term preview and then we talk about flood insurance programs and their role in recovering from hurricane and flood damage. you can join the conversation with your phone calls, texts, tweets and facebook messages. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ ♪ host: this is the washington journal for october 5. a series of questions about the supreme court. there is a question on if the court was out of touch with the values of most americans. most of those responding did indeed feel the court did not relate to everyday people. in the spirit of that poll for the next hour, tell us what you think about the highest court in the land and if it's out of touch with the american people.if you agree with that sentiment , call us and tell us why.

if you disagree, and if you want to text us your thoughts, do so. you can also post on our social media sites about your thoughts if the court is out of touch with americans. you can do that on facebook and twitter. you can also follow the show and instagram. that poll that came out in the latter part of september when asked about this idea of the court being in touch or out of touch from monmouth university. the pulse is 59% of those who responded said it was out of touch with the values and beliefs of most americans. only 34% said the supreme court was in touch with those values and beliefs and 6% of those did not know. there was also a poll asking a

similar question if they felt if the court was in touch with people when it comes to specific categories. when it came to access to abortion, 44 percent of those responding said the court was very out of touch with that sentiment and only 21% said somewhat out of touch and 20% said somewhat in touch and 16% said the court was very in touch with american people when it comes to the regulation of guns. 35% of those responding say the court is very out of touch with that idea. 45% said somewhat out of touch and 26% said somewhat in touch and 14% said very in touch. the numbers change a bit when you go to other categories like national security. only 23% of those responding saying the supreme court is out of touch with those ideas, 28 percent saying somewhat in touch and 36% of those responding

saying the court was somewhat in touch with national security. we will show you more of that poll when it comes to specifics. we want to hear if you think the supreme court is out of touch with the american people. give us a call and tell us why you agree or disagree. the supreme court is back hearing cases in the first week of october. one of those cases yesterday dealt with the topic of voting rights in the state of alabama. from the wall street journal --

that drew a response from the newest supreme court justice ketanji brown jackson. [video clip] the preconditions are designed to establish that there may actually be race discrimination working in this particular situation. as justice kagan pointed out, we have not just the initial hypothesis which, by the way is how i look at the first steps. i don't think the first step is creating some sort of comparative or or anything of the sort. the first step is a burden on the challenger to show that

their hypothesis that another district could be drawn come another minority -- majority district is feasible given the empirical members of the situation. if we accept that, that's step number one and it contains an assessment of things like racial segregation because you have to have enough of these people pushed in and compacted in this district. we already have the idea that there is some problem with racial segregation and housing. step two is asking, do we have a problem in the sense that people are voting in racially -- in a racially polarized way. step three is that kind of dynamic, do we have a situation where the majority group is always voting in the same way? these are things to establish and collectively, they show not just the situation we are approaching, we are talking about a situation in which race

is already infused the voting system. help me understand why you think the world of race blind redistricting is really the starting point in this situation? >> let's think about why you have this impact on the first place, is to make sure no one is being harmed. traditional principles are important. >> i don't think so, i think it's to show you have racial segregation in housing happening in the situation, that you have enough people who are in marginalized groups that another district is possible. it's happening because people are being segregated in effect as justice kagan pointed out. we are not talking about intent, we are talking about the effect of what is happening on the ground in these jurisdictions. host: the court decided it would

stream its oral arguments and you can always go to our website if you want to see some of the oral arguments from major cases debated just like that alabama redistricting case. you can go to www.c-span.org. monmouth university with this poll if the supreme court is out of touch with the people. 59% of those said the supreme court is out of touch with what they described as the values and beliefs of most americans, 34% say the court is in touch with those beliefs and 7% said they did not know. your id if the court is in touch are out of touch with the american people, call us or post on our social media sites or text us. we will start with and in lawrenceville, georgia. go ahead. caller: good morning, i think that the problem is and all these questions, which is never brought up, is the fact that 47%

of americans have a very low iq. there opinion is deserved but not necessarily a good outcome. it's because of their low iq. host: let's start with the idea as far as if you disagree if the court is out of touch with the american people. caller: they are following the constitution. they are not following what people want. they are following what they are supposed to give. let's take abortion for example. some states are going to outlaw abortion so states will have it. the latest thing they are trying to do is say this is an inconvenience to women and it will cost more money and all.

that's what they are looking for. you want me to pay for your mypillow? host: another person who disagrees with the idea the supreme court is out of touch is john in massachusetts on our disagree line. go ahead. caller: i don't think supreme court is out of touch with the people. i think we are going for a change as we should all the time step is years goes by, we change. if i look at the abortion issue, what we did in the 70's when the abortion law was changed and what we know now, i just see it as so much more information and what's happening with abortion

rights as it went to the point where people really started to get concerned about that stuff these people are very smart people on the court and they go by the constitution, not by the different issues. not everyone is going to agree with them but that doesn't mean they are out of touch. host: finish your thought. caller: i think with the gentleman just said, the last caller, i take it as a personal insult. if you take any kind of survey and worded -- and word it in a way that could change that a little bit so it will go wherever they want it to go. host: floyd is in jonesville, virginia and agrees with the idea that the work is out of touch. caller: i think they are doing a

good job. the president is out of touch. host: let's stick to the court, why do you think the court is out of touch. caller: abortion was murder and they change that so i think they are in touch. the biden administration is out of touch. host: is abortion the only reason you think the court is out of touch? caller: that's the main reason they are in touch. we've got to be in touch with god and we -- and if we are not in touch with him, we are plum out of touch. some of you responded on our facebook page this morning.

that's how you can communicate it -- with this if you want. it's on the idea that the work is out of touch. if you want to call in and disagree with whether they are out of touch were agree.

rick on our disagree line in florida, you are next. caller: good morning, i agree with the facebook comment that it is not their job to be in touch. they are there to interpret the constitution and it's been working for hundreds of years where if you don't like the law, you vote for people to change the law. it's not up to the supreme were to run a popularity contest. that's their only job. people need to wake up and let them do what the smart people are supposed to do. host: when it comes to the court over all, are there specific cases you look at to determine if they are out of touch or do you look at a wide scope of things? caller: roe v. wade is the big issue right now in the ruled way back when that they don't know when life begins and now they have determined what that is. host: that's rick in florida.

we hear from jennifer on our disagree line. caller: i disagree because the supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution. their job is not a popularity contest. how can the be out of touch? that's the politicians job, they are ruling whether or not the rule is -- the rule of law is in line with the constitution. host: that's jennifer in virginia. this is from twitter this morning --

if you want to reach us on twitter, it's @c-spanwj. you can also give us a call, from lee in california, disagree line. caller: i think is that i expect the supreme court to carry out the law as written step the problem we have is error congress right now is struggling to work together to create new laws. that's what we really need is for that to change versus the supreme court. host: are you saying -- the court as far as its job, you expect them to make these decisions, do they do this on a consistent basis? caller: i think they do it on a

pretty consistent basis and it changes when a new judge comes in. they all try to work together to interpret the constitution and the laws as written and if congress doesn't like a decision, they need to go and try to figure out what's the right way to write the law so it's more clear so the supreme court can judge on what they need to do. we vote them in to make the laws in congress. host: do you think society changes the actions of the port and the work should change as well? caller: i don't think the court can change how they judge and the supreme court is doing with the laws are written but i think as society changes, we vote

people in that work to what we want and they make laws to what we want. if we want abortion to be legal, that should be very clear in the constitution. if that's what the public really wants, we vote the people in that will make those laws. host: expressing her thoughts on the idea about the word being in or out of touch with the values of the american people. you can continue calling on the liner posting online stop the supreme court given a new task with former president donald trump who is expecting to ask about a case regarding documents at mar-a-lago, saying taking the case of the supreme court, president trump gets a chance to argue publicly that he's being

treated unfairly by the justice department and if he succeeds, if the high court agreed with president trump's lawyers, that was not the proper subject of an peel that's just a new twist when it comes to matters of the supreme court. they are reconvening this week and starting to hear cases and you can find those major cases on our website at www.c-span.org . the court gives audio and we take that and put niches with it but you can see who is addressing whom and you can follow along and listen to those

arguments. this is from arkansas, pat says he agrees with the idea of the court being out of touch. caller: thanks for taking my call. the way three of the justices got on the court lately is one of the reasons why i think they are out of touch. they been appointed by an extremist republican president who has broken a lot of norms in common ways the office of the president was conducted and these three justices that were lately pointed were mostly coming from the federalist society which is in extremist republican organization. with gorsuch and kavanaugh and amy can barrett being appointed, one of those appointments being taken away from president obama, indicates this is a court that is stacked in favor in societies

concept of originalism which is a bunk concept when we talk about the constitution. i want to throw up one example of why originalism is a false concept. one of these republicans are in agreement with american gun rights but there is no mention of firearms in the united states constitution. the second amendment guarantees americans right to bear arms. when that was written in the 18th century, most americans did not have firearms because they were not mass-produced. the bullets that firearms fired back then were not available. most americans had arms in the form of battle axes and hatchets and things like that. that's one of the reasons why i think the court is out of touch. the concept of originalism does not apply to americans. host: that'shost: kevin from arkansas. the poll asked bout the idea

being in touch are out of touch when it comes to gun regulations. in your own view, how in touch or out of touch is the supreme court with the needs of your generation and the issues on gun regulations? they said 45% of those said the court was out of touch on that, 22% say somewhat out of touch, 20 print saying somewhat in touch and 13% saying it was very in touch. the numbers change as the age brackets go up. that's from the morning consult poll. there are many other categories there as well if you want to take a look at that. on our disagree line, this is julian georgia.

caller: thank you for taking my call. it's not the function of the supreme court to be in touch with the people but in touch with the constitution. it is their function to determine whether or not error laws are in line with the constitution. popular opinion has absolutely nothing to do with their function. host: that's julian georgia. this is a similar sentiment from steven california who is texting us, saying the supreme court is a branch that supposed to interpret the constitution, it's not there job to be in touch with the public and some of you have already expressed that. one of the people commenting on the idea of being in touch or

out of touch is the author jill filopovic. she wrote this back in july at this the supreme court's decision on row saying of the nine justices sitting on the court, five were appointed by presidents due to popular vote most of if you want to read more of

that, that's from the guardian. the author of those at national review having a different take on the idea of the relevancy of the porch and looking at those issues. it was going back in time and released after the roe v. wade decision in june of this year.

