>> the ukrainian ambassador to the united states, foxconn, copper -- in ukraine and how it might impact u.s. interest. hosted by the u.s. chamber of commerce. you can also watch on our free mobile video app c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of a government --. we are funded by these television companies and more including micco. ♪ ♪ >> micco supports c-span as a

public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. -- our-- -- host: you can start calling in now as we take you to the steps of the supreme court not far from our building and we are joined by kimberly robinson. good morning to you and thanks for joining us on a rainy morning from capitol hill. >> thanks for having me. >> walk us through what happens on the opening day of a new term. is there some extra pomp and circumstance to start a new term or do they get right to the cases? guest: we will be hearing and having a order list at 9:30. this is the mother of all or lists and we expect to hear from new cases that the court will add to. at 10:00, we start arguments and

that is when the court will hear two cases to kick off the supreme court term. host: what are the two cases. guest: the first case is an environmental case about the epa 's authority to regulate wetlands and water quality and the second case is a case against delaware about money left over from money gram orders. we will have arguments as well. host: what are the other high-profile ones? guest: there will be an important case of voting rights and that case, after the supreme court, effectively nullified part of the voting rights act, the plaintiffs here are relying another part of the voting rights act which has taken renewed interest. they say that alabama discriminated against its black citizens when it refused to

create a second majority black district in the state. that is a high-profile case. that is one of two voting rights cases the justices will take this term. we will be adding more than half the cases in the coming months. host: not the only case involving issues of race. there are cases this term on race-based college admissions getting a lot of attention. explain. guest: that's right. there are two cases challenging affirmative action. it is one of many cases that do put race at the forefront of this term. not only be our affirmative action case and -- the affirmative action case and the voting rights case. there is another case trying to strike down the indian child welfare tax. we will talk about those affirmative action cases out of north carolina and harvard. host: you talk about the mother of all orders this morning, what cases could be added? what are you watching for? guest: there are about a

thousand cases so it's hard to pick which ones they will say. -- they will say, we need to get involved here. there are interesting cases on doj filter teams which has taken an interest after the mar-a-lago search. there are a couple that are important to i.t. lawyers trying to urgent supreme court to pick up a foundational patent case. it's hard to tell which is going to attract their attention. there are so many cases and opportunities for them to look over cases, that you have to wait and see what happens. host: how many cases does a supreme court here in a term and how may cases do they have to sort through to get that final number that they hear over the course of one term? guest: they get about 7000 cases coming to them each term where they are being asked to intervene but in recent terms, they've taken fewer than 60. that is less than 1% of the

cases, or a 10th of the justic , s, in. -- where they think they need to weigh in. we've got 27 cases on the docket so far. some of those are going to be coming today. the rest will trail in until january. host: we mentioned the pomp and circumstance in the supreme court. last week, a bit of that when justice jackson officially joined the supreme court. explain what happened there. here is your story on that from bloomberg law. biden joined jackson at the supreme court as this divisive term looms. guest: that's right. the ceremony on friday was merely a formality. justice jackson had taken her seat in the summertime. she's been weighing in on orders. friday, she was formally inducted into the court. there were a number of dignitaries. as you mentioned, biden and vice

president harris and a number of congressmen. that happened on friday. she takes the bench for the first time today to hear arguments. we are interested to hear how she fits in with this new group of nine on the court, there has been a lot of turnover in the last five years. we will see if there is calm on the best -- bench and they will get a chance to settle in. host: the supreme court, the question we are asking viewers this morning, we are asking about their level of confidence in the supreme court. as a reporter who -- i am wondering, as a reporter who follows the supreme court, what are you seeing on that front when it comes to public confidence? guest: i can't really think of another summer with the supreme court was so much in the headlines as it was the summer after the follow-up from the -- the fallout of the doxxed decision which overturned president -- precedent from roe v. wade. the numbers are at historic

lows, people have been counting public confidence in the court. it is at a record low, not just from democrats but also from independents who think the supreme court are deciding too much in going too fast to the right. that's been happening all summer long. i would not expect that to slow down. host: what is this -- the status of the leak investigation from the dobbs ruling? guest: we haven't heard that much. we have gotten a few hints from some of the justices over the summer. there has been an internal investigation that is completed. they should sometime soon be getting a look at a report. it is unclear if they are going to release that to the republic -- the public or tell us when they have given it to the justices. in washington, the supreme court is a unique institution in that most information does not leak out of it. we will see if the investigation is the subject of a leak as well.

