and. i don't care what color your skin is the supreme court is broken. host: stick around more to talk about this morning including up next we will be joined by wong. this month and what they are up to in the lead up to the november elections and a little later we will focus on the midterm election period we will be joined by christian hall to discuss election 2022.

stick around. we will be right back. ♪ c-span campaign 20 coverage is he a front row seat to the midterm elections watch it as it happens on the campaign trail. meet and greet, debates, and other events during this year's gubernatorial races. and don't bezos -- don't miss a single election moment. visit c-span.org/campaign2012 to , your website for all of our coverage on demand. you can track results from every primary. c-span campaign 2022 your unfiltered view of politics.

now available in the c-span shop the 2022 directory. order a copy of the directory a spiral-bound 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. order your copy today at c-span shop.org or scan a code with your smartphone. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. >> middle and high school students, it is your time to shine. you are invited to participate in the student camera documentary competition. in light of the upcoming midterm election, feature yourself as a newly elected member of congress and we asked this years competitors what is your tribe -- top priorities and why. make a five to six minute video

that shows the importance of your issues from opposing and supporting perspectives. do not be afraid to take risks. be bold. among the 100,000 cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 23, 2023. visit our website at studentcam.org for rules, kits resources and a step-by-step guide. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have scott long exceed congressional reporter. congratulations on the new gig. a week ahead in the look in congress and a month ahead the sprint to the expected break before the midterm elections in the top of legislative priorities is keeping the government open, keeping the government funded. where are we with government

spending bill? guest: as you know, funding was out on september 30. we are weeks away from a potential government shutdown. this time around, things looked to be a little bit easier but again it is a difficult time for lawmakers. they're thinking ahead to the election, nobody wants a government shutdown right before the election but these things are never easy. there is a number of intelligence -- challenges that lie ahead. one of the top challenges his joe manchin was able to get a deal with chuck schumer and the congressional leadership when he passed the inflation reduction act. he was able to secure a bill, one of his bills that would reform and ease permitting for domestic energy projects around

the country. things like oil and natural gas pipelines. progressives are pretty upset with any possibility that permitting proposal would be attached to the government funding bill. mansion and schumer have this in agreement schumer has allowed but now progressives are up in arms and they are not threatening a shutdown but they are very upset. they have sent the letter to pelosi saying separate these two items, don't package it together this is just one of the potential hiccups that are coming down the road. host: an article picking up on that topic. the headline of one of the editorials democratic candidates can't block it can they make them shrink it? that's a piece of legislation that is being looked at here.

the reason why is the continuing resolutions that are kind of must pass legislation. if you want to keep the government open you have to pass the so everybody wants to attach their legislation to that. wells could be possibly attached? guest: the white house has their own set of priorities. $47 billion supplemental package that would cover things like additional aid, military aid, economic aid for ukraine. an issue we have seen come up time and time again. the biden administration wants to send them an 11 -- an additional 11 million dollars. things like covid relief, pocket parks relief this is a big portion of the $47 billion.

republican saying we don't need so much money right now for covid we have already passed billions of dollars during this post congress and that is an area of contention. $6.5 billion for disaster relief that includes things like helping folks who experienced flooding. places like kentucky and around the country, wildfires out in the west. this is natural disaster relief money. it is uncertain whether any of that will be attached to this but mitch mcconnell is representing kentucky, has talked about the flooding issue before he knows his people are hurting i'm sure that is one of his priorities, to be able to help his people in kentucky. host: how many votes are needed, folks may be confused because we

have done this budget reconciliation process sort of as an alternative on how a bill can become a law. for continuing resolution to be passed what needs to happen basically in congress? guest: we have the filibuster and for any major piece of legislation barring the reconciliation process which only needed 50 democratic votes most pieces of legislation need 60. in the senate, you need all the democrats to hold together, you need at least 10 republicans to join those democrats. if somebody like bernie sanders peels off and says i don't want to support this because you have attached the joe manchin energy legislation to that then you will need additional republicans to join in. that is where, that's where chuck schumer's job becomes quite a difficult task.

what can actually, which lawmakers can come together and to enhance and pass this and etiquette sent over to the representatives were you need a simple majority. it should be an easier lift for nancy pelosi but again nothing is very easy in this united states congress. host: and of course the president's signature to put it into law. we are talking about the road ahead on capitol hill and we are taking ahead a few weeks, cheating a little bit. if you want to join the conversation you can do so for lines are open democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans it is (202) 748-8001 . independents (202) 748-8002. another item on the to do list as you know the protecting legal

same-sex effort explain what that is and/or democrats are on that effort. guest: this is in response to actually the roe v. wade decision by the supreme court to overturn the roe v. wade long-standing decision and, so senators democrats and a handful of republican safe we may need to, if the united states supreme court can overturn something like roe v. wade and perhaps they can overturn other long-standing precedents. like the protection for the use of contraception, like gay marriage. so this bill sponsored by tammy baldwin she is teaming up with susan collins basically in shrine to protect same-sex marriage as well as interracial marriage as a right.

this is a priority of tammy baldwin. she is the first openly gay senator to be elected. right now, things are a little bit in limbo. there were discussions that things would be attached and use that as a vehicle to move it forward but what baldwin and chuck schumer have said in recent days as they want to move that separately. they think the best chance for that is to hold a standalone vote on that bill and there are negotiations happening. there are concerns on the right about protections for religious freedom whether or not religious freedom would be infringed by the tammy baldwin bill. so there are bipartisan negotiations and they're looking for the middle ground. host: what is susan collins saying to you? is she saying nine or 10 colleagues will join her? guest: they're saying they're hopeful it can pass.

when you go ahead and count, you thom tillis is a yes, that does not get you to 10 republicans as we discussed to overcome a republican filibuster. there are a number who are opposed to doing anything they just don't feel like it's necessary. they don't feel like there is any sort of movement by the supreme court on that issue and so they are not quite there yet. there are still a lot of behind-the-scenes happening in regards to this religious freedom, concerns but we should know in the coming days we should perhaps see language on religious freedom. host: this is why we have you here. election reform legislation is time runs short to act as the headline of your story from this

we can. explain. guest: election reform we are talking about this in the context of january 6. the attack on the capitol, the attempt to try to encourage or pressure the vice president and members of congress to overturn the election of joe biden. there has been a discussion happening again involving these folks in the middle. a number of the same individuals who have, joe manchin and another one. joe manchin and susan collins working on election reform. they have two bills, one dealing with reforming the electoral count law from 1887 which walks you through the process of how the vice president and the congress certified and count electoral votes sent from the states. they want to make sure it is

airtight, that there is no room for any funny business that we saw after the 2020 election. that is one of the bills. the other deals with election security, enhancing penalties for people who are pressuring, intimidating, election officials and enhancing security for any sort of electronic voting systems. that is the main focus of the 2020 election. these are in response to what we saw on january 6 and the run-up to january 6. right now it looks like these are going to be in the session there is not enough time to do cr as well as election reform. host: with all that, we have some callers. again if you want to join the conversation with scott wong.