this is from glenn in texas on our disagree line. caller: good morning. i have a comment on your poll situation. host: go ahead. caller: why is joe biden standing with the supreme court in that photograph? we need to clean the white house completely from top to bottom step that's the bigger pole and what the -- than what the supreme court is -- host: your calling on the idea that the court is out of touch with the american people, why is that? caller: they are not out of touch. they are more in touch now than they were 10 years of go. host: why is that? caller: the rulings they've come down with have helped the american people. host: how so? caller: they have helped the

american people, the people in the white house have not helped the american people not one bit. host: as far as the court is concerned, how specifically has the court helped people? caller: it's kept us free. we have not been subjected to white house communist rule. host: that's glenn in texas calling in and you can continue to do so. the case concerning alabama's election law with redistricting, if you go to our website, you can see more of the argument in one of the person arguing against the state of alabama was justice samuel alito. he talks about the idea of redistricting maps and how they are drawn stop here is part of that argument from yesterday. >> what the court said exactly was that there must be a sufficiently large, the minority

must be sufficiently large and compact in a reasonably configured district. it didn't say in a reasonably compact district. it said reasonably configured. would you agree that whether a district is configured takes into account whether it is compact but also whether it is the kind of district that in unbiased mapmaker would draw? >> section two is about intentions, it's about results and doesn't speak to intent so with respect to the biases, i'm not sure if that's relevant step the court has acknowledged that this takes into consideration compliance with traditional redistricting criteria and those criteria that the court has listed are compacted and

political subdivisions and the district court found on all of those that the plaintiff plans meet or beat alabama. >> even if the computer simulation the takes into account all of the traditional districting standards would almost never, in a millions simulations, would not produce a second majority/minority district, is this satisfied? >> that is not the case here. >> it's a hypothetical. if that were the case. would that requirement be satisfied? >> i'm not sure because the court said the plaintiffs are required to draw a different minority/majority district stop it would go to that maybe you cannot have a remedy that meets

jingles and you have the option of drawing a tailored district where race may be predominant. host: more of that argument available at the website at www.c-span.org. here is a text from south carolina.

you can add your opinion to the max. you can also text us this morning. if you agree with the idea that monmouth university in their poll takings -- takes a look at the court being out of touch with american values. in louisiana on our disagree line, high. caller: i just wanted to make comment that the court was built by harry reid and i think he was a democrat. host: he was the former speaker of the house. caller: didn't he do away with the filibuster or something so they get something done with supreme court? host: that was on the legislative side but what you think as far as the work itself being in touch with the american people. caller: i think they are pretty in touch with the times. a lot of things will be controversial, that's how we are. host: what do you mean they are

in touch with the times? caller: we are going through a lot of changes, the country is changing stuff it will be going through a lot of changes over the next several years and i'm sure the port will change also. host: do you think the opinions of the court should change as the country changes or is it their job to just interpret the constitution? caller: i think it has changed over time. a lot of things have changed over time and they will keep changing. host: that's brett in louisiana giving us a call. the insider poll in light of what it said about people being in or out of touch with the court also mentioned term limits and if that would change the situation most the question was

do you believe the following political offices should have term limits? that grows as the bracket changes. when you get 55-64, 50. -- 56% say definitely there should be term limits. this is from kirk in virginia who disagrees with the idea of the court being in touch. hello. caller: i disagree in the court got tipped in a conservative

direction because of ruth bader ginsburg's narcissism. if she had retired well into the obama term, democrats would've likely who they got it but she had a cult following and insisted on staying around and you have a conservative justice in there. host: you are saying you think the court is out of touch? caller: it's not out of touch, i think it's in touch with the country and the people who disagree here had a bad strategy. they turned ruth bader ginsburg into almost a god, venerated her and we are all mortal. if they had strict -- if she had stepped down in the obama administration, the court would not have moved a notch. host: how do you mean they are in touch with people.

caller: i think it's a conservative country in the left is gone too far in the court tempers that. you will see that in the elections in about five weeks. you saw big sweep to the right last year. host: that's kirk on our disagree line from maryland. and he agrees with the idea that the court is out of touch. caller: good morning, america. i totally agree that the court of late has definitely been out of touch. it's primarily because i believe the process of putting these laws in place is thanks to donald trump. he was the president at the time and was actually floating names of people he wanted to put on the court.

basically, they were selling the idea to put people on there and carry out things that they wanted to be in place. so much so that when barack obama had the chance of nominating a person for the court, the republicans locked it. they claimed they could not do that in election year. for whatever reason, they even gave the idea of the current attorney at the time, for him to be considered. fast forward when ruth bader ginsburg died, the same set of people that insisted there is no way they would let democrats put someone in place in election year. that alone write the air has poisoned the whole thing. we know all the candidates

donald trump has put in their, more likely than not, they will do things to favor donald trump so that has poisoned the waters and sadly, i don't see how that will change for a long time to come so the court is totally not in touch with the people at this point. host: you can give your thoughts and the remaining time. from our facebook page -- facebook is available and this is from judy. in the last year, the court

justices have engaged with the public on certain ideas. amy coney barrett was at the reagan public library and talked about the court and how it could possibly evolved even during her tenure. [video clip] >> i guess i would hope that in some ways it doesn't evolve too much. as i mentioned before, the court is a collegial place and i hope that doesn't change. members of the court are engaged even though we have different judicial philosophies and different conclusions, members of the or are all engaged in an earnest and sincere and serious effort to do their best by the constitution and the american people and i hope that doesn't change. the court is growing increasingly diverse including people from all walks of life and i hope that doesn't change.

the court is an institution that has inspired growing democracies and other parts of the world. llm students from other countries were always interested in the court and how the court in our country had gained respect. and how the political branches arrived by their decisions that the court has made in that tradition goes back to the beginning of the public and the leadership of john marshall and that has not changed. the court has maintained its position of respect in the country throughout its existence. at the end of the day, i would say i hope there were fewer things that changed about the court. host: a recent story about the court, the supreme court says it will not intervene in a lawsuit in which dominion voting systems

accuse the chief executive officer of breaking the election against donald trump. the high court did not say anything monday on the case. the former president's allies have been accused. that's another story about the supreme court. do you think the supreme court is in touch with the american people or not? from patrick in florida on our disagree line. caller: i disagree. i think the court is in touch with the american people. it's diverse in many ways both gender wise and color wise. i think it is bought on with the

american people. the only people it is not in conjunction with is the democratic national party. a lot of the mainstream media as well and this idea that it's not in touch is not in touch. it is in touch. for the first time, we have a conservative supreme port in a very long time. it's made a lot of people upset so that's what i feel. host: do you think it would be a different sentiment if the court was tilted another way? caller: there has been a progressive presence on the court for probably the last 30 years. all of a sudden, that switched and it overturned the apple card .

they don't like it and now there is this idea that they are not in touch with the american people which is the exact opposite of what it is. host: let's hear from john in liverpool, new york. caller: they are out of touch. they are making decisions that represent a minority viewpoint. by definition, you out of touch. it's all about abortion. you stack the court these people that have your viewpoint and if they agree with your viewpoint, if it doesn't rhyme with your opinion, it's not constitutional. everybody has their opinion of what's constitutional and what isn't. the dirtiest thing i have ever seen is the republicans dirty move to keep obama's pick of

merrick garland off the court. i'm 70 years old and i've never seen anything that dirty, republicans play dirty so the supreme court is doing what the republican party wants and that's why you stack court with people that feel the way you do and that's why elections have consequences. out of touch? absolutely out of touch. host: writing about the court --

larry north anna on our disagree line. caller: i think the supreme court is doing just fine.

people are getting the politics involved in this. what the supreme court is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. they are judging of things are constitutional. the other scenario is with the abortion scenario, it went back to the states. all these people are going nuts about they've taken away my rights. no, they said if the state wishes to have abortion scenarios, that is good and people keep talking about contraception. abortion was never meant to be a form of contraception. host: ok, let's go to pamela in indiana on our agree line. caller: good morning and thank you for having this topic.

i am an attorney and i am a hold by the supreme court. i was listening to npr this week where they had two law professors talking about this topic. it is maddening to go through all the arguments in the president to look at a case and in older and then have the supreme court decide on policies because that's what they are doing, policy decisions. the dobbs decision is just one abomination of so many others. there was no problem constitutionally with the right to privacy and they know that to be true. i live in a super majority state where i went to the statehouse twice in this issue. they send it to the rules committee so they could deny

women the right to choose. this supreme court is all political. i hate to say it. the composition is questionable because of trump's three picks in their deciding home policy, not on law, not on precedent. they don't care. the law professor said it's horrifying to go through the reasoning and at the end say it was a policy decision. a lifetime appointment is a terrible idea. host: that's pamela in indiana. writing for the new york post about the supreme court --

if you want to read more of that, that's in the new york post. if you were minutes with this topic, this is from richard in kentucky on the agree line. caller: apparently, i called on the lord -- on the wrong line, i grew -- i agree with the supreme court. the supreme court, if they go strictly by the constitution,

what we consider outdated like the right to their arms, like what the fbi is doing now, if the government come -- continues to come after people, we should have a right to save wait a minute, i'm going to protect myself, i don't like what joe biden is doing or i don't like what donald trump is doing and the department of justice or the military, i think we have a right to bear arms. the supreme court continue to follow the constitution. they sent the abortion rolls back to the states. right now, you can have an abortion in my state on demand anytime you want. there are several states that way. all this can change, all you have to do is make amendments to the constitution but all the democrats want to do is scream

bloody murder. take your rights back. host: richard in kentucky. next is there disagree line. caller: yes, i don't think there is much wrong with the court, they are doing fine. one of the best thing that's ever happened to this country was keeping merrick garland off the court most of look at the chaos he's causing right now. host: fayetteville, north carolina on the agree line. caller: good morning, america. i agree with the court being out of touch for the following reason. i saw the two supreme court justices say they would not touch the roe v. wade decision because it was already decided. they did not do that stuff they

told the american people they would let that lay. i hear about states rights and has a black person, i am very nervous when i hear about states rights because that the reason for the civil war started because they felt they had more sovereignty over the federal government. my final point is if they can overturn this, what about states saying we will turn over plessy vs ferguson which says of lack person -- which says a black person not born in the united states is not a citizen. seven years of slavery was written about that. i'm nervous when i hear about states rights and gerrymandering and i see all these men talking

about the supreme court doing well but they took away rights from females. i feel some kind of way. when yo take a right and take it back. host: the idea that the supreme work is in touch are out of touch with american values, you can pick the lines in the last few minutes of the program. this is from andy mcdonough from our facebook feed. if you want to continue posting on facebook, if you call during the show, you can post on

facebook. twitter is available as well. you can always go to our website at c-span.org if you are interested in the supreme court. we played some of the oral arguments this morning and what the justices had to say about these questions they have asked during the oral arguments. georgia is next and we will hear from leon. caller: hello, i profoundly understand the court is out of touch with what is right and what is moral. it seems like we have lost the center point of what is basically a right when it comes to people understanding that

there is injustice everywhere. we cannot be in touch with the moral fiber of what the constitution was basically of bout. we the people are order to form a more perfect union. that perfection, we are still striving for that but without the moral touch of what is right , what is considered a godly righteousness. right now, the court has taken the blindfold off and now what we are looking at is a political solution.