host: in terms of seeing the supreme court, they are continuing livestreaming of oral arguments. any changes, other changes you are watching on the supreme court, how you are covering it or how the public can follow the supreme court? guest: last week, the public can now come into the courtroom. there is a line of people waiting to get inside the building today. that is one big change, the public is allowed in and they will continue doing audio. the announcement said they are going to be providing it for this term only. we don't know if that is a permanent fixture here at the court. it is something that people who don't want to stand in line but want to hear the business of the supreme court. host: we will let you stop the standing for us in the wind and rain. kimberly robinson with bloomberg law, we do appreciate your time this morning. we will look for your coverage.

guest: thanks, john. host: we are asking you on this first day of the new term about your level of confidence in the court. if you say you have high confidence, (202) 748-8000. if you have some confidence, (202) 748-8001. if you say you have none or low confidence in the supreme court, (202) 748-8002. kimberly robinson was mentioning some of the numbers on trust and confidence in the supreme court. gallup, an organization that has been following that issue for a long time. this is what they had to say in their latest report. 47% of u.s. adults say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the judicial branch. that is headed by the supreme court. this represents a 20% drop from two years ago, including seven points since last term. it is the lowest in gallup's trend by six points.

the tarnished image goes with the trust level that exceeds -- that began back in 1972. for those who want to see it in chart form, this is the chart from gallup showing their tracking numbers going back to the 70's. those numbers speaking in the very early to thousands --2000s and late 90's. it was in the 80% range, those who had a great deal of trust in the supreme court. the roast -- the most recent number down to 47%. we are spending this first hour on this topic. diane is up first in michigan. good morning. caller: caller: good morning and thank you. i have very little confidence in the supreme court. especially six --since chief justice roberts has been on the court.

i don't understand how he claims integrity in his court. he can say it, but we don't see it. it started in 2010 citizens united. they took a left turn there. they've become a legislative body. they aren't a court. they have 7000 cases come in, after that number, 60, and oh, g ee, its voting rights and women's reproductive rights. that dobbs decision was drawn from the 1600s when they thought women were witches. how does that apply today? i don't understand it. with justice thomas in there, that has put a muddy appearance on the court. you earn trust, you aren't given trust. anything that is done -- look

into the future, what they've chosen out of that 7000 to decide on this coming season, it doesn't look good. they can claim integrity all they want. we haven't seen it. host: that is diane out of michigan. this is howard in indiana. your next. caller: good morning. i have no confidence in the supreme court. they have shown they have no commitment to establishing justice, which is the first principle of our constitutional preamble, even though they call -- they carried the title as justice. we don't call them judges. i shouldn't say everything -- the most recent major issues for which they've made judgments, they have shown they are not to the task. this ruling on abortion law is just as bad or comparable to the dred scott decision.

where the supreme court at that time said there were no laws for which white people have to abide by relative to black people. that was clearly wrong the second it was judged. as it is 150 or so years later. the same is true for this abortion law. it is people law because --evil law because it puts poor women in jeopardy of seeking health care for abortions that lead to a lot of different harms. there is no real practical way of making something like abortion illegal. host: that is howard. this is matt's in mechanicsville, virginia. high level of trust. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. ok, my point is i notice now that c-span is entrenching back into poll numbers as the big

term elections come up. we will be voting in less than two months. what i have to say about this, it doesn't matter if people have high confidence or low confidence in the supreme court. it doesn't matter if you have high confidence or low confidence in the executive branch. those things will exist. when you go to these polls and you start to pull people --poll people and report the numbers on things that don't matter, you won't get rid of the supreme court. it doesn't matter if you want to add supreme court justices? if poll numbers mattered about these issues, whether or not you can change the structure of the democratic republic, you could simply vote out the constitution. that's what they want to get to. they want to get to the fact that you can put on the ballot other or not you want the constitution itself to be followed in the nation. that is not the case.

you can't -- in a republic, you're not allowed to put on the ballot whether or not you like the republic. you can't vote out the republic. you can't vote out the constitution. there are books that critique tech -- that. that's all i would like to say. host: that was matt. those polling numbers from that gallup poll that we showed you, that number at 840 for seven -- at 47%, a low in the time that gallup has been pulling --p olling. here they are broken up by political party. republicans have quite a lot of trust, 67% of republicans say they have a great deal of trust in the supreme court. the numbers are much lower when it comes to democrats, only 5% -- 25% saying they have a fair amount of trust. and dependents are right there in the final numbers, they are at 46% who say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in

that supreme court. you can see how the numbers have gone up and down. republicans are the redline, democrats are the blue line. mitchell is out of new jersey. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning. some of the prior colors have built -- have stolen my thought -- prior colors have stolen -- callers have stolen my thought but i have very low confidence in this court. harkening back to the citizens united decision under the slightly less conservative roberts court, if you think about it, it was a stunning decision for this country. it basically -- allowing untold amounts of cash into our political system. it's allowing our system to be corrupted. this is what our court is doing? of course, the dog decision --

dots decision but --dodds decision but there is so much we are not even looking at. sheldon whitehouse of rhode island had pointed out there is 80 decisions that fly under the radar because it's not a hot button issue. they are totally in favor of big business against labor and different environmental standards and different regulatory practices. all of this is impacting the country. i think that the court is really failing us. host: mitchell, you mentioned the epa. one of the cases the court is hearing today could offer an -- offer, the wall street journey -- journal rights, an early sign of whether the court's majority will continue refashioning federal law that they pursued last term.