robert is in massachusetts. good morning. caller: i think the most important thing we need to do, is post that bill h1, the voting rights bill. without that bill we aren't going to get anything done in this country because we have the progressive party separated by the democratic party. all these young kids college, do this, and give me that. then you have the tea party considering themselves the republican party. so we have people trying to the on the committee. bernie sanders and elizabeth warren, again what's the, there

were on the campaign. we had elizabeth warren running against scott brown. what we did, we ran elizabeth warren on the same ticket as obama. that's how she got that job we were some edit scott brown. host: we will take the comment. i think you met the january 6 committee when he referred to the committee. they are expected to meet again with televised hearings where we on that? guest: the january 6 committee has already said they were going to hold additional hearings. they have held eight hearings in the course of june and july. he said when they return from the summer recess which is this week, they will begin to hold

additional hearings. we expect at least one of those to happen later this month. there could be additional hearings in addition to that just one but some of the members of the committee, they want to focus on key issues heading into the fall one of those being what happens in the wake of the january 6 attack on the capital in the days that followed leading up to the and operation. so that sort of window, what was happening? we know that cabinet members were discussing invoking the 25th amendment to forcibly remove then-president trump from office. at the same time we know their discussion about impeachment. but when the vice president and the cabinet decided not to, we saw the house of representatives move to impeach donald trump.

that will be one of the areas we are told from committee members that they could be looking at in some of these additional hearings. host: question from cynthia on the topic we mentioned and it got a lot of attention. we want to know why donald trump is in d.c.? is it deposition time where you know or have you heard anything? this photo was taken last night by an independent journalist of former president donald trump landing. guest: i did see the photo. i know reporters are aware of it especially at nbc. i have not lead into it so i do not have any definitive answer why the president might be here. it could be fundraising. it could be something a little more serious than that. certainly not he was back in d.c. this week. host: the headline, is something

up? we will see if there is more to come. david in south carolina, and dependent good morning, your next. caller: good morning, john. whatever they do, it's going to dental and --diddle. they are under by corporate america people how to understand this. they are not going to do anything that's going to benefit anyone except corporate america. they get money from them, they are all in league with the military to get money into their states for ridiculously bloated pentagon budgets. it is bankrupting us all. we have put our social advantage for the last 50 years fighting the communists in russia and we still don't have proper health care for our citizens. we just passed a law that a

senior doesn't have to pay more than a certain amount for diabetic medicine what about the babies that have diabetes? nobody talks about that. that doesn't matter does it? what matters is corporate america's bottom line. wall street's bottom line. good day, sir. host: david in south carolina. at that white house this week president biden expected to talk about achievements the democrats are claiming for people when it comes to health care and climate change as well. this money for the inflation reduction act, that is happening this week as well, right? guest: was interesting, john i have been doing a lot of necking about this congress and how toxic it's become. we have seen threats against some members of congress against their lives whether through phone call or people snooping around their homes back in their home states.

at the same time john, i think it has been pretty remarkable house this congress has been one of the most productive we have seen probably in our careers starting from last year the bipartisan infrastructure act. this year, we saw the passage of the chips and science bill which you have heard the president talk about. you mentioned the inflation reduction act that is probably going to be president biden's signature achievement just like obama care was for president obama. just this summer, gun reform for the first time in a generation as well as the packed act --pact act for veterans exposed to brian pitts. it is quite consequential. certainly democrats will take issue with the caller being able

to get things in for the american people. they would probably say it's too much money we're spending too much money and that's why we need to change direction for the midterm election. host: i think you started about the same time. scott wong with the paper in california and then the arizona republic. politico, the help for a long time. now senior congressional reporter at nbc news. always a friend of this network and we appreciate that. about 10 minutes left if you have questions as we talk about the week ahead. catherine, new jersey, good morning. i think we lost catherine. gary massachusetts. good morning. caller: i have three things are but like to ask. i heard 9/11 was yesterday. the muslim extremists were badly said it's too bad but it's a --

it's ok to saymaga extremist. 1% is what we use for energy. we do exactly what california wants to do from now, right now all across the country every state until the 21 -- year 2100 will reduce the temperature. i love how you talk about the insurrection but nobody wants to talk about 2020 where they attacked police stations and set fires. the insurrectionists on january 6 is the worst day they ever had. host: gary in massachusetts. couple topics which one do you want to pick? guest: those are some challenging topics. in terms of the george floyd protests of 2020, that has been a republican concern whenever

the democrats do talk about january 6. republicans quickly turned to the protests which many of them did turn violent. january 6 for many of us it was horrible to see. for me, it was horrible to experience. i was one of the many reporters at the capitol that day. wasn't really paying attention to what was happening outside the capital. there were thousands of people who had descended on the capit ol member trying to break in and did succeed to break in. i don't think the two things are on equal footing. one has to do with an election,

a presidential election. the people had duly elected jill biden as president. --joe biden as president. this was the action. host: talking about election 2022 in the next segment but right now republicans are favored to take over the house and senate. more of a question especially in the last two months what happened to january 6 committee if republicans do take over the house and if republicans do take over the house and or senate what hearings how they promised? what sort of committees are they going to form? guest: a lot of reporters are looking ahead to the next congress at this point. we are expecting house

republicans to put control of the house is because of what history has shown us. typically the party out of power does take dozens of seats. things are a little bit different right now because democrats have the wind at their back because of ruby way decision. gas prices and some food prices are coming down. that has been an argument for republicans. but the january 6 committee, jamie raskin had a great quote. he said we are like cinderella we expire at midnight and so at the end of the year that committee does dissolve, if you will, unless democrats are somehow able to hold onto power. they need to wrap up their work

pretty quickly. they need full covering of the reports they have been working on all summer. they're still juggling a few things. the report is their main priority. host: is it going to be a select committee on hunter biden? what are they saying? guest: they promised to investigate not only hunter biden and some of his business dealings they have in fact said they are going to investigate the investigation of january 6. they believe it was for political purposes. democrats would clearly disagree but that is one of the areas. some members on the far right have talked already about impeaching jill biden --joe bid en. i'm sure that is not the direction he wants to convert of the bet. he is going to be hearing from

some of the members on the far right. host: and other issue, david in south carolina can you explain how the college loan transfer proposal is being paid for? guest: that is probably a little bit beyond what i can speak to. host: tampa florida, two minutes left independent, good morning. caller: good morning, john. i just want to know with the election year coming around does anyone answer the question is donald trump was in office and that 1964 voting right act came up which most presidents and he had refused to sign it with flight people have the right to vote at that time if he had not signed it or sit wait to off to the election? i would like to know the answer to that. host: is underwater?

-- is that a what if? caller: yes. host: what do you think would happen? caller: i would not blame him. i believe donald trump would have said no i'm not going to sign this until after the election and then we see but my question is if he had said something like that would black people, i didn't see people of color with black people have the right to vote at that time? host: if you want to take up a historical what if? guest: that's a tough hypothetical. a couple of callers have brought up voting rights and that is something that is not part of these election proposals in the senate but clearly members of the house of representatives who have passed protections for voting rights would like to see

some of those reforms be much broader. we will see recommendations. we will see recommendations coming from the january 6 committee about what they view as proper legislation to address what happened on january 6, what happened in the run-up to january 6 to protect our democratic process. host: how long has the house been away? about a month? guest: it's been about a month. they have to come back into session for one day to pass the inflation reduction act that had passed the senate. they are typically, we don't see a lot of activity during a critical midterm election year but to go back to my earlier point this has been a particularly productive congress when you look back at past years and past election years. host: a comment on the time they

are away, they shouldn't get a paycheck when they are campaigning, that is a thought this morning. scott wong senior congressional reporter you can find him on twitter has work at nbc news.com and again we do always appreciate your time. guest: thank you very much, john. host: up next week will focus on midterm elections. we will be joined by christian hall of bloomberg news. and taylor barkley ♪ >>

guest: things are picking up with the midterms. things are really heating up. host: or north carolina? guest: it was a very interesting race. we were talking to voters ahead of the midterm elections what was the dynamic there that brought you to the tar heel