that points to the fact of the time injustice is nothing to do with the times. it is a point, a foundation. host: ok. let's hear from jay on the disagree line. caller: i think the court is doing what it's supposed to be doing and when i say that as an institution, i think court is supposed to keep a finger on the pulse of what the government wants to do. you got the executive branch, you got the judicial and the legislative. i think the founders wanted to slow down government. the swaying back and forth between the two, the other two

branches, this country would be all over the place. the constitution really is a living document. the court is supposed to interpret what the government is doing right now such as the executive branch over the legislative follows the rules of what the constitution set up for this country. replacement of these justices, that's where the court will get the idea of where the country is leaning. it has to follow constitutional law. that's what this country was founded on. the court is supposed to interpret the actions of the other branches to follow the constitution. that's what i have to say. host: let's hear from bill in south carolina. caller: how are you doing? i don't agree with folks and how

they are understanding what american history is. united states america is a philosophy. it is not with the government says. government is supposed to protect the rights of the individual. a living document is a document that is vulnerable to corruption because individuals can change the meaning of that document over time, decades and more. in this country, american history is not taught anymore in certain individuals have chosen to make sure that american history is not taught. the gentleman who just spoke made a mistake. there was a system american law in place before constitutional law but nobody likes that system because it explains american

history. american history explains to you what it is to be an american and what your rights are and what limitations are, what the laws are and how they are put together but no one teaches that. he go to any law school, they will tell you simply, nobody teaches american history anymore. our system of doing things no longer is the original system. the original system has been wiped out. host: let's go to brandon in ohio. caller: good morning. i agree the supreme court is out of touch and a couple of different ways. i'd disagree with the previous gentlemen that the constitution is supposed to be a living document. it supposed to reflect the times and have precedent to enforce their decisions.

i agree that it seems everything is been politicized and they are choosing which cases to hear and what not to hear when people escalate them to the supreme court. as a living document, it's not supposed to be a living document to represent the other branches of government, it's to represent the people. so it should be using precedent to reinforce their narrative but not always to reinforce the opinions of the executive or other branches. in order for it to be a living document, you have to base it on prior presidents because as you get older, you learn from the mistakes you made in the past. if there is a precedent towards some was a civil liberties, they need to be expressed and

supported by the court unless it is unconstitutional. in my opinion, the decision to overturn roe v. wade was not something that should have been turned back. host: one more call on this from north carolina. caller: i will make it quick. i don't think clarence thomas should be on supreme court because he was charged with sexual harassment years ago. i believe anita hill was telling the truth. brett kavanaugh was charged with multiple sexual assaults and should not be on the supreme court and then you've got barrett that came in their went route bader ginsburg had her funeral and they rushed her in their to take her place. host: as far as the court being out of touch -- caller: they are out of touch

because there are people oni fed wrong when he was not able to nominate someone because they said it was an election coming up but there was another election coming up when barrett was rushed in there. thank you and have a blessed day. host: finishing off this round of phones. thank you for all of you who participated. president biden traveling to florida today to survey damage in fort myers. you can follow along at our website at c-span.org. we will continue our conversation. two guests joining us what cases are expected to be heard and the results of those cases. john malcolm of the heritage foundation will join us as well as rakim brooks from the

alliance for justice. later on in the program as the president does travel to florida we will learn more about hurricane damage particularly what it means for those who hold flood insurance and what they might expect as they try to make their claims. tom franks joining us. those conversations and more coming up on "washington journal". ♪ >> the u.s. supreme court returns this week for a new term continuing with livestreamed dual arguments. new justice ketanji brown jackson and followed the years decisions which had policy implications. following the court at c-span.org/supreme court and a look back at some of the dust high-profile rulings.

some of the most significant cases in the nations history. the landmark cases podcast is available on the free c-span now app. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. south carolina republican tim scott talks about america a redemption story. and at 10:00 p.m. eastern missouri democratic congresswoman cori bush author of the forerunner discovers her life -- discusses her life. watch big tv every sunday on c-span2 and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch any time on book tv.org.

>> 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 ask what is your top priorities and why. make a five to six minute video that shows the importance of your issues from opposing and supporting perspectives. don't be afraid to take risks with your documentary. among the 100,000 in cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos but -- must be submitted by visit our website at january 2023. studentcam.org for rules, kits, resources and a step-by-step guide.

>> 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 are 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. >> now available in the c-span shop, the 2022 congressional directory. this compact spiral-bound book as 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 the qr code with your smartphone. every purchase helps support the

nonprofit and operation. "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion about the supreme court for the next hour. we are joined by john malcolm. now at the heritage foundation and also rakim brooks the president for alliance for justice could thank you for giving us your time. let's go with the eyes idea about the decisions of lester. mr. brooks, let's start with you. how do you think people perceive the court for decisions of last year and what does it mean going forward this term? >> it seems the supreme court is facing a legitimacy crisis and the recent its chief has commented on it. there israel concerned that the supreme court is outpacing american society.

you don't expect our court to be responsive to public opinion that means there is ultimately a bridge too far for the american public. we may see at this term. host: mr. malcolm? guest: judges are life tenured for a reason. it is another provision of the constitution. they not supposed to follow polls. there are a lot of provisions that sometimes the opinions the issue are correct but they are not popular. at least in certain segments of the population so the left has had its way with the supreme court for quite some time dating back to the warren court era and offer for the first time there is a subtle majority that are textual lists and originalists.

if i were in his position i would feel the same weight but the supreme court is there to follow and uphold our founding document, the constitution, not to win a popularity contest. host: do you think the people will look at the court differently how the court does? guest: most people are not lawyers. it tends to devolve done to did they like the result or didn't they like the result? i suppose that is understandable for most people. that are out in the public but it is very important to uphold what is in the constitution. there are many decisions that the public it's a make themselves through their elected representatives that are not decided by the court. now the supreme court has correctly said abortion is one of those issues. guest: i would make a response

which is of course we expect our judges to be independent that is a natural part of our constitutional system. i disagree, i think the american public expects to understand the decisions of the court. it was meant to be a public document for the people to understand and interpret. the people had been told that the decision about that a woman's right to choose was protected. in addition they have been told if we were going to change a major precedent this is how we do it. you have seen law professors across the country say they didn't really follow the factors and were concerned that we the public that the court was going to roll in a more conservative way. [indiscernible]

they have been republican appointed justices who have rolled and interpreted the constitution and suddenly we have radical departures and the chief justice made this point in the dobbs case. one of the things i both of and hate about john roberts is he has approached the constitutional reform that gets you every so often until he gets you where he is going and that is what is going to happen this fall. the chief justice has already signaled he has real opera henchmen -- apprehension to the 14th amendment the correct view of the 14th of movement so i think this fall he is ready to deal the deathblow. we are not concerned that things are moving to the right. we expect that. we lost the election. what we are concerned about is the court doesn't seem to be following the precedent set for itself. guest: i will tell you another

president, a foundational decision that lasted for over 50 years. that was plessy versus ferguson. that was an 8-1 supreme court opinion saying separate but equal. was the law of the land. it was an erroneous decision it was wrong the day it was decided you and i would both agree that think god that decision was overturned. the same with the case with roe and which the supreme court made up the constitutional right host:. our guests are with us for the hour. if you want to call and ask questions (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. a new slate of cases to be heard this year mr. malcolm, as far as the cases themselves what sticks out? what are you interested in hearing? guest: they still have only

decided to hear about half the cases over the course of the term. the racial preferences case students one against harvard and the other against university of north carolina. harvard is a private school university of north carolina is a public school. the reason why that is to significant is the 14th amendment applies to the public school the equal protection clause the private college, harvard, title vi of the civil rights act applies to them because they accept federal funds and if they accept federal funds they have to abide by the 14th amendment. the court is being asked to overturn the 2003 decision. i just reference plessy versus ferguson so in this case is appropriate said that the state

had a compelling interest in having a diverse student body and if they do this treat race as a holistic enterprise that would pass constitutional muster that is not what has happened. there are de facto beneficiaries. the primary people who have centered under the system have been asian americans. the center of plessy versus ferguson said at the time said our constitution neither knows or tolerates classes among the citizens. it was undermined in this decision and i believe the supreme court is going to overturn it. host: mr. brooks? guest: first to the plessy decision. they weren't in effect at the time. it wasn't yet a precedent. you and i agree on that.