they will be hearing articles on whether -- arguments on whether to curb the power to fight water pollution after the decision limiting the authority to combat greenhouse gas emissions. that was a long time supreme court reporter out of the wall street journal. this is george in virginia. you are next. high level of trust in the supreme court. guest: good morning. i support the supreme court. it's one of the three equal parts of government. it's probably the best part of government. people may disagree on the decisions. i disagreed some years ago when they said you can't pray in school. that's the way the system works. i think -- i am thankful we got a very good system. hopefully, we will get confidence in that. i would love to see confidence in the other two branches of government also. host: should the supreme court

be concerned about these polling numbers? the previous caller said we shouldn't be concerned. americans having the lowest level of confidence in the supreme court in the decades that the gallup organization has been polling. guest: that is probably accurate. i participate in the poll sometimes. it's probably an accurate measurement of how people feel. the way people feel -- if they feel that way, the measurement is correct. i think their emotions are more in how they feel today. there are certain cycles where acceptance will increase. host: thanks for calling from person bill -- person bill --p i

rcerville, virginia. last month, john roberts spoke about the legitimacy of the court. this is chief justice john roberts from september 9. >> the court has always decided controversial cases. the decisions are subject to intense criticism. and that is entirely appropriate. citizens feel free to criticize our opinions and how we do our work. lately, the criticism is phrased in terms of, because of these opinions, it questions -- there is questioning of the legitimacy of the court. i think it's a mistake to view those criticisms in that light. the legitimacy of the court rests on the fact that it satisfies the requirements of the statute and the constitution

needs, as john marshall put it, somebody to say what the law is. that is the cool -- goal of the supreme court. that doesn't change because disagree -- people disagree with the opinion or disagree with the jurisprudence. obviously, people can say what they want. they are free to criticize the supreme court. if they want to say it's legitimacy is in question, they are free to do so. i don't see the connection between rpms -- opinions that people agree with and the legitimacy of the court. if the court doesn't retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, i am not sure who would take up that mantle. you don't want the political branches telling you what the law is. you don't want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is. yes, all of our opinions are open to criticism. our members do a great job

criticizing sometimes. [laughter] simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court. host: chief justice john roberts, last month, speaking about the legitimacy of the court. he mentioned that sometimes, the court's own members do a good job of criticizing the court. this was an event, justice elena kagan spoke about the supreme court in the united states. here is what she had to say. >> there are some things the court does that protects the sphere of democracy. the first amendment is one of those things. ensuring that everybody has political speech opportunities. the 14th and 15th amendments ensuring that everybody has the voting rights that the constitution and congress has given to it.

in those areas, the court needs to operate in a way that will make the democratic system work. once the democratic system is sort of working and once the rules are in place to ensure the democratic system is working, then, usually, not always, but often, usually, the court can allow that system to operate. it shouldn't be too -- because the democratic system at has worked so as to produce outcomes that you would think given their prominence are themselves -- probably makes -- probably needs --provenance are legitimate.

sometimes, that is not the case. sometimes a piece of legislation transgresses constitutional boundary. then the court has to act. the court should think twice and then think twice again before doing so. in particular, the court shouldn't be wandering around inserting itself into every hot button issue in america. and it especially shouldn't be doing that in a way way that reflects one ideology or one set of political views over another. host: justice kagan last month at an event. speaking about the supreme court and we are talking about the supreme court on this opening day of the new term of the court, asking about your confidence level in the court. would you say it is high or do have some confidence in the court or would you say it is low or no confidence in the supreme

court? lines for all those answers. good morning. guest: thanks for taking my call. i do have some confidence in them but it is scary too. gerrymandering and that stuff, that was not there. trump lost the popular vote in both elections. 16 and the last one but i am worried about the abortion thing only because they are not letting you know how many people are dying because of that law now. i saw a man on tv, his wife had -- mom had eight months pregnant and she wasn't -- in trouble. at eight months she had trouble.

in order -- and set been able to induce labor, she died. these are medical problems. they need to be attended to. i am a little scared. i don't like it. the laws we had were good and they were working. we can't go in there with party. you have to go in there with no bias and do what the law says and uphold it. host: this is karen in alabama. high level of confidence. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a very high level of confidence because i feel like they are following the constitution constitution. -- constitution, which is what they are doing -- should be doing. that they overturned roe v. wade's they are following the constitution. that is their job. host: is there a case you are watching this term? one that has caught your attention? caller: no. i haven't looked. i definitely will. host: thanks for the call.