state? guest: she was the chief justice the north carolina supreme court but apparently a member in the house. if she wins, she would be the third african-american woman to serve in the senate. it is a very interesting race. host: what did you focus on when you were there? guest: i talked to voters and not ask them about their concern whether or not inflation is a concern for them. but on the campaign trail, one of the things that voters constantly brought up was abortion. that was a real concern for them. host: what did they tell you in that race for north carolina? guest: there is mounting evidence democrats, democratic voters are galvanized by the recent decision. voters are very concerned about the supreme court terry john roe v. wade. host: that is one of the issues,

abortion. there is also the issue of climate change in the wake of provisions that were passed in the inflation production act, gun control was also in issue that holds relevance for democrats. republicans point back to the quote that it is the economy. what do you think it is right now from talking to voters. is it some of these other social issues? guest: i can definitely see that republicans are voting -- concerned about the economy and that inflation is very high. it is becoming clearer that voters are really concerned about some of the social issues like abortion. host: talking about the midterm election with christian hall for this segment of "washington journal". is there anything you want to talk about if there is a

specific candidate or campaign you want to focus on give us a call. democrats (202) 748-8000 republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. having this conversation for about the next 15 or 20 minutes or so here on the "washington journal". you mentioned the north carolina race you are watching. there are a couple of senate races that you think demonstrate the issues set for the overall dynamic of campaign 2022. guest: i think pennsylvania is an interesting race. you have john fetterman running against met at my -- mammon awes. the race is picking up a lot of energy. it is holding well against the trump duct candidate despite suffering a stroke recently and having to go on hiatus with his campaign. he has managed to hold up pretty well.

he is holding well on his residency, so yeah very interesting race. host: this is the seat that pat assuming -- is giving up. was this expected to be a republican advantage? guest: i think republicans thought this would be a very competitive race for them but it is coming clear that oz may not be as strong as a candidate. host: polling right now, where do the reese watchers, political reports or do they put this race right now? guest: it is still very close. he is within striking distance. mitch mcconnell even said himself the quality of these candidates could determine the outcome of the election. people are starting to call in to question oz's ability to win.

host: is federman going to debate him? guest: i believe he said he would debate him. there have been a lot of questions about his health. he is trying to gain back some of his speech. i believe he will debate against them so we will see. host: the tossup race, the arizona senate race the georgia race, nevada, and that pennsylvania grace. three places were democrats are trying to hold their seats, pennsylvania if democrats pick up that would be a pickup opportunity for them. some of the races we are talking about in this segment, we want to hear what you want to talk about. robert in mississippi is up first. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to talk about the jill biden situation --joe biden.

situation as soon as he got an office he shut on the pipeline. it caused our energy prices to go up. i think he needs to be impeached. he opened the border, a country that should not be an open border country. he should not be running again. also, i want to comment about the january 6 read --raid. i have a letter from nancy pelosi who i was the mayor. before that happened so there is going to be a brilliant --riot and that they are going to play met on trouble. host: how did you get a letter from nancy pelosi to the mayor of portland? caller: a friend of mine got it

off the internet. host: gotcha. want to come back to your energy prices. the caller hung up but on the issue of energy prices, that president biden i want to focus on that as i show this chart from gas buddy. viewers will be familiar with it. the average gas presented the united states now down to about $3.67 it was just the beginning of gin were topped five dollars a gallon you can see the fall in gas prices. christian hall on gas prices and energy dynamics. guest: i have been on the campaign trail and voters are really compared about -- concerned about gas prices. this is an issue republicans expected to benefit off of but

abortion again, it really is a big issue. i have been hearing it from a lot voters on the campaign trail. host:lynn in maryland, good morning. caller: i just want to let you know, first our gas prices are $3.39 which is awesome. the second point is in this area we are worried. women are worried about the abortion because i had a friend had she was pregnant with siamese twins. she went to johns hopkins, that is her break she got professional help. no politician should get involved in that. if you are listening, you need to vote to keep your rights. that's what i have to say. keep your rights, women. host: democrats trying to bring democrats to the polls and bring

women to the polls on this issue of abortion. here is a recent add from the democratic senator this is in arizona criticizing the republican candidate on the issue of abortion. [video clip] >> i was 14. he was 18. he was so abusive. choosing to end the pregnancy wasn't easy, but it was the right choice for me. it's personal. it's complicated. >> blake masters wanted to ban all abortions with no exception for rape or incest. >> he has no idea what i went through and he has no business making the decision for me. host: christian hall on that at by democrats on this issue. guest: this is, as i said earlier, a big issue for voters. recent polling shows a large

number of americans are really concerned about the supreme court's ruling a large number of them have an unfavorable view of the supreme court. i do believe that democrats are going to use this issue in this race in this midterm election. host: following that arizona race how closely? guest: i am following it pretty closely. host: what are your thoughts on how it has evolved? guest: i think republicans are hoping they can pull out that race. i think arizona is a pretty purple state so is going to be a very close race. host: washington post today aaron blake taking a look at republican flip-flops and one fax on this issue of abortion. he focuses on blake masters as well in his column.

this is what he writes the flip and flopping the before and after. before back in december the candidates likened abortion to genocide. until recently he said he was 100% pro-life and supported a several person had law a standard. but advocates who want to be at all abortions now he writes masters scrubs the above reference from has website after he won the primary. several other gop candidates have done this. a now says has state banning abortion after 15 weeks is a reasonable solution and in a new ad he emphasizes has -- his opposition to late-term abortions. guest: i think republicans are realizing as they enter the general election that they will have to appeal to a larger swath

of voters. as the article stated republican candidates are backing away from the issue of abortion and denying the election of 2020. they are up for quite the challenge. host: patty in connecticut. and dependent, good morning. caller: good morning. i saw on cnn gas prices are going to go back up again. she was very scared about what is going on with the inflation. about abortion, i have friends that have had abortions when we were in high school which was years ago. they were very depressed afterwards, they regretted it. it left a mark on them. one even try to get pregnant again to make up for what she did. and another thing as if you ever watched a late-term abortion

which i saw on video, it would make you sick. they broke the bones in the baby's legs to get the baby out. once they got the baby out which was a full-fledged baby, they broke its neck, a baby. if they did that to a puppy the people in the united states would go crazy. this is a human being. host: patty in connecticut. the issue of abortion, late-term abortion we talked about the blake masters race and trying to find or the line could be. what else are you saying specifically on the campaign trail? guest: it's happening all over the country and i think it is very clear from just the people we have spoken to. it will be very contentious, a big deal in the upcoming midterms. host: henrietta, florida, good morning.

caller: yes i morning. i want to cover three topics. with regard to abortion, i think the republicans should handle it exactly the way donald trump handled it when he debated however he quit in. he wanted to do up to 15 weeks and she wanted to kill them up to the moment of birth. second item, oil, gas oil is cheap. it's because it's on the back of our strategic petroleum reserves. it is being depleted. again, this is nonsense. oil prices aren't going down. suddenly, the world is not going to have excess oil because we took the united states of the market. number three, are we going to start talking about the washington post, are they going to write an article on the walk packs of democratics -- lockbox

of democrats shutting down the schools, the masks, the lies about the actual vaccine that it actually worked when everybody who's got it actually got covid? they didn't die but also a lot of bad things happened. i like this young man who seems to be a shield for the democrats to actually answer a question. will oil prices go up? janet has the truth. this treasury woman who was supposed to be nonpartisan is another democratic shield. host: we got your point. christian hall, what topic would you like to pick up? she brings up a few. guest: i think for republicans, and issue that they are going to focus on in the midterm

elections is immigration, crime, those are things they can galvanize their supporters to get out and vote on. host: she mentioned your reporting career, you are bloomberg now. previously at punch bowl news. explain what that is for viewers who may not know what punch bowl is. guest: punch bowl news is a newsletter. we cover capitol hill, the house and the senate, we cannot with three newsletters a day a.m., midday, and p.m. and we got into the process of how the hell operated. host: are you met on the campaign trail more now? guest: i am national politics reporter so i will cover all but of the races in the southeast of the country, north carolina, georgia, florida, host: where are you headed next? guest: i believe georgia for the senate race. host: william, niagara falls.