all of the challenges, and consistent with president of course thurgood marshall, naacp. [indiscernible] host: move onto to the race cases. guest: one of the things that concern me of course our constitution is meant to be colorblind but what he meant by that was that it wasn't meant to subordinate blacks in the country. one of the striking things about our jurisprudence, affirmative action, we have moved away from a rationale that says how do we have education systems that remedy past discrimination and assures like are not subordinated? that was an interesting turn created by a republican president in order to try and

preserve what was there but thurgood marshall argued the burn case. they stated consistently that was the front decision but held onto it because it was the law of the land. sup the -- subsequently they proved to be workable. they were not necessarily wrong when decided. though i was not a fan of the decision it had been inconsistent with other precedents to date. so the supreme court is going to have to have a russian offer overruling it. when i say it's a public that expects to understand the decisions, to the extent we now have track stars on the supreme court that are willing -- winning the race. i disagree with 20 of what he does a think the public at large will continue to lose faith in the constitution and the court. guest: let's talk about the

reality on the ground. you are african-american and you scored 1100 or above on the psat. you receive a letter from harward -- harvard encouraging you to apply if you are white or asian you have to score 1350 and above to get the same letter. if you are asian american who has a 25% chance of getting into harvard college, your ours rise to 35% if you are white. they raise 75% if you are hispanic and 95% if you are black. if you are in the bottom 40% of applicants, and african-american in the bottom 40% has a higher chance of getting into harvard then and asian american in the top 20% of applicants. this is a quota system. by the way there are many white people who would have gotten into harvard would thrive at harvard and do perfectly well but there are many african-americans who are not

well prepared to go to harvard. they start out wanting to be doctors or in the s.t.e.m. careers and they end up not doing well because those are highly competitive. then they end up going into professions that are not as valuable and not what their desires were when they went to college. there are many of them out there who were well prepared. host: we will take calls. guest: interesting statistics i had on the 1600 scale of 1570i did not get into harvard. whether or not the letter was received is not the relevant question for the relevant question is whither or not the students were being admitted and are prepared to tackle the challenges and that happens in the context of the college environment whether you are able to keep up. brown university allowed me to

maximize my talent. i think the way that you frame the question is the wrong way to frame it because most asian americans according to polling support they support affirmative action but more than that there is no real evidence that asian americans who apply are being discriminated against at the individual agent applicant who would have otherwise gotten in. there are broad statistics that suggest that might be the case but there was no evidence process that it -- presented. guest: there is no question that if you did it on scores allowed in harvard college and i venture to say many universities there would be a lot more asian americans in those schools. host: let's get to some skulls -- calls per think for waiting, scott. caller: good morning, pager and guests. inc. you for taking my call. my first thought was the

constitutionality, the senate didn't advise and consent because an election year. i feel that has politicized the supreme court in an unprecedented way. also the senate that represents the american people, north dakota has two senators in california has two senators but when you look at the makeup of the american citizenry i don't believe the supreme court right now represents the majority of the american viewpoints. also, i think the original list thinking to the constitution has lots of flaws. here in kansas, we did have a vote on the abortion issue and it surprised a lot of the hard right kind of people that it didn't pass. in a way, it's unprecedented to

take a freedom away as well. those are some of my thoughts. i really appreciate c-span. i think it is the least biased media that i have found in a long time. thank you again for taking my call. host: thank you, scott. guest: i would say the caller is correct. it has been politicized. mitch mcconnell decided that merrick garland wouldn't receive even a hearing. at delta deathblow to the institution. maybe that would have been survived had hillary clinton had been elected but that wasn't the case. strange circumstance, mitch mcconnell was plain politics and he has been successful but the effect on the supreme court is that people view it less ms. legitimate. guest: i think the supreme court

confirmation process has been politicized since long before the 2016 election. i actually thinkroe has had a lot to do with that that's white a broom that abortion has dominated every hearing since it was issued in 1973. there is an overwhelming history that the supreme court justices, they are very important who gets the chairs there is an overwhelming history. they are of the same party, they are confirmation hearings and when if it election year there are no confirmation hearings if it's held by the opposite party the court set of white, it's too far balance, if merrick garland had gotten confirmed and if hillary clinton had won the election, she would have probably appointed somebody who was more progressive and younger

but if merrick garland were on the court and if she had gotten to replace anthony kennedy and ruth bader ginsburg and there were six democratic appointees nobody on the left would be saying things were out of whack. host: democrat line for michigan, henry. caller: good morning. there are exceedingly more white applicants to all colleges across this nation who are not intellectually suited for college. however, they are admitted because of legacy. but i do digress. the overall architecture of the constitution has ingrained in it to protect the rights of the minority. however, today, it is at the expense of the majority. if you are an african-american or a minority, your rights are

not protected by this court based on the voting rights decision that they made. if you are a minority and you have weapons which there is a minority in this country with the majority of weapons, your rights are protected. the same way with abortion. a minority of this country does not want abortion. they are not pro-life but they are intake choice. the majority of the country according to polls agree with the woman's right to choose. the majority's rates are being infringed upon by the minority time and time again. that is what keeps or makes this court, especially, out of touch with america. and the constitution has to have

a remedy for that because the constitution at the time it was written was written at a minority of the people in this country. white tacoma slave owning, males. guest: there is a lot to unpack their there are provisions that are counter majoritarian, the bill of rights i am sure the majority of people wish there were fewer rights for people who commit crimes we have an equal protection clause. i believe it is to protect minorities to make sure laws are applied to them the same way they are applied to people in the majority. in terms of the constitution, you know, the people to get to decide if the supreme court does

not over constitutional lies issues. they get to make decisions. the caller referred to the vote on abortion in kansas. that is why the constitution only covers certain explicit issues. there is also a mechanism to amend the constitution. difficult to do but it has been done 27 times before. host: mr. brooks? guest: one thing i think the color was trained to point to, --caller was just pointing to qatar gibran jackson was very active and pointed out the 14th and 15th amendments were conscious. it has been largely denied by the conservatives on the court. but i think it is part of the

history. she read from the record. i don't think anyone would deny that the radical republicans were concerned about the state of the southern states at the time. see that the institution is colorblind. ignoring the history behind the 14th and 15th amendment. so how is the public went to receive the court in the constitution if it hears just tunzi brown jackson if -- quote from the history and here is the court ruled -- ruling against or further stripping the protections provided? the court does not think legitimate and true to the history of the constitution or is it to understand that the process has become so politicized that we have several justices who are willing to ignore the history or view the

constitution which is inconsistent with the public view of the constitution. it wants to move away from race conscious public policy toward something they consider to be race neutral. guest: i think we should try to turn away from race conscious. by the way merrill versus mulligan it's a voting rights act case and whether or not the alabama map had one violated section two of the voting rights act. i would note that alabama has drawn the district for over a decade the plan was approved by the justice department. the voting rights act has several different factors. one of the factors says if the rates -- a predominant factor in

the drawing of the map and that the court throughout the legislators map to create a second black district did exactly that it broke up contiguous districts and broke up voting patterns because it wanted to have race as the predominant factor and that violates section two of the voting rights act and that is why alabama will win the case. guest: every case the court hears is a constitutional case. in fact based on the 14th amendment and the concerns about constitutional rights. making the argument that the constitution is race neutral as a way of undermining the voting rights act. so again this court is taking a radical view. the party that appointed them the radical republicans were the ones that argued in order to protect you had to have race conscious policy if you look at the document, there are so many

instances in which congress of that time was passing policies in order to ensure that black people were medically included. justice roberts said we will look at the history as a consequence the voting rights act no longer serves the purposes that it used to. you should make the argument but of course it's not a constitutional argument. guest: that's not what chief justice said what he said was the preclearance formula that congress was utilizing and requiring states to have to get approval for every change in their voting logs, only certain states have that. it was based on data used for, five decades old. the country has advanced from them. you have black swimming, and we think god we don't have a race conscious society as we did in the 1950's.

with respect to the 14th moment there was nothing in the history or traditions of the 14th amendment that was meant to say we went from having a white dominated society to not having them on the scale for minorities. guest: there is another election coming up. host: let's hear from robert in petersburg, virginia. caller: yes, how are you doing this question -- morning? i would like to hear somebody say that we need to have a 10 year limit on the supreme court justices because we shouldn't have, the people in this country shouldn't have to spend a lifetime with everything going one way. i compare them to the majority and they don't care but donald trump and the people that run the country, they get their way.

thank you. guest: i disagree with this characterization. look, if you want to have term limits there are a couple of scholars out there that thinks you can do that. but the constitution says the federal judges serve during good behavior. i believe the majority of scholars agree that does give them life tenure say you have to amend the constitution in order to do that. once again people on the left will be upset that clarence thomas is still there but if it was ruth bader ginsburg there were perfectly happy having her there. if it ain't broke don't fix it. all of these whether it's court packing, jurisdiction stripping, an attempt by the two political branches of government the one

branch of government that is not supposed to pay attention to polls and is supposed to be independent. it's a threat to the independence. guest: we should have just consensus decision-making. the time the public is the happiest as when both branches have 9-0 decisions, 8-2 -- 8-1 decisions. if you have consensus decision-making regardless of their political party you might actually end up with greater confidence in the court over all. some of the happiest times for me, it was a delightful time. he was arguing about anything because he had to compromise with the other and if we have to talk about how it has been driven of our policy you can hear just the consternation with look at what we have done to the

voting rights act over and over again. so justice could tunzi brown jackson and sotomayor came to see the writing on the wall. that is a terrible thing to hear that in the justices voice. guest: i think compromise is supposed to take place in that building right behind you which is the capital. i believe they all do it as they see it with fidelity and that is more important than compromise. host: mr. brooks can you give us a breakdown of what to expect? guest: we don't know what to expect that we have some signals from the more conservative conservatives. we are considering the independent state legislature. the idea that over -- supreme court can overrule legislature with regards to federal elections, allegedly based in

the constitution. isl is quite like another -- this seems to operate a devastating blow. imagine that you're a state legislature that decides who gets to choose who the electors go to end the presidential election regardless of the outcome of a popular state vote. the state supreme court said that doesn't make any sense we have a popular election, the people of that state decided that the president was donald trump. and now we have a democratic state that legislature is that we can't stomach that. and under this theory the court, headed in the direction it seems to be going that would be the case. the electors would go for the other candidate that wasn't donald trump and the state supreme court would have no role in it.