this is george and a columbia south carolina -- in columbia, south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for you, moderator. how long has the supreme court been in existence? host: it was created in the constitution, when the constitution was ratified. caller: that means we had slavery and the supreme court was there when that was going on? am i right? host: it existed when there was slavery in this country. yes, george. caller: i have no confidence in anything the supreme court does now. the whole thing is a lie -- especially after donald trump who, not a legally put three justices -- illegally, put three dresses -- justices on the supreme court. the people lied and said they wouldn't overturn roe v. wade,

but they lied. they should be impeached. if donald trump put them in there, he is a liar. you can't have a confidence in a lie. how can you do that? how can you have confidence in somebody with no integrity. host: that's george in south carolina. host: this is jim out of missouri. you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question for you. i know you eat, sleep, and breathe politics. here is my question and no one has been able to answer this for me. i am hoping you can give me insight on this and it deals with the executive order that joe biden did about this student forgiveness loans. there are states challenging that. i have a feeling it's going to work its way up to the supreme court. i have a feeling.

now, the question i have is if it goes to the supreme court, what happens to the executive order? does it just get put on hold? -- for a year or two until it works its way to the supreme court or do they go ahead and put that executive order in play and this money goes out for these students? if that is the case, how would d they get that money back? if they rule that it's ok for him to do that, does that set precedent for president to relieve an fha loan, mortgages, having other people pay for that. can you give me some insight into that. host: that would be a lot of legal steps down the road. you are certainly right, there are challenges in the works.

we will see what happens with everything that happens at the supreme court. you can see it on c-span. we have live coverage whenever arguments are happening. we will be showing that live streaming. you can go to c-span.org or watch it on our free c-span video app. the oral arguments, you will be able to hear them and we will show pictures of which justices are asking questions and making arguments before the justices. that is all available at c-span.org. we cover all of those oral arguments. we just talked to jim. we will talk to kevin in connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

it's a political court. in 2022, i wouldn't imagine seen women's rights taken away. i can't imagine this. all of these people in these red states, they lost the right to vote because they gave the power to the secretary of state. they've got no freedom whatsoever. they gave it all away. the court in florida with mar-a-lago, she is helping trump all the way through the courts now. it's all political. i fear that we are going to lose our social security. we are losing our democracy. that's all i have to say. host: this is lewis in brooklyn. what gives you some confidence?

caller: no confidence at all. it has become political. it has become religious fanatics with no facts. it has become a low grade establishment. people all over the world are realizing it. we need to have facts. religion, what about the other people? what about the truth, facts? host: that is lewis. we are asking for your comments over social media. it is facebook and twitter.

here are some of these comments: clarence thomas and his wife, the subject of several stories from today's papers. this is the washington times.

originalism will help guide justices in this new term. the times the colors for segment rights. and if you and roe v. wade. this on his wife, the column from the new york times:

the wife of justice clarence thomas. more on clearance thomas, this event from last year. this is on the influence of the courts and his colleagues, especially the influence scalia had on him. >> we had not met before i got to the court. we met and i think we found out that even though we were from very different backgrounds, we thought alike. we trusted each other. for more than a quarter of a century, we worked together without seeing each other all that much. he was really funny.

he would ask me to go hunting with him. he thought it was odd that someone from rural georgia would not go hunting. it's really odd that someone from urban new york and new jersey will go hunting. i said i left nothing in the woods. you expect me to risk snakebites , ticks, fleas, to kill some unassuming bird? no. he invited me to go to the kennedy center. he said, you like classical music. i sure do. he said, come to the kennedy center.

i don't like people who like classical music. it is different without him. he is the one person i truly miss. i have had wonderful colleagues there. host: justice clarence thomas from an event last year, speaking about his former colleague on the court antonin scalia it. it is opening day of the term of the supreme court. we are asking you this morning your level of confidence in that institution. is it height? is it low? we have lines for all of your answers. this is matt in missouri. what gives you some confidence?

caller: abortion is abortion, if you look at the worldwide stats, not many countries allow up to live birth abortion. the liberal media is what's ruining this topic. they are saying republicans just want to kill abortion. that's not true. lindsey graham proposed a 15 week band. most countries have a 20 week band. we are one of seven countries that have few or no limits. when you look at our company, the netherlands have some. some limits up to 24 weeks. after that, there has to be a reason. host: setting aside the abortion

issue, what gives you some confidence in the supreme court? caller: they are the final law. i didn't like the abortion rule 50 years ago. should i think it wasn't competent? that's what this is