caller: good morning. i would like to ask the young man to keep his head up. he is just giving the truth. my question is about georgia how is the senate race? guest: georgia is a very close race. i think republicans when they first entered the midterm campaign season, they tried to show kristen welker, sorry warnock is a radical candidate and they found it was difficult to make the pastor oppose as radical. georgia is also a very purple state. walker has name recognition. host: a political report trying

to look at the readings of races. just like incentive elections has that race in the tossup category. when you get into cover the georgia race, how does -- how do you -- what do you focus on? guest: i think one of the things that is important is connecting with voters, talking to voters. letting them share with you some of their concerns. as i said in north carolina voters were concerned about the economy, gas prices, not being able to buy enough groceries for their families. being able to talk to voters and figuring out what some of the issues are that are top of mind for them is really how you cover. host: this is frank, republican. good morning. caller: hi. the gas price question was pretty much answered.

the one million barrels a day we are selling it to china, we are selling it to the world. biden went to the middle east to get more oil but when he got back his plan didn't work so they are not pumping more oil. china is buying oil from russia so they're stocking it up for a reason. i wonder why. you know, in other thing is the millennials in this country, all they have not as republican war, $3 trillion but they really haven't looked at the democratic party and the major war conflicts at the demott -- democratic party has gotten us into. i am so tired of hearing about republic use does republicans being warmongers. we spent $3 trillion more than we should have spent. and let's talk about the democratic socialists hijacking the government plan and that is

the real problem. host: he mentioned young people in this election. the student on forgiveness issue certainly seems to be an issue among democrats the contrived young people to the polls. what are you hearing? are people talking about that? guest: absolutely. i have done reporting on that. young voters are motivated by the student on consolation program. a lot of young voters, they are saying this is an issue they can see motivating young people to get out and vote in the midterm elections. historically, midterm elections have a very low turnout with younger voters. but i think president biden knew what he was doing when he decided to cancel up to $20,000 in loans for pell grant recipients. host: when you say new hate what

he was doing you think specifically to get young people to the polls? guest: absolutely. i think this was an attempt by the administration to get young voters to come out and vote in the midterms. host: in terms of expectations, any expectations of young voters this fall? as you said, getting young people out in any election is hard. guest: i mean, the administration is the challenge of getting young voters out. they believe this is the way to get that out. the polling has shown after the announcement of the program the young voters overly motivated and excited about this program. host: two more calls for you. myrtle beach, republican, good morning. caller: i just want to say one thing, the gas prices you were talking about it. i think they're going down just

for the election. they will probably go back up after the election comes on and i just feel like everything is a smokescreen is going to go right back to where it was. host: if they were able to control it for the election why allow it to get above five dollars in the first place? caller: they want the vote to go their way. the democrats. host: so where the tickets are five dollars a gallon and more less than five months before an election? caller: because they found out they were going to lose, they didn't think they were going to lose the vote then. host: you think democrats were confident back in june about the midterm election? caller: i think they were misled just like everything else they have done. host: russell in south carolina. this is jean in north carolina.

caller: good morning i am very concerned about the upcoming election. it behooves this country to refill its strategic oil reserves. i mean, it's imperative. we have china and russia that are rattling their sabers at us and we have iran who is a bedfellow of russia who was apparently the recipient of the nuclear materials one secretary of state clinton was in office. i don't know where this country is going. i want to think positive, the sanctuary city staff it's letting criminals on the street. i don't understand why our elected officials are allowing

this to happen. it does not represent joe citizen or jean citizen as it were. i am poor thee to import common sense and to make decisions with the best interest of the citizens of this country and i applaud you for all your efforts to do so. god love you and god bless america and everyone of you for the rest of your lives. host: jean in wisconsin. i will give you a final minute if there's anything you want to pick up. guest: i think some of the topics she brought up are going to be concerns of voters. republicans entered into the midterm campaign season talking about inflation. that was very concerning. i think as we get closer to the midterms republicans are going to focus on the issues of emigration. host: christian hall national

political reporter from bloomberg news is on twitter. you can see on bloomberg.com. appreciate your time this morning. good luck on the campaign trail. guest: thank you. host: taylor barkley will join us for attitudes on big tech. first it is time for our public forum. any issue you want to talk about. this is where we let you lead the discussion. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. start calling in now and we will get to your calls right after the break. ♪ ♪ >> middle and high school

students, it is your time to shine. you are invited to participate in this year's c-span studentcam documentary competition. picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress. we ask this year's competitors, what is your top priority and why? make a five-minute to six-minute video that shows supporting and opposing perspectives. don't be afraid to take risks with your documentary. be bold. amongst the $100,000 in cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 20, 20 23. visit our website at studentcam.org for tips, resources, and a step-by-step guide. this week on c-span networks, to spend -- tuesday morning, twitter's chief security officer testifies about allegations of

widespread security failures at the company. the senate homeland security committee also look at social media with a two-part hearing wednesday on national security ramifications. officials from facebook, youtube, tiktok, twitter, and several other companies will testify. also, cdc director dr. rochelle walensky, dr. anthony fauci, and others appear before the senate health committee to discuss the monkeypox response. in the senate will take up some of invited's -- some of president biden's judicial appointments. and honoring the late queen elizabeth ii. watch live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. head on over to c-span.org for scheduling information for to stream on demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. "washington journal" continues. host: it is time for our open

forum, where we let you leave the discussion on "washington journal." any issue that you want to talk about, democrats, it is (202) 748-8000, republican, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will get right to your calls. cynthia in texas, independent, first. what do you want to talk about? caller: good morning. the elections are coming up, so i thought maybe it is time that we remind our elected officials that they are civil servants, and the other thing is, october looks like a blistering month. we have many court rulings, the eric schmitt papers coming out about social media. i am in technology, so that is much concern. i think people should know what our elected officials, our civil

servants, are doing with social media data. there's also an impending vote. i'm not sure if it will make before the election, but it is about the american data privacy. it is called the adppa. it is a data privacy for the citizens. let's hope that we make some progress there. and really that is all i have to say this morning. host: you may be interested in tomorrow here on c-span, just after this program ends, a hearing that we are covering for the senate judiciary committee, the head of security for twitter testifies on allegations of privacy and security failures at the company. you can watch it here at c-span.org and the free c-span mall video app. i would just say stick around for our next segment this morning.