that is a false scenario for a very simple reason which is it has to do with the election rules in place at the time of voting. counting the vote and delegating the electors. it is not a legislative function so it would be up to the governors. this is no supposedly based in the constitution. it states the manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed by the legislature. at the constitutional convention in 1787 originally the provision was that the states shall do this that was changed to the state legislatures and it is not so that people don't have any recourse whatsoever if they don't like with the late -- state legislator is doing. the election clause continues and says that the congress may

call such regulations except in places of choosing senators. it is just saying the executive branch officials, judges cannot change election laws adopted by the legislature. for that you need to persuade them to adopt the changes themselves or -- >> we both know this is a new and novel theory. it certainly is the case that there is no case law reporting this theory other than current wish vicor. her out of her history state legislatures made laws describing the manner in which congressional elections are to be held. state supreme courts have interpreted those laws throughout our history. as since we are moving towards a place where courts have no role to play in the manner in which federal elections take place that is in our departure.

as never been a case on this prior to this one. i found this in the constitution that we are to interrogate in 2000, many years it had never been raised before. guest: two quick things to stay in response to that we never saw anything like the 2020 election. were using the pandemic was an excuse. you had a lot of judges changing laws that the state legislators had adopted. i'm not questioning the outcome of the election but the way the election was conducted involved a lot of last-minute court changes and if you want to talk about a creative theory was done by the north carolina supreme court the north carolina constitution was adopted in 1776 that a -- document has been around for 246 years.

justice said after 246 years we decided gerrymandering violates the state constitution. that is a made up very. guest: i can quickly say north carolina found itself in that position because a supreme court decided it will not weigh in on gerrymandering. they basically said it will be left to the state supreme court. [indiscernible] host: in washington, republican line. caller: no, democratic line. i want to say affirmative action is needed. i'm going to give you a quick, because when it comes to funding and when you talk about the asians score this high in the plate -- plexus corp. the slow, my daughter she wasn't good in high school where you know, she didn't do too good in high school but when my baby got to college and she got straight

a's. so when it comes to testing she dated -- got nothing but a's. when you limit our guests to -- children to test on the you are not getting a full circle of who they are because these tests are not made, they are not prepared with black kids in mind. my sin, he goes to an elementary school and they had a test with questions. kids don't know what i cover is because they didn't use that language. they ask what is this a train a plane or a car? was kids set a car. because they don't know how fast an airplane is. compared to white household or an agent household depending on the type of language that is used in the household. so affirmative action is needed.

and also, when it comes to -- host: let's hold you there guest: for a minute. guest:i'm glad that her daughter did well. i don't think there's any question there are some people who will be given an opportunity as a result of affirmative action and they will rise to the occasion and do well. host: guest: mr. brooks? guest:i'll go back to the earlier conversation whether students are performing well and whether or not admissions policy is a policy question but with regard to the law. currently the supreme court has said yes it has said yes for nearly 50 years just like roe and it would be a radical departure. this other case if we want multifactor admissions. offering him multifactor test for now to say will that's unconstitutional even though there has been no transgressions

as it was laid out by the court. we are seem to be out of step with lunch as the public but with the public understands to be a legal reasoning at the time. every case don't of these was wrong prior to that. but the course is laid out what is the relevant test with regard to the race in admissions. as opposed to beginning roller back or say for instance here is something we didn't need the last time is just not the way our law proceeds. guest: in that case, sandra day o'connor herbert the majority opinion said we expect 25 years from now the use for facial presences will not be necessary 25 years in 2020. so we are focusing on that time. you know, i think it is always

the right time to correct a constitutional injustice that is our founding document. host: two minutes remaining working boxes the president for alliance for justice what is that? guest: we have been in business since 1979. host: up against is john malcolm former deputy assistant and attorney general the bush initiation and also with the heritage foundation, institute -- guest: it is the most confident think take in the country so we put out policy paper, the media. people can go to to heritage.org and check out any area. let's hear from paul in new york city independent line. caller: host: host: and hear me? you're on go ahead. caller: first of all i think

part of the problem would be the politicized station -- politicizing the supreme court. the legal system, everything. so whether it's immigration policies or health coverage galatians almost immediately if the government tried to lower the payment to hospitals for the american hospital association will sue and it goes through a domestic -- tremendous litigation process. part of the problem is these two men seem very intelligent but they seem like they are of and i think the problem is the idea that everything can be resolved through a legal process. the problem for society, it just becomes overwhelming the fact

that they are very serious. mr. brooks talking about whether he went to harvard or brown, again i'm sure it's a big issue to him but for the vast majority of people and the impact in there for lives it's much more serious it is much more fundamental. more opportunity for people to -- just generically speaking but the problem with the whole discussion i guess is that he is focused on somehow the supreme court or just the whole legal process is all issues in this country. host: we will go there, mr. brooks? guest: maybe i should shut up so you feel a little bit better. court -- guest: we infect are continuing to use the court

process to vindicate our rights because we acknowledged that we have rights under the constitution and recognize them in the declaration. i grew up in public housing so education is externally important to me. i was responding to john's put about hidden not getting into harvard. guest: i guess when i was listening to the caller first we must go all the lawyers. my we are very litigious society. we all talk about the lawyer business so when you try. i think the supreme court has constitutionalize of a lot of issues that should be resolved in the political process and there is no question that we are also highly overregulated and every one of those regulations can lead to loss.

it certainly can be used to vindicate rates but that is a very important use of the court but the caller is also right that we have a varied litigious society. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i was sitting here listening and watching everything that you guys are doing have a simple question. during the civil war, the south lost the war. what happened when they turned over to those folks to write the laws that will government people and of course those guys were out there looking for their own benefits how could they be the one that decides what we are going to be doing 100 years from now? all these can utter it, are you

aware the confederates were the ones that took everything we are talking about now? host: what is question to our callers? caller: how could the united states at this time we had a war, the south lost. they should have had somebody from the north new what we are looking at right now. guest: a lot to that history. it wouldn't have been ratified unless they had been admitted you know there was a certain feeling of we fought this hardly plays several or to have a union and there has to be a way to bring people back into the union. it was a messy process to be sure and a lot of it involved policy and from jensen --

johnson being the center abraham lincoln was shot there was the election of rutherford b hayes where he promised public and senators supported him in the electoral college. guest: the supreme part contributed to that process i cutting away some of the force of the 14th amendment. basically doing away with the force of the privileges and immunity clause. it is a very messy history and i am not one decision -- that we found the secret sauce to get it right. host: mr. brooks? guest: i think with the caller was trying to evoke with the idea that after the civil war, the south had lost and that meant its constitutional theory had lost.

the radical republicans and abraham lincoln assured those theories would not find their way back into our constitution. i think what we are debating over today is whether or not the theories are beginning to make their way back in. justice roberts refers to the equal sovereignty of states. what is that about? it's about the fact that you don't feel diminished after the civil war and civil rights act and the voting rights act of the 1960's. we are to return to the original understanding of the constitution since eight -- 1787 . so to john's point have the states been admitted to the union they would not have been passed. that has to bear on the understanding we have. they fundamentally change the nature of americans a tidy race

was blessed -- rest -- least relevant. if we believe we have achieved that and we consult looking at society t -- quickly. >> they became citizens, so it overturned the dred scott case were you receive equal protection of the law and the law of those laws within applied to states so states had their 70 by design but we have state legislatures, governors, they have electoral college, they get to choose their senators and i do think it is important that our federal government respects too often they do not and chief justice robert says congress if you want to have this measure of forcing states to have to get the approval of the justice

department when they want to change and use the current data thankfully we do not live in that era anymore. host: let's hear from randall in louisiana. caller: hello, can you hear me? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i have been a traveler for 41 years and i have never been great in constitutional law but i can say anything that comes out of the heritage foundation is destroying this country and has been for any years. guest: sorry i feel that way. host: the court said to hear this term killing with lgbtq issues. mr. brooks set that up for us. guest: this is a follow along case to a masterpiece that came out from colorado the idea is

basically you have an independent business owner who is being regulated by a regime and says to the business owner if you are going to provide your service is the one person you have to prove very masterpiece. and to be creative we have two proprietors. guest: that is an accurate portrait of what the case is about. she wants to expand her business to design websites for weddings but her religious beliefs says that she can't to this. she will develop a website for customers all day long except for that. he would not take a custom tape for that one occasion.

jack, the antidiscrimination laws which as a subject phillips, this violates my rates to exercise our provision which is in this first amendment. the supreme court. and dodge that issue. he was entitled to a hearing before an unbiased tribunal but lori smith wants to be able to appropriately exercise and of course we are not going to consider this case on back on but we will consider it on free-speech grounds. she is both being compelled or so she argues to express her passive support of this union by deciding a website for it. and she would like to put a statement on her website saying why she doesn't believe her with allows her to do this and she is being stopped from that and she is arguing that this violates her free-speech rights. and prevents her from exercising her right to free speech that is

the case the court will consider. host: we have decided this in our society. there were people with healthfully -- long-held beliefs. the court decided no you are going to have to serve everyone so the question here that we are revisiting is somehow our lgbtq couples, couples who try to get married are different and is going to be heard for the court to find a way around that other than to say for some reason gay marriage or interracial marriage and i don't know how they come around of that. guest: one is that the equal protection of the law is preventing race description you have the civil rights act, and you have the 14th moment this is not a constitutional right this is a civil right and with colorado arguing that the gay couples civil rights ought to

trump lori smith constitutional right. the other big difference, thankfully we do not live in this era it was back in the 1950's you would have black people who pretrip hundreds of miles throughout the south they could not get any uber or restaurants. and they could not stay in any hotels because rent to our civil rights laws. here there are within a matter of blocks graphic designers and fake shops ready to design websites and bake cupcakes so we are not in the same situation. guest: it is guest: a constitutional right. guest:the state has to recognize that but that does not mean the state has to recognize it. but again it is in every exercise. host: from ohio this is mike,

hello? caller: yes, good morning. i am independent but i am also a poll worker the sb which party do a favor, i had to be honest i am very much a southerner so i said democrat. anytime i did any pull had the utmost respect for every poll worker. i don't -- they are the salt of the earth is solar as i am concerned. i am 58 of will be 60 in just a few weeks. i am sending out the self of the last time also i am a retired teacher and coach. as a coach i never accuse them of being of the rent before the game started. my kids are saying coach what is wrong with you?

right now, we have a party. i can't -- >> barbara in massachusetts, hi. caller: i'm calling to offer an idea for a new series for c-span to bring to us as a follow on to the landmark supreme court cases my idea is for you to create something tentatively calling bosco for dummies and my idea is the three year curriculum of law schools be looked at by a crip of dean's and have them rank the courses in the most important. so i assume constitutional law

is the most important but then there is first amendment law idea is that we would get small groups of experts to interview and each of these areas for constitutional law you might get lawrence tribe and barack obama and judge michael ludi together to be interviewed by one of your brilliant interviewers than for environmental law you get al gore and jenna maccarthy who else we all know then we get the people we have gotten to know while like on cnn laura coates is just or incredibly articulate and so are some of these experts on msnbc every night. so the idea would be to educate the public on the law, the system of the law because arbor life has now become so centered around legality and cause and

this could be fantastic because i have one more idea for the entire planet because all of the democracies follow our way of doing things. host: thank you for the suggestion we do appreciate it. [indiscernible] guest: i'm going to give you two sources one, we have our heritage guide to the constitution which literally gets there is edited as possible and the constitution sector you can go to their website and they will have again with respect to most, not all, they will have somebody on the left, and they will talk about their areas of agreement. that's on his of what you're looking for but it is a start. caller: the constitution was meant to be a common document so

the caller should jewelry -- free to read it. >> this is the longest existing written constitution in the world it is also one of the shortest. one more thing to talk about before we go immigration. talking immigration law. >> not only major area of expertise but i guess it's texas versus biden i'm not sure but that we can in texas are challenging the 2021 referendum in which he is saying they are going to prioritize three categories of people suspected terrorists, people who have committed serious crimes and people who are caught and arrested living in opal a number of states including texas and

louisiana have said this violates emigration and chanel he act also this did not go through the adequate notes and comment procedure nor does it take into effect or account the accounts that could act. no idea how that will come out. caller: -- guest: it seems to be a pretty -- prosecutorial description. obviously -- it enforcing the law of the land, we will focus on the most dangerous people and ensure they are deported first, not to parole other people in the country but they will be our first priority and they will breech the matter with others who have the legally crusted to the contrary. -- who have illegally crusted to the contrary.

i am not sure why the court is taking this on except to respond to the cries of republican governors. >> there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion but you still up to take care the laws will be faithfully executed. congress has had various parameters around that discretion under the immigration and nationality act, and the administration does have to follow that law. host: rakim brooks is president of alliance for justice. john malcolm with the heritage foundation, former deputy assistant attorney general in the bush administration. thanks for the conversation today. later on we will take a look at how insurance companies are faring in florida, particularly after hurricane ian. we will have the discussion with tom frank, but first we will go to open forum comment if you want to participate, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202)

748-8000 for democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls in open forum when washington journal continues. >> c-span's campaign 2022 coverage of the midterm elections continues in october with live debates on c-span, including the arizona senate debate between senator mark kelly and challengers blake masters -- friday at 8:00, from wisconsin, ron johnson debates democratic challenger mandela barnes. georgia congresswoman marjorie taylor greene and her democratic challenger debate on october 16. on october 17, brian kemp takes on political activist stacey abrams. do not miss a single election moment on c-span and take us with you on the go with c-span

now, our free mobile app. also visit c-span.org/campaign2022, your website for all election coverage on demand. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> if you're enjoying book tv, then sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive a schedule of upcoming programs, book festivals, and more. book tv, every sunday on c-span two. television for serious readers. >> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase

help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book dbas podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: if you want to text us you can do so at (202) 748-8003. president biden heads to florida later today to survey hurricane damage. you can follow along on our website, c-span.org, also on our app. it was yesterday at the white

house press briefing where the press secretary was asked if the president's trip is going to include conversations with governor desantis about him it sending migrants to other parts of the united states. >> the president laid out his concerns and outrage about the political stunt and the fact that people were misled. you have heard me talk about this, you have heard the president talk about this and how they were misled and thrown across the country with all kinds of promises that were not true. there will be plenty of time to discuss differences between the president and the governor but now was not the time. as you have heard from the president, he has said when it comes to making sure the people of florida have what they need, especially after hurricane ian, we are working as one. that is what the president is going to be doing when he is there in florida. he is going to be listening to

the people who live there who have lost so much. he'll be talking to the respondents on the ground who have done tremendous work. the fema administrator will be traveling with him and governor desantis and president biden come as they have done leading up to this day as florida has been dealing with his hurricane, they will talk about what else are the needs in florida to get to a place of recovery, to get to a place of rebuilding. host: that is yesterday. if you want to see that whole white house exchange good or website at c-span.org or our app at c-span now and follow along as the president visits florida. the debt of the united states rising, this is from upi, saying america's borrowing put the national debt over $31 trillion for the first time ever amid

fears of a possible recession. the public debt closed at $31.1 trillion on monday according to the treasury department. the milestone comes as the federal reserve continues to hike interest rates to fight the highest inflation in 40 years. upi reports the united states borrowed more in the last decade than any other time. when barack obama took office the debt stood at $10.6 trillion, it was 19 point $9 trillion when trump took office, and grew to $20 trillion when mr. biden took office four years later. mississippi, republican line, go ahead. caller: i want to talk about equal justice under the law. a few weeks ago it was told that the people who had actually biden's diary took it home with them was charged with digging

stolen property across state lines and were sentenced to three years in prison. how come the people from january 6 have not had a trial that fast? also joe biden talks about trump inciting january 6. is he going to be investigating and charged with inciting the man who killed the 18-year-old republican with his car? host: we will go to ron in new jersey. democrats line. caller: good morning america, my beautiful country. as president reagan taught us, we are the apple of the world side. god loves this country. we are his diamond for the world. i believe, and i'm just saying this because i love everybody, that god is mad with america. he took his finger, he stuck it

in that pacific ocean, and sent that hurricane to florida for desantis for the way we are treating the immigrants in this country. host: who told you that? caller: god. it is common sense. why would he go to florida? look what governor desantis did to these people. we have to stop this. these people come here because they can walk here. they are running from all these people that fox news chases. 80% of their coverage is chasing immigrants. host: we will go to texas, independent line. caller: what i wanted to discuss was three different things. i think the supreme court get some things wrong in that some

things involve the entire states of the u.s. in other words, a woman's right to choose should not be determined by one state versus another state. texas has one, california has another. i move from one state to another and my rights change. something like that or other things that are similar should be the same law across the entire united states. my second thing is that i think judge clarence thomas should recuse himself because he has a wife and he has to know she belongs to some of these organizations. i think the supreme court justices should have the same ethics violations as other federal judges. why not? they should be not above the law.

third, alito, his religion, he talked in front of a catholic something and his religion is what formed his basis for the decision on roe v. wade because he is a catholic and does not believe -- babies. he is pro-life. i am sorry, i am very nervous. those are my views and i have a lot of other views. i definitely like c-span. thank you. host: we will hear from betty in fort worth. democrats line. caller: i am a 92-year-old black woman in texas. in order to vote when i first voted i had to pay to vote. that was not fair. that is what everybody in texas had to do and they knew that

black people being poor cannot afford to pay to vote. the second thing i want to say is about roe v. wade. women were having abortions, many of them died, but they still kept having them. i predict that is what is going to happen again. thirdly, i happen to know that there are some white people who have the test scores to get into any college they want to. i think there was a group of people who got their children into special schools because they were rich, because they could afford to get their

children in the schools they like. host: that is betty in texas. reaction from republican camps concerning the news out of yesterday concerning the georgia senate race and herschel walker. axios reporting former president trump and other influential republicans tuesday pledged support for herschel walker after that report alleged he -- the candidate paid for an abortion. the former president says herschel walker is being slandered by the media and democrats, adding "herschel has denied the charges against him and i have no doubt he is correct. " also a report from the republican national committee chairman saying the report is to distract from raphael warnock's record, failure resulting in

rising costs and out-of-control crime, adding herschel walker will deliver a safer and more prosperous georgia and the rnc will continue to invest in the senate race. if you go to the website 538 if you look at the various races, they are declaring the georgia senate race a tossup as it currently stands. you can see some of their analysis there. looking at other senate races, this is yahoo! news reporting holding on to at least one of the gop held seats in wisconsin and pennsylvania, ideally both, is critical for the party. republican senator ron johnson and pennsylvania senate candidate oz began with poor favorability leadings. they add in the last month that has shifted. strategist for both parties

label tv shows labeling democrats soft on crime as a factor. in columbia, maryland, we will hear from bill. caller: good morning. you begin the segment talking about the national debt. that is at the top of my concern list. a week or so ago i looked up the numbers for 2021. we always talk about the debt and the spending but we do not talk about the revenue. when you look at the revenue, it puts things in perspective and you see how serious we are in trouble as far as we are essentially bankrupt. the revenue in 2021 was four $.05 trillion. in order to make it comprehensible i like to subtract.

we spent $6.82 trillion, which means if you subtract eight zeros that would bring you to $68,200, which means we spent 27,700 more, we borrowed 2.7 7 trillion in 2021. if you look at the national debt at $31 trillion, that would be the equivalent to $310,000. if you look at the unfunded liabilities, which are estimated the structural debt -- the structural spending we cannot get away from with social security and medicare, it is estimated to be $150 trillion, which would be $1.5 million. explained to me how you would feel if you had a $40,000 income , you owed $310,000 in debt, and

you had promissory notes for $1.5 million. host: that is built in columbia. more spending when it comes to the november elections. this is the new york times thing the house majority back to the spending group late to nancy pelosi raised more than $46 million in september, $55 million since july. the pac household in 134 million dollars so far this campaign season. according to a representative for the group that is ahead of its pace in 2020. the pac's republican counterpart has not yet released its campaign finance reports for the third quarter. on monday the fund announced it was reserving $14 million in television advertising bringing the total for the election cycle to $190 million. if you want to talk about the november elections and make it

part of this open forum, you are welcome to do so. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. gregory in chicago, republican line. caller: are you doing? a couple of issues. for any politician that claims to be in washington and having our best interest at heart, they are lawmakers, they are not above the law. they should have gone through the process of every individual that has to go with it. number two, donald trump. he should be locked up right now while his case is still pending.

he should be in jail while he is going through this court process. he should be charged with rico. they should all go down for that. for a politician to claim they are honest. there should be no politician in any political office that is not trying to help people. host: that is gregory in chicago. cnbc reporting the president and the vice president yesterday highlighting the republicans pushed rollback access to abortion. the remarks on tuesday, 100 days since the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. the president highlighting new efforts the administration is making when it comes to abortion. here is part of the president statement from yesterday. >> i signed two orders and my

administration has taken a number of actions that this task forces charged to carried out. protect access to reproductive health care, including emergency medical care. protect a woman's right to travel to get health care she needs, receive health care three of discrimination and protect her privacy. we are fighting this battle in the courts as well. i want to thank the vice president and the secretary for their leadership on this task force. i also want to thank secretary mcdonough for leading the important effort at the d.a.. my response for folks across the country who are worried is that we have your back, we are not going to step back from this. second, we have heard your voices. host: more on the website if you want to see it. the president traveling to

florida later today to survey hurricane damage. you can follow along on the pp or the website. the washington times highlights that the administration's goal when it comes to abortion. writing democrats hope -- as the first woman to serve as vice president she is a clear leader to tackle the issue. she is crisscrossing the country to discuss reproductive health care. she will travel to connecticut on wednesday to discuss abortion access. this weekend she will travel to austin, texas to meet with reproductive rights advocates and head of a reception for texas democrats. danny is next. caller: you probably do not like to talk about the border but they do not have any problem with former president trump

[indiscernible] host: that is danny. a couple of stories dealing with economic matters. the headline gas prices rising again, the white house -- they write the renewed attention on the cost of fuel comes as gas prices have jumped in recent days by as much as 67 per gallon. the political challenge for democrats. a decline in prices help to improve their prospects, during which control of congress and several governorships are at stake, but for now prices are rebounding and the tolls the administration has for curbing them are limited. the most potent policy option is emergency authority to limit exports to other nations, a strategy that would be targeted to boosting inventory of homes and destabilize global markets and exacerbate the energy crunch.

that is the washington times. the wall street journal reported in the group known as opec plus meeting today to discuss issues over oil prices and oil caps, saying russia and saudi arabia, the two biggest palouse -- the two biggest producers in the group known as opec plus -- saudi officials have told other countries they want to put 1.5 million barrels a day, the biggest reduction since 2020. after searching above $100 a barrel in the first six months of the year over russia's invasion of ukraine, oil prices fell 32% over the past four months on global economic worries with your national benchmark of brent crude falling for the first time since january. that is in the wall street journal. president biden heads to florida survey hurricane damage. our next guest talks about that trip as well as what those with

flood insurance in the state are facing. thomas frank joins us for that conversation when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 12:30 on the presidency, the director of the george washington national masonic memorial talks about george washington's involvement with freemasonry and its influence on his life and work. at 4:45, cast members of the world war ii miniseries band of brothers reflect on the historical and cultural significance of the show two decades after it aired.

watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. listening to programs on c-span through radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 eastern. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day and weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 eastern. catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. c-span. powered by cable. book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction book. at noon, tim scott talks about

his book america: a redemption story, on his life, political career, and on america's future. on afterwards, cori bush, author of the forerunner, discusses her life and advocacy work and is interviewed by danielle feldman. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find the full schedule on our program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us is thomas frank who reports a bit on disaster related topics. thanks for giving us your time. as far as a floridian is concerned, what they face in those damaged areas where they try to get financial help with their property? guest: the short answer is they

face a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of red tape. the big question for people in florida affected by ian was was the damage to your house affected by flooding or wind? that is an important question because the standard homeowners policy does not cover flood. if you do not have flood insurance, and people have to buy flood insurance separately, then you are hoping if some adjuster says it is wind and we will cover it, but adjusters are not paid to say we will cover it , they are paid to say we will not cover it. what is really going to happen is judges are guard to look at properties in trying to determine the cost of the damage and to what extent it is covered by insurance. sadly what is going to happen is because nationwide a small number of people have flood insurance, a lot of people are going to find out that their

property was damaged by flood, and they are not insured for that kind of damage. the alternative at that point, loans from the small business administration, low interest, and private sector loans. host: president biden heads there today. he declares certain areas of the state disaster areas. does that help in mitigating costs people will face? host: just a tiny bit -- guest: just a tiny bit. fema can give out cash or pay for some costs for people who are in those disaster areas but it is a small amount of money. it is usually on the order of 5000 to $10,000 and they will pay for quick fixes to your home. they will pay to patch the roof, they will not pay to replace it. fema can get you back in your house but they will not fix your

house. host: how many people in florida have flood insurance? guest: the good news is florida has the most number of people with flood insurance. the bad news is it is still not a lot. about 1.6 million properties are covered by the federal flood insurance program. florida has a population of 20 million. it is about 20% of the people in florida that have flood insurance, which is four out of five people do not have it. even though florida is good, it is not where they want to be. host: do they get automatic blanket protection? you talked about wind damage, about rain damage, what gets parsed out against people making their claims? guest: what they look for is what is because -- what is called rising water, is that the

cause of damage? your homeowners policy does not cover flooding. if your pipes break they will cover them. if it is a rainstorm or a storm surge -- they will look at what was the cause of the flooding and it is not always easy to tell. you can have both. you can have your roof blown off by rain or your basement destroyed by flooding and then the adjusters will have to figure out how much do i pay, how much do you pay? host: our guest is with us until 10:00. if you want to ask questions, it is (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the mall and pacific time zones. perhaps you've been impacted by hurricane ian. you can call (202) 748-8002 and ask questions of our guest tom frank.

remind people what you need news is -- what e & e news. guest: we cover energy and the environment. host: when it comes to insurance companies in florida, how prepared are they to payout claims? guest: private insurers that cover wind damage, that is another story. florida has had real problems with insurance. a lot of insurers have gone out of business. the question is do they have enough money to pay the claims. there about one million people who have gone into the state run . do they have enough money, and if they do not what they can do is charge an assessment on every insurance policy in the state. if you do not have a home but you have a car, you could be paid to cover the insurance losses. the insurance market in florida has never fully recovered from hurricane andrew in 1992.

they are still seeing the aftereffects of that. a lot of insurers do not want to do business in florida. we saw a lot why last week. there is an enormous amount of damage. host: remind people about the national flood insurance program , what it provides, project lead for those in florida. guest: is run by the government and provides flood insurance coverage up to do hundred $50,000, which you may have a $7,000 home and say that will not cover it, but flooding will not cost $750,000 worth of damage. $250,000 worth of damage should be enough. it is underwritten by the federal government. host: 5 million policies as of december of last year. $1 trillion of coverage is

provided in duplex revenue from premium season surcharges. what is the physical bank condition of the program? guest: it is not good and that is no secret and so the flood insurance program has had to borrow from federal taxpayers because it does not have enough money. right now they have a claims paying capacity -- that is not bad. it should be enough. the program has never been financially sound. fema and others have been pushing congress to fix it and nothing has happened for five years. host: a $30 billion borrowing limit and has hit about 20

billion of that? guest: 20.5. it is a $30.4 billion borrowing limit and it is already hit $20.5. that leaves $9.9 billion of borrowing and that is included in the claim paying capacity. congress could always write off the $20 billion, and there are definitely a lot of people in congress who want to do that, but some people do not, it is not so easy to get something like that few -- to gets a little like that through. host: the deadline to fund the government was covered from the flood insurance program included in that? guest: yes. is there. it has not expired. host: let's hear from kansas on with our guest tom frank. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. 18% of the florida residents

have flood insurance policies. we are talking about flood insurance and i appreciate that because everybody in a flood zone area needs to have it. 18% only 18% have been in florida. the question is do we subsidize repairs to homes whose owners -- or does fema say we are sorry this happened to you, but we need to have your flood insurance next time. we talk about equity. some of the equity problems that fema has is caused by congress because they write the rules that we have to follow as far as emergency management people. item two. your gas prices are going up.

you notice this, because i heard a caller a few moments ago. why the gas prices going up? opec cut production. host: we will stop and keep it to the topic he is an expert in. guest: is a great question and a great point. what you do to the people who do not have flood insurance? do you pay for them to rebuild in the same area? it is not an easy question. it is easy to sit here and say you do not have flood insurance, your home is destroyed, you have to move, but it is not so easy on the ground. what has traditionally happened is people have rebuilt where they are. sometimes they might elevate their home up on or elevate the foundation so it will not get flooded. you are asking all of the right questions. it is an ongoing debate and you

will see that debate again here. people will say enough. florida has gone an enormous amount of building on the coast in the flood zones. one of the things about hurricane ian's it hit a lot of places that are not considered flood prone areas. those are the people who will face the most trouble, those who are living in orlando or someplace where you do not think of getting storm surge or getting flooded but because en was such an unusual hurricane they will be in eight of situation. it is a great question and an ongoing debate. the answer has been we know we should not do this but we are going to rebuild anyway. host: let's hear from bill, a floridian in jacksonville. caller: thanks for the talk. i see other types of major national issues. what are the two were three major objections congress has to

not want to get something like this fully funded? we hear the same talk on immigration. if you would on that. host: when you say fully funded do you mean the flood insurance program? caller: yes. host: what keeps congress from fully funding it? guest: the problem is that to put the flood insurance on solid financial foundations, you would have to raise the insurance rates of a lot of people by a lot of money. that is something fema is in the process of saying we will raise your insurance rate to reflect the actual flood risk. if you are on the coast in florida, then your actual flood risk is quite high. what happens when people see their flood insurance rates go from $1000 to $5,000, they complain. who do they complain to?