in about 20 minutes or so, 25 minutes, we will be joined by taylor barkley of the center for growth and opportunity at utah state university to talk about a recent survey they did on americans' attitudes toward big tech. thanks her being the first call on that segment, to let me promote all that stuff. thanks for the call, cynthia. caller: may i'm a little more aware than i would like to be, but i think these are important topics, and it is important for us to understand how our government is interfacing with big tech. it takes to. -- two. host: cynthia in texas. this is barbara in the buckeye state, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what is on your mind? caller: abortion. if one of my daughters was ever raped, i would have an abortion. why would i want anybody to bring that type of genes back into the world? and also, why don't we have,

just like the president, they can only have two terms, this is what our republicans and democrats should only have also. host: you are saying members of congress? caller: yes. host: you think it should be -- caller: they should only have two terms, just like the president. host: so two senate terms, up to 12 years in the senate, and two house terms, up to four years in the house? caller: nope, it should be two a nd two. they go in and they're honest, and they come out millionaires. and to me, it makes me sick. i live on social security, and i paid into it, and so has all of my family, and i'm alone. i'm 89 years old, and i resent being taken like this. and thank you very much for

letting me speak. host: yes, ma'am. that is barbara in ohio. this is steven in fort lauderdale, florida. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make some comments about maga republicans and statements that president biden made that got some pushback. i think the democrats and president biden are looking at this wrong. i think that the publican party has turned into a dangerous political cults, and donald trump knows that he is a cult leader, and until they tack it as a cult, which is something that could be medically repaired, i think you will never get to the bottom of it. it is a cult, it has always been a cult, and it is a dangerous cult. thank you very much. have a nice day. host: las vegas, nevada. mike, republican in the silver state, go ahead. caller: good morning. good morning. i think with everything else that is happening now with the

soldiers, mar-a-lago, and all the information, a lot of the key issues we are talking about sometimes fall off the first pages of the news, because you don't hear much anymore about inflation, gas prices. but that is what i think people should focus on. the gas prices, here in las vegas, they went down about $.55 a gallon. now they are back up about seven cents a gallon in the last week. host: what does that make a gallon of gas right now in las vegas for you, mike? caller: i did not find any more yesterday less than $4.74 a gallon. host: much higher than the national average, according to gas buddy, at $3.67 a gallon. that is the national average chart over the last six months. go ahead, mike. caller: california and nevada, all you hear is california and nevada have the highest gas

prices in the nation. inflation, grocery, i mean, people are still buying. you don't see sales on just easy things like hamburgers. hamburgers here, you don't see sales on chickens or eggs, which are still three dollars, you know, a dozen. the abortion thing i don't think -- it is touted by democrats as being the highest thing on people's minds, but i really think that also is a gimmick to keep that up front, because it is letting inflation and gas prices fall off the radar. that is my opinion. as far as abortion, being a republican, i am vehemently, you know, pro-life and antiabortion, but i really felt when the conservative side of the supreme court took that action, it was very shortsighted. it was the wrong time to do it. it was the wrong timing, and i firmly believe in stare decisis.

even though i do not like abortion, don't believe in abortion, in some ways, the republicans shot themselves in the foot with that. host: mike, can we come back to inflation for a second? caller: sure. host: the next release of the consumer price index from the bureau of labor statistics -- that is the big national report that gets so much attention every month -- we are looking at september 13 for the august numbers, and then october 13 for the september numbers, and then the next one does not come out until after the midterm elections. the midterm election is november 8. the next one does not come out until november 10. . i guess my question for you, mike, is when was the last time you were paying attention to the consumer price index from the bureau of labor statistics? do you remember another election where all eyes were on these reports, before an election? caller: actually, you know, i

don't know how old i sound, but i am 70 years old, and i do remember that way back, you know, in the 1980 election, when inflation was through, and gas prices were through the roof, i think one of the terms that reagan used at that time is, "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" and i think that is something that the republicans should capitalize on. are you better off now than you were two years ago? that is what i think they should capitalize on. because, yes, there were other times when inflation was extreme we on the minds of people, and that was in the 1970's. host: mike thank you for the call. this is barry in long island, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? host: doing well. thanks. caller: good. i'm glad you can hear me. i wanted to comment about jill

biden's soul of the nation -- joe biden's soul of the nation speech. he said "things are not normal. " he is right about that. no president has weaponized the fbi like this president has done for that is not normal. no president has abandoned his responsibilities to safeguard americans' safety and health by leaving the borders wide open. let's not forget 9/11 was committed by mostly overstayed visas. no president has ever acted in such a virulent, hostile way. that is not normal. no president has done so much so often, such as removing all the americans from afghanistan, "the vaccine is safe and effective," when he fully well knew that the patent application at the patent office that pfizer applied for said nothing about transit stability and contracting of the virus.

why would he go and tell the american people that it is effective when he knew very well it wasn't iago how many people listen to that, got sick, and died because of that? host: you mentioned the speech that president biden made at the beginning of the month that has gotten so much attention. it was the vice president, kamala harris, who reference to the president was a speech over the weekend for she was speaking on saturday at an event for the democratic national committee. this is some of what she had to say over the weekend. [video clip] vp harris: so we have got 59 days to go. 59. and our work, your work, is going to make all the difference, because we know, democrats, the stakes are so high. as the president, as our president made clear in philadelphia last week, the threats we face as a nation are great. threats to our freedom, threats

to our very democracy, and we need to speak truth about that. and so today, we all, by coming together, reaffirmed that we refuse to let extremists so-called leaders dismantle our democracy. [applause] we convene today to recommit to the fight for freedom. democrats, we here rise to meet this moment, and we have done it before. host: vice president campbell harris from saturday night's event with the -- kamala harris from saturday night's event. whatever you want to talk about,

it is our open forum, where you we let you leave the program. this is elaine come a democrat in charlotte, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i am just wondering where people get their information from, because when we talk about the open border, the people that's coming to this country, walking to get away from extremists, now here in america, the threat seems to be from within. i am 80 years old, and i'm actually afraid to go out to the grocery store, to the nail salon, wherever, because this country is immersed in guns. everywhere you go, you can't ride down the street, because somebody will shoot at you if they don't like what you've done. they pull in front of you.

that's not why i called. the reason i'm calling is because people blame the president for everything. do they not understand that the president does not make laws? that the president is a figurehead, more or less, in this country, just like queen elizabeth was a figurehead in england. winter we going to go back to the civics lessons that i learned when i was in middle school? corporate america is who we should be looking at, because they are the ones who manipulate the prices. i have a sun who worked for a major grocery store chain, when all of these shortages came about your he told me that they had 80 trailers in their parking lot, and they had to rent

parking lot so that they had somewhere to put the stuff that was coming from the ships. so this is what i'm saying. when will we learn that it is not the president? he is there, he leads a party, but the republican party seems to be -- i don't know, they seem to be mindless, because they don't listen to anything in the reality. host: elaine, if a president is not that important, as you say, as a democrat, how concerned are you about former president donald trump running again and potentially winning another term? caller: i am scared to death, because he unleashed the hatred in this country. it was already here, it's just that he seems to have given

people permission -- look at january 6. what happened? host: do you think that he was a president that is more important than most? caller: i think that particular president, he got people up with the same mentality, is to be as mean as you possibly can, you know, don't take my guns. i've never owned a gun. i am 80 years old. i have never owned a gun, because i do not believe in killing anybody. host: that is elaine in north carolina. this is teresa in the land of lincoln, and vermont, illinois. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking michael. i want to talk about abortion. if you want to have a baby, you have unprotected sex. if you don't want to have a baby, you have protected sex.

i don't see where it college degree to figure that out. but these ladies want to murder one person and enter another. i do not understand their reasoning. this is 2022. we have got ways of preventing pregnancy, rather than to have abortions. and they are making such a big deal out of it. i just can't understand their mentality. thank you. host: one of the big questions right now, teresa, when it comes to abortion, is the issue of rape or incest. should abortion be allowed in cases of rape and incest? where do you stand on that? caller: i would say yes, but there are so few cases of that. most abortions are elected. they are because they do not

like the sex of the baby or they do not like something about that baby or they just plain don't want a baby. host: teresa in illinois. this is tim in the natural state, an independent, good morning. tim, are you with us? caller: hello? can you hear me ok? host: go ahead, tim in arkansas. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning? i saw joe's fascist speech. the woman that just called that does not understand what people want to have the right to kill babies or change little children from one sex to the other, because the progressives, marxist democratic party does not believe in god or a christian god or any god, they

believe they are god's themselves and that they have the power to do godlike things. they think they can change the climate, which they can't. they think they can change sex, which they can't. and their experiments are the things that are causing the problems. joe biden got in after saying that only a dictator rules by executive order, proceeded to make 50 executive orders. no, he doesn't make law, but he does make policy, and the policy that he promoted was stopped drilling oil in this country. everything we have in this country depends on energy, and he has restricted the supply of energy. host: that is tim in arkansas. this is michael, san diego, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, john.

i called in on the democratic line. i would like to talk about your show, the "washington journal," but first i need to say something to cnn. cnn, when you have here you lippmann on, the picture you are showing in the background, that is downtown san diego, california. that is one of the many communities that make up the city of san diego. host: michael, you called c-span to talk to cnn? caller: i wanted to give them a message, because this is the only way i know how to do that. now about your show, the "washington journal," don't you say you are the unfiltered view of politics? isn't that your slogan? host: sure. we talk about what is going on. caller: you are definitely unfiltered view of politics you are the most unbiased station out there. people who call and complain that you are one-sided is

usually republicans who say you do not have enough republicans on there. host: we get it from both sides, michael, so i think that means we are doing our job, if we get criticized by both sides. caller: [laughs] yes, you are definitely doing your job. geez, what was i going to say to you? oh, i know, when people -- host: go ahead, michael. "when people call." caller:caller: when people call in say we are a democracy, not a republic, look it up, well, i looked it up, and we are both. would you say we are, like may republic based on the principles of democracy come up with that be an accurate description? host: i found it because this has come up a lot, there is a story and be "washington post" that has come up and what the founders thought about these terms, that both were used by the founders could i can try to

find it again, but what do you think, michael? caller: well, when i looked it up come a democracy is like everybody has a vote and a say in how our government's is run, and the republic says, no, it is headed by an elected official. that is why come in my opinion, it is both. we are, like i sent them a republic on the principles of democracy. host: i think i found it. this is from 2016 it popped up well was searching for. the united states is both a republic and a democracy, because a democracy is like cash, is one of the headlines on the topic in the "washington post." there have been other columns about this topic over the years. it is something that comes up occasionally. why do you think people are concerned with these definitions? caller: i don't understand "democracy is like cash."

what do they mean by that? i'm sorry. host: i can go through the article, but go ahead, as i search through that. caller: well, i mean, if i get to talk about anything, little donnie bone spurs is the most self-inflicted outside of the civil war we were able to overcome world war ii and stuff like that, but this guy drove the biggest wedge between us come in my opinion, that there has ever been. host: that is michael out of san diego, california. here is a little bit of the author of the "washington post" piece, eugene wrote about this issue a couple of times over the years, saying "the united states is not a direct democracy in the sense of a country in which laws are made predominately by majority vote. some lawmaking is done this way on the state and local level, but it is only a tiny fraction

of lawmaking, but we are a representative democracy, and indeed the american government has been called a democracy by leading american statesmen and commentators from the framing on words. it is true that some framing ever commentators made comments that distinguish democracy and republic. see for instance the federalist number 10. the first distinction between a pure democracy and republic, only later just saying democracy, but even then it was an understanding to be a form of democracy alongside pure democracy. john adams used the term representative democracy in 1790 four, so did noah webster in 1785, soda george tucker and his 1803 edition of blackstone, and so did thomas jefferson in 1815. this discussion about democracy versus republic, likely going to happen over the years, if past is any president -- precedent.

this is loretta in bridgeport, texas, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a person who actually has a copy of the constitution and have read that thing from beginning to end several times, to try to understand what the supreme court did when it overturned roe v. wade. and they were absolutely right. there isn't, in the constitution, anywhere that states anything about a woman's right to abortion, so they made the right decision. and it is not going to be decided on the national level. what they have done is turned that decision back to the states, so the women who want an abortion need to concentrate on the state, not the national, elections, the state elections, and make their well-known.

and however it comes out, however any state -- and i happen to be in texas, however any state, however you vote your people and, you tell them what you want, and in that state, you can have an abortion, and it can be any way that the people of the state want it. so i don't understand -- host: loretta, you think every state election for my want is a referendum on abortion? caller: i don't think so. i think when the people finally decide what they want as a state, that is what it will be. if the state of california wants full-time abortion, -- full-term abortion, and the people of california want that, that i think that is fine. if the state of texas says we are not going to stop a heart from beating and terry

baby out limb by limb, then the state of texas can make that decision. don't the people understand it was turned back to the states? host: that is loretta in texas. this is sheila in georgia, like for democrats. good morning. caller: hello. i am responding to the guy that says joe biden tells lies. one thing about republicans, they can't read, and they can't count, ok? 81 million votes versus 74 million, you cannot count, ok? the reason why donald trump is so mad is because he vilified barack obama for eight years. barack obama got to terms, he did not get but one. not only that, but when donald trump ran, he got beat by a black woman. wake up, people wake up! he's a racist. host: our last caller in this

open forum segment. a half-hour left, and in that time, we will be joined by utah university's center for growth and opportunity. taylor barkley will be joining us. we will talk about a recent survey they conducted about americans' attitudes about big tech and social media. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span shop fall sale is going on right now at c-span shop.org. save 25% on drink wear, home decor, hats, there's something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. c-span's fall sale going on

right now. scan the code at the right to start shopping now at c-span shot.org. c c-span shop.org.>> on august s ago, elvis pressley died at inge 42. the autopsy found eight different drugs in his body. just seven years earlier pressley was with richard nixon in the oval office to offer his assistance in fighting the war on drugs. he asked for a special agent badge from the bureau ever narcotics and. the copy of the tpoet yes is the most requested from the national archives. our guest cultural journalist, alana nash, has spent a lot of her professional life telling the story of elvis. and his well-known manager, colonel tom parker. she reveals that the colonel was not an american. and wasn't originally named tom

parker. >> alana nash and her book "the colonel" the extraordinary story of colonel tom parker and elvis pressley on the episode of book notes plus available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you're from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a conversation now on americans' attitudes toward big tech. our guest, taylor barkley, he is

the utah state university center for growth and opportunity, which is out with a new survey on this topic. before we get to that survey, for folks who are familiar with the center, what do you do, what's your mission, how is it funded? guest: thanks for having me on the show today. great to be here. the certainty for growth and opportunity we do economic research. we get really excited about asking big questions about the problems that are standing in the way of american people experiencing an abundant future. so we research topics on tech innovation where i work, immigration, and energy and environment issues, and the survey we'll be discussing today is a great kpafrt. -- great example of the research we do. we are supported by a wide array of organizations, individuals, and foundations. and the research is entirely directed by our scholars. host: what's the goal? what do you do with it when are you done? guest: informative to policymakers, journalist, general public, other academics.