congress. people have been getting a pre-good deal on flood insurance they buy through fema. they do not want to give up that deal. they do not want to start paying a lot of extra money for flood insurance even if it is a fair market value for their costs. it is understandable if you do not have a lot of income and suddenly your flood insurance goes up a few thousand dollars, that is tough. that is the answer. the country has been so used to paying flood insurance premiums that are artificially though that nobody wants to pay rates that are not artificially low. host: a viewer from twitter says flood insurance is in place to protect the banks, not the homeowners. where do the banks factor into

this or the financial backers? guest: that is true june extent. there is a federal requirement to have flood insurance if you're in a flood zone and if your property is secured by a mortgage that is backed by a federal agency like fannie mae. the idea is we want to protect the banks so if your property gets flooded or you walk away from your mortgage, at least there is some insurance to collect. it also protects the people who have the insurance. anyone who has been any kind of car accident without insurance knows is unpleasant. it does protect financial institutions but also the people. host: brian is in michigan. go ahead. he hung up.

let's hear from paula in st. petersburg, florida. caller: we were right in the zone get the storm. we have been very blessed, we dodged charlie, and now this one. i am not in a flood zone. i think we are 30 feet above sea level. when i thought about going it used to be expensive to get flooded assurance and now it is really -- flood insurance and out is really expensive. you are caught wondering what to do. we boarded up here and were prepared. i lost my power for three days. it was daunting to get things back. we got a lot of debris and tree limbs. it is pretty scary.

wanting know should we get flood insurance? caller: what were you looking at paying for flood insurance? caller: i do not remember at the time because it has been several years. my husband usually handles that. i knew it was not very expensive at the time. it was five or six or dollars and now it is thousands of dollars. guest: that is really a financial question. you said at the very beginning of your statement you are not in a flood zone. don't put too much stock in that. i am not sure what you mean by a flood zone. generally when people talk about being inside or outside of the flood zone, they are looking at the maps that fema draws. this is in the flood zone, this is out of the flood zone for the.

-- out of the flood zone. if you're out of zone that does not mean you are safe. i would not put too much stock in those maps. they did not take into consideration what is good to happen in the future. i would not go by whether or not you're in the flood zone. beyond that it is a financial question. host: how often does fema update those maps? guest: is supposed to do it every five years, but it falls behind. some are 10 years old and 20 years old. if you look at the claims fema pays, something like 30% to 40% of the claims paid on flood insurance are people outside the flood zone. a lot of people who are not in the flood zone have flood insurance because they just want to be safe from and a lot of the damage that occurs in floods and

hurricanes occurs outside the flood zone. hurricane ian is a example that. a huge about -- host: how much influence discovered the santos half of our insurance companies to make sure they're paying now claims? guest: it is up to the florida department of insurance regulation. every state has a commission that oversees insurers and that is their job. they are supposed to do it and part of the job is to make sure they have financial banking to cover clients unless there's a custom event. they should be able to do it. host: this is mark in fort lauderdale. he says whether this event may ruin homeowners insurance, which was already in crisis in

florida? guest: it is not going to help. there are probably a few companies in florida that will go bankrupt. there've already been six insurers in florida that have gone bankrupt this year alone. i'm sure more of them will go bankrupt as a result. some of it will depend on what the state legislature and the governor do. i'm sure they will meet in that special session before the regularization -- before the regular session. they have to figure out a way to get the market back on track. there's always the state run insurer of last resort, paygo -- and because their estate backed agency, they have the authority

to go to the public market and all of the people who do not have insurance policies. i doubt that you'll be the end of the homeowners insurance market but it will hit the market hard. host: william is in new orleans forever just. go ahead with your question. guest: here in new orleans after katrina we put a lot of money into disaster prevention with our levee system. actions that can be put in place to help florida protect itself from flooding's next time around. guest: florida is a different state from louisiana and i think there was a $15 billion reconstruction of the levee system around new orleans. florida is not built in it that way. levees do not play the big role that humans of -- in southern

louisiana stop places like sanibel island, these coastal barrier islands, they will have to answer some questions. do we build back here again and if so how much do require people to elevate their home? to do other things elevate? there will be hard questions. these areas are extremely valuable. very high end residential communities and there is a normal cement of pressure to rebuild there. there will also be a lot of pressure to say do not rebuild it if you do rebuild to it and extremely cautious way. host: this is anthony in pennsylvania. caller: good morning.

do you think all of the government expenditures on climate change are going to stop her chains from flooding's, and wildfires. would it be better to spend the money they are spending on nonsensical climate change responses and then put into raising houses in florida and doing forest betas -- i think they are wasting money on this climate change nonsense where to be put to better use. we are not going to stop hurricanes or floods or fires by going to electric vehicles or wind turbines. thank you. guest: the answer is you can spend on both. it is not either or. the government in the u.s. and everywhere in the world spends

money on trying to reduce emissions and trying to do adaptation and resilience. you are right. there will always be hurricanes. the question is some of what you're seeing has some of the trademarks of being influenced by climate change in terms of the amount of rain it dropped and the amount of flooding it caused. i think you have to do both. there's is a strong scientific consensus that the damage caused by things like -- is related to the raising temperatures globally. i understand your point her occurrence been around forever. -- hurricanes have been around forever and it is not that we are going to stop them but make them less destructive. host: one of the storylines is

governor desantis when he was in congress fitting against aid for hurricane sandy and now criticism. talk about his time in congress, what you voted on. guest: there is a lot of misleading bad information. congressman desantis on his first full day in office on january 14, 2014 was one of 67 republicans who voted against a bill. it was not necessarily disaster aid for sandy. it was to increase the borrowing capacity of fema's flood insurance program because there were enormous claims, i think it ended up being $9 billion of claims out of superstorm sandy. the flood insurance program do not have enough money to pay those claims. it needed to borrow from the treasury but it was at the limit

of its borrowing. the bill was to increase borrowing capacity $20 billion to $30 billion. that enable the flood insurance to borrow that additional $10 million that is claims. then congressman desantis was one of the house republicans who voted against it his argument is it is fiscally bank irresponsible to spend an additional $10 billion. he is the analogy that if you have a credit card and it is backstabbed you have to cut your spending somewhere else. the irony of this is the bill, now law that governor desantis proposed will probably help florida -- fema has enough barring capacity to pay off those claims.

host: you can see that story at the website. tom frank jodey just this conversation. anthony in pennsylvania. hello. caller: you already got me. host: let's hear from mike in nevada. go ahead. caller: good morning. i hear everything about above the ground of what is going on in florida, the storms, hurricanes, everything else. i read an article what is going on below the surface. a couple years ago they had a building fall in because the ground gave way. apparently the acidified water is eating away at the limestone, which is just a coral reef. undermining the ground. you cannot even bill because of that.

also you will have a bunch of underground lakes before you know it and a surface that will be paperthin. you are barking up the wrong tree. people have to start vacating florida. host: let's go to john in california. north hollywood, california. you are on. caller: hello dear reviewers. how long will this corrupt american government and corrupt american cia keep spoiling this country? they do not want to take preventive measures to stop natural disasters in this country. all they know is devouring and spoiling the world population. stop these criminals in american government.

the cia. host: thanks. we talked about florida a lot. puerto rico dealing with the aftereffects of hurricane fiona. what is their status and what is the difference as far as recovery they are considering their location away from the contingent united states. guest: puerto rico has not recovered from hurricane maria five years ago because puerto rico started out in a much more vulnerable position than florida did. if you look at what happened in puerto rico -- whenever hurricane fiona happened, they still have people without power. for a week more than half of the territory was without power. it is a much slower process for all sorts of historic reasons having to do with puerto rico. it is nothing like in the united

states. it will be a slow rebuilding process. i do not know how much property damage puerto rico sustained from fiona. it was a category 1, the entire area lost power. we are talking close to disco weeks. host: joan in minnesota, you are next. caller: i was just checking in and i remember seeing a lot of programs about florida at one time, adding soil to the ocean to make place for new properties. i wonder what are the insurance companies feeling about

beginning to ensure people who build in such precarious places and what is wrong with the state allowing this to happen to atmore population to their state? it is kind of incredible and kind of not using common sense, especially when they're in the path of all of the bad weather that hits the southern part of our country. i think they can do better than that. guest: i'm not sure what exactly she is talking about. people want to move to florida. great weather, lots of beaches. it has been one of the fastest growing states for decades. if you look at how development happens in florida, it is on the coast. something like 75% of the population of the state lives in a county that touches the coast. inland is alligators.

it has been a place people move to for years and years. it'll be tough to stop people doing that. caller: we heard the bite -- host: we heard the vice president talk about equity when it comes to hurricane recovery. how would you describe that? equity when it comes to hurricane recovery and who gets help? guest: if you look at who has flood insurance and who does not, we do not know the names of people, but if you look at the zip codes where they are located , there is a real skew in terms of people who have vent. much more prevalent in places that are affluent, it starts right away with who has flood insurance coverage. then there has been a lot of research showing the amount of

money you get as an individual from fema depends on a lot of factors, but there tends to be a pattern that people who are more wealthy. it is built into the whole system it has been that way for years. in terms of who gets money to do things like elevate their home. a lot of this might, and we are talking about billions of job -- a lot of this money goes to extremely wealthy and extremely white communities. host: let's hear from dallas in south dakota. hello. caller: first thing i want to know [indiscernible] the average cost of a homeowner policy in florida? guest: it is about $4200 in

florida. that is just to give you perspective. the nationwide average is $1500. florida has the highest average homeowner insurance costs in the nation. that is not flood, that is homeowners insurance. host: what is the cost of the average flood insurance? guest: the average nationwide is $1000, but within that average you have a huge variation depending on where your property is, whether you have had claims in the past. it could be, i have heard of people paying $20,000. that is the average. host: let's go to linda in houston. caller: good morning. i live on the gulf coast and i've had flood insurance forever.

seems like the smartest thing to do. it has been relatively cheap. i anticipate it to go up. big on a fixed income i did not know if i'll be able to awarded in the future. >> i was wondering if he knows if they fold, what is going to happen to me as far as my homeowners coverage? guest: i do not know how it works in texas. they should honor your policy through the end of the term. you have to find a new carrier. you may end up seeing your rates go up. what town are you in in texas? caller: [indiscernible] guest: ok. you are directly on the water. i appreciate your call. what you said about being