we are based at utah state university. we do have that foot in the academy as it were. we want our research to be relevant to issues of today. we try our best to predict what issues are coming around the next few years. host: how long have you been looking at big teak and americans' attitudes? guest: personally for 10 years. we have been doing the survey for the last two years. we conducted four surveys since july of 20206789. host: what have you found so far? guest: i think the one big thing we want everyone to takeaway, americans don't have a consensus about what to do on big tech. attitudes are different depending on the types of questions. for example, we have been tracking levels of trust and distrust towards big tech companies since 2020. and we have had that data over the last couple years. trust and distrust levels have remained flat for the companies. the difference between the social media companies and trust and distrust with them and the other big tech companies like

amazon and google and microsoft. tends to run distrust runs higher for the social media companies than the other big tech companies. host: for our visual learners, let me show this chart with your most recent report. distrust of tech companies that collect and use personal data. the distrust level in the 50 and 60% relatively high for facebook, tiktok, and twitter. when it comes to google and amazon that distrust level just in the high 30's and 40's. guest: that popped out to me when i was studying the data. i think it comes down to user experiences with these platforms. for me when i'm using amazon, maybe you, too, you order, i order a package, it makes sense why they are storing my credit card data and address. with social media companies, it's less clear the product or service i am getting. we are getting entertaining videos, or connections with family and friends, place to store photos. they are making their money by

using that data to then service relevant ads. it's a little less clear the one to one connection. host: what about breaking down this data into various groups. republican versus democrats' trust of big tech? men versus women? what did you find? guest: there is a difference between men and women. with men distrusting big tech companies more than women. on party break down, it's difference between republicans and democrats. i can say to all your listeners this data is available on our website. click on technology innovation, find the excel sheets there with the tabs broken down. there are differences. another difference that popped out to me is the demographic of people who pay attention to politics most of the time versus hardly at all. most of the time people have much higher levels of distrust or wanting to engage or for the government to get involved. host: some of the questions you ask here, one of the questions is, ehropb musk's purchase of twitter a good thing for the

future of social media? what did you find? guest: we added that question given the news. every day seems to bring something new on this issue. we found that americans are broken into roughly thirds. with about 41% agreeing it's a good thing. they take the majority. another third saying they are not sure. the other third disagreeing this would be good for the fuhr of social media. host: another one. is jeff bay zoe's purchase of the "washington post" good for the future of traditional media? guest: much higher disagreement there on that category. host: disagreement? guest: fewer people were agreeing that was a good move for news media. bezo with "the washington post." i also found users, listeners can look for themselves, differences again on partisan and political involvement. much higher level of disagreement for most of the time political involvement folks. and lower for the hardly at alls. host: should social media platforms be able to remove

disruptive and harmful elected officials content and information? guest: overwhelming agreement. that was category of questions we asked in the survey. for elected officials and users, moderating health information and -- these are generally fall in the category of content moderation decisions social media platforms make. there is overwhelming support from americans that social media companies are justified. host: before we continue through some of the questions, let me invite viewers we have about 20 minutes left. happy to have you join the conversation as we talk with taylor barkley this morning of utah state university center for growth and opportunity. the phone lines for you to join the conversation as usual, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, number. and -- 202-748-8002. and i should say we are having this conversation a day before a

congressional hearing that we are going to be covering on c-span that's likely to get a lot of attention. former hefd security for twitter twitter will testify on allegations of privacy and security failures by the company. that's before the senate judiciary committee. that's tomorrow. just about 24 hours from now. 10 a.m. eastern tomorrow you can watch it here after the "washington journal" ends tomorrow. you can also watch online at c-span.org. on our free c-span now video app. since we are talking about that hearing what are you going to be watching for? are you watching? guest: i plan to tune in. i think it will add to the continuing discussion maybe data points for the public on how much can they trust the social media companies. information continues to come out over the next few weeks and months that will impact americans' opinions. host: do you think that members of congress are interested in impacting americans' opinions on this topic trying to sway people's opinions on this topic?

guest: who can say exactly. i think their involved in the discussion. policymakers took away one thing from our survey it's that they should be precise about the terms they use when they are discussing regulating big tech. it's a broad term treated as one mono littic or topic in the media and politics. host: regulating. guest: there are differences in trust levels between social media companies and other big tech companies. i think that's something policymakers should keep in mind when they talk about solutions? host: what's an example being specific that they want to do this specific thing for facebook specifically? is that what you're saying? is that how they should target it? guest: yeah. amazon is a very different platform from tiktok. they are oven lumped together in terms of big tech. even the size and twitter versus facebook now it's meta, one big

company. different rules should be crafted for the different technologies that the platforms represent. i think that's what's lost in the dialogue. the difference microsoft being more business to business related driven and cloud based than amazon is, for instance. that's one of the -- the differences our survey pulls out. the american people have different opinions and levels of trust based on what the company is and does. of course the justification and content moderation decisions, policymakers are talking a lot about content moderation rules. that runs into issues of free speech. our poll we asked americans about their notions and opinions on free speech. nine out of 10 believe free speech is important for a free society. then we also saw seven out of 10 americans thinking and believing that news media companies should be fined for biased or inaccurate information. which butts up against notions of free speech. it seems the further you granular you get on the topic

and issue, americans' opinions are different maybe than what's on the surface. that's important for policymakers. host: coming back to regulating social media companies and the folks over my shoulder who work in that building, what is -- what's the next closest piece of legislation that is aimed at that? is there anything in the pipeline in congress right now? guest: a lot. cornucopia of options. this is one thing i have been tracking over the years and remains. republicans and democrats in congress are split on what the problem is. then what the solution should be. generally speaking democrats want social media platforms to moderate and do more content moderation. republicans want social media platforms to do less. the coming at it from different perspectives. i don't know -- it will be interesting to see if there is any agreement what solutions it could be given that reality. host: maybe some callers will

propose their own. guest: i hope so. host: this is tom, kansas city, missouri, independent. good morning. caller: hi. i just got a couple of comments. when people are common sense youred on social media -- sense youred on social media for ideas and ideology and get ban interested that those platforms, i think that's a big problem. that's all i'm going to say. thank you. host: banned from social media. guest: i think the question in there, the comment, it runs through all the discussions about big tech and tech policy issues. content moderation is hard when these platforms are dealing with billions of posts and videos and comments from users. one interesting point i bring up our survey highlighted how americans view their participation and role of the social media platforms in policy debates. we asked from disagree to agree.

social media platforms the primary channel by which important policy conversations happen? 61 peurdz of americans agree with that. then only 25% of americans reporting, i think 24%, report they actually do post political and policy opinions on social media. my colleagues, chris and will, had an op-ed in news week last week, a couple weeks ago, talking about how social media is probably more the policy in the public square. we had the notion of being the public square when it's more because on the quarter of americans are using it that way, it's more of a coliseum where we go to watch. maybe our team participating our favorite players compete. host: how can we shift the architecture and make it that public square that ideal place that people hoped it could be at some point? guest: this is a challenge.

given the global nature of these platforms, one number i keep in mind with facebook, most of their users are not in the united states. only a fraction of the users are in the u.s. we think about these platforms it should be an international level. this is what -- i think they are trying to do every day. the problems that they come up against. their content moderation rules, and user, community rules. it's a complicated question. it's also changing. the new technologies are being released every week and day it seems. the social media that we are talking about now will not be the social media of next year or certainly 10 years from now. host: the question why facebook, tiktok, twitter, google, and amazon, why focus on those five? why not add five more? guest: we could. and we do make changes. we'll probably keep those just

to maintain over time. our survey is unique amongst others in that we have the time span data. we will certainly add others as they arise to prominence. host: what do you think could be the next one to be added? what is the most prominent after those five? guest: depends how you measure t the most downloaded is be real. host: be real. what do you do there? guest: an app that prompts you to take a photo i believe once a day. it activates the forward facing camera and rear camera. john, if you got the prompt right now you would be you sitting at your desk with the studio on the other side. it's an app that's intended to maybe take away some of the van veneer that instagram is notorious for. do it sitting at the perfect picture, putting on make up. maybe projecting a lifestyle that's not quote, real, be real

is aimed at the other direction. trying to get a candid shot during the day. host: jose, norfolk, srarbgs, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. hi a question about misinformation -- i had a question about misinformation and how it's grown. is it more males or females tend to buy more into misinformation? or liberals or conservatives tend to buy more into the misinformation and spread it? guest: thanks for the question. misinformation has been a problem throughout human history. all sorts of media from certainly we can go 100, 200, 300 years ago with print media. this is a common problem with social media given that every human being with a smart phone and internet access can project their ideas whether they are true or not. our survey doesn't talk about or look into whether men, women,

use or don't use information. we did ask if americans do they believe social media companies are justified in removing posts and doing content moderation on misinformation, americans overwhelmingly agree that they should be doing that. host: terminology. pwots versus trolls -- bots versus trolls. which ones are people more concerned about. which ones are the companies more concerned about? guest: our survive doesn't dive into distinctions or concern levels there. in tech policy discussions we are seeing this with elon musk's potential purchase of twitter. he's conat the timing how many users or bots. a obt is a software that is participating on twitter or facebook or social media platform. troll would be typically a human user. some bots can be trolls. to overwhelm certain accounts or to advertise certain products.

trolls are typically human beings. users who participate in maybe disingenuous way or other means to throw someone off or just disrupt the discussion. host: which -- you talk about elon musk and the concerns on his purchase of twitter. which company is most concerned about these issues of bots and trolls? guest: i think all of them are. based on what i'm reading and seeing from the reports that they put out. analysis of the companies from journalists and other experts. they want to design their platforms to be good experiences for their users. they want their experiences to be tailored to the particular users. my facebook feed, my twitter feed is different than yours. or the caller's. that's on purpose. to create a better experience for me and the customer as it were. i think trolls and bots disrupt

that. they take away trust. a less pleasant place to be and interact with friends and family. it's important for all of them. host: do you have a personal opinion you would be comfortable sharing of which social media company is doing the best job when it comes to these issues? guest: honestly it changes every day. trolls learn users learn new habits. our culture shifts and changes. that's one thing i keep in mind as i analyze technology policy. there is a role that culture plays and societal tpho*rpls -- new orleans. we are using these services and platforms. some people choose not to use them at all. i think we develop and adapt as time goes on. host: americans' attitudes towards big tech, taylor barkley is our guest. 10 minutes left in the program. phone lines, democrats, republicans, and independents as usual. this is bob in rhode island, independent. good morning. caller: good morning.

how are you? host: well, sir. caller: john, it's been a great program so far. i have been with you from the beginning. i have called in a few times over the years. i'm 82. i feel that this is a program i wish somehow it could be more widely distributed because the people that are able to listen to it are usually old sots like me. host: we get younger folks, bob. caller: i know you do. you do. i'm probably overstating that one. host: that's all right. caller: i tend to exaggerate a little bit. this subject that are you on right now is -- i feel generally the social media is, in my life,

with my grandchildren, i have them up to 26 down to 5. one of them just started kindergarten. and the other one some of them are out of college and whatever. life was -- since the phones when you watch young people the first thing they pick up or they have to have in their hand every moment. it's still fairly true. not only younger people now, but i have never been a button pusher so i'll probably never get there. i don't have to have my phone with me every second. i didn't mean to get into this kind of a dialogue. i wanted to say that what you are trying to do to analyze the

impact -- many programs, i have heard other programs on this before. the impact of the internet and phones, what it's doing to young people's social interaction or the ability to interact with one another. all of those types of things. the list goes on. i'm sure you could list 50 things because that's what you do. but i see it and i'm kind of like what you said, people don't really know what to do about it. there's good to it. there is good to it. the ability to pick up a phone and -- like my wife speaks to her sister in germany. they can talk for an hour if they want. these are wonderful things. unfortunately the internet when something's wonderful we all know that it can be beautiful dialogue or it can be -- don't

want to use any negative words. but think of a lot of negative words. it would be that dialogue. dialogue that is -- host: thanks for the call, bob. i think we know perhaps some of the words that you are referring to. go ahead. guest: i love the train of thought here. this is important topic, particular hr*eupl the impact of social media on minors, teens. there's a study the c.g.o. is engaging in and i wrote a pwhro*g post about a month -- a blue dog -- blog post about a month ago on saoegs media use. i tried to give historical context, it talks about the link between negative mental health and social media use t often goes back 10 or so years. i went back further in the data on teen suicide. unfortunately teen suicides were much higher -- they peaked in the early 90's.

suicides among boys in particular have yet to surpass that peak in the 90's. i think this is an area of study that scholars, all over the world, are engaging in. it's really difficult to paragraphs -- pars out the ling between social media and mental health. new studies are being released all the time. you talk too about the historical context we live in. this is another issue of great fascination for me. with each new technological advance there is a time of cultural adjustment. the telegraph brought questions about are we too connected? are we getting information too fast? the telephone. and television and radio. on and on. each -- certainly now each new generation, sometimes multiple times in a generation we are faced with these questions how new technologies are impacting us. we'll face more in the future. each time we figure it out as a culture to adapt and change and

policymakers, sometimes a few paces behind, but they are doing their best to keep up. i think as individuals and small communities, families are making a decision for ourselves how to use these technologies. as you said to use them for our benefit not harm. host: a couple minutes left. the cgo.org is where you can find utah state university certainty for growth and opportunity. that's where taylor barkley works. survey we have been talking about this morning. this is john in pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. caller: hello. can you hear he me? host: yes, sir. caller: i was wondering if this guy is familiar with the eric organization. guest: the eric organization. i am not. love to hear more. host: what's that, john? caller: it's the organization that actually funded partially by soros and it's supposed to clean up the voter rolls.

louisiana found a lot of discrepancies in it. and the public was speaking because they found out it's not all what it's supposed to be. this is an organization that's supposed to clean it up and it's not getting cleaned up. and i figure you were a big tech guy you should know about this. guest: i appreciate t we'll look into it more. host: question from laura on twitter. we probably should get wit twitter questions in. big tech is like any other profit seeking enterprise. if you think they care about the consumer, you would be wrong. i work with tech companies regularly and design platforms for people to access funding, software evening nears do not get customer service at all. guest: i would disagree with that notion. of course they are concerned about their bottom line. no doubt. i think part of that is serving

a product and make ago product that's helpful and usable for their consumers. if people overseeing facebook, user rates are dropping in america. it's becoming the dinosaur of social media. myspace loomed large a few years ago. facebook quickly took it over. we are seeing meta adapt. facebook, instagram trying to keep up with tiktok. it's competitive. they are trying to make a product and service that i think consumers want to use. i think i disagree with that motion. host: a minute and a half left in our program. what's next for the survey? how do you adapt this survey to keep this survey relevant? what can users expect in the fewer -- future? guest: we do this with yougov a survey firm. we'll keep core questions. the trust and distrust. we'll probably add new ones. whatever the leading topic of

the time. we added elon musk. jeff bezos question. host: you'll keep asking those questions into the future? guest: yeah. especially as the stories keep going and developing. we plan to deploy probably in the next six months to a year, certainly not going over more than a year so we can keep timely data. host: when you say release it, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousandss? how many people respond? guest: it's a representative safrpl of the american population from all ages. i think 1865 plus across the nation. 1,000 people. it's representative safrpl. host: the cgo.org is where can you go if you want to check out this sur he veterans day, past work and ongoing efforts. taylor barkley is the technology and innovation director at utah state university's center for growth and opportunity. appreciate your time this morning. guest: great to be here. host: that's going to do it for the "washington journal" this morning. we'll be back here tomorrow

morning. it's 7 a.m. eastern. it's 4 a.m. pacific. in the meantime have a great phopb -- monday. >> there is what is coming up live today on c-span. it has been one year since u.s. troops withdrew from afghanistan. join us for a discussion at 11: 30 eastern today on life in afghanistan under taliban rule. at 2:15 eastern, paul ryan will discuss inflation and financial technology. this afternoon at 4:00 p.m., president biden will talk about his cancer moonshot initiative. we will bring you live coverage of that event in boston on c-span and on c-span now, our

free mobile app. >> tuesday, the former head of security for twitter, peter sacco, testifies on allegations of privacy and security failures by the company in front of the senate judiciary committee. we have it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span or c-span now, our free mobile video app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. including comcast. >> it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers. so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >>