>> c-span is your on third you of government. -- unfiltered view of government. we are sponsored by these companies including charter broadband. >> charter has invested billions upgrading technology and powering opportunity in communities big and small. it charter is connecting us. >> charter communications support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪

>> c-span's washington journal. every day we take your calls live on air on the news of the day and we discussed the issues that impact you. coming up monday morning next cohen congressional reporter talked about the week ahead in congress. -- max cohen congressional reporter talks about the week ahead in congress. a journalist discuss his newest piece on the military retirees. watch washington journal at 7:00 a.m. on monday morning. join with your calls, texts and twee. >> this morning nasa's artemis to one spacecraft over returns to earth after orbiting the moon. watch live coverage as mission control guides the unmanned aircraft's dissent and splashdown on c-span.org o on

free video app c-sn now. >> this afternoon nasa administration or -- administrator bill nelson holds a confence live on c-span, c-span now and onle c-span.org. >> tuesday former ftx ceo sam bankman-fried and current ceo john ray testify on the collapse of the cryptocurrency company. the house financial services committee will host to the hearing. live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. host: good morning, everyone on this sunday, december 11. welcome to the "washington journal." a recent poll found a small rebound in approval of the u.s.

supreme court. this morning, we want to know your view of the high court. republicans, dial in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. dependents -- independent at (202) 748-8002. you can also contact us via text. let us know your city and state. (202) 748-8003. go to facebook.com/c-span. and you can tweet us at c-span wj. a poll was conducted last month in november and this is what they found. 44% of adults approve of the job the supreme court is doing. while 56% disapprove. in september, 40% approved and 60% this approved. a small rebound, they say, for the court. approval declined sharply

between july and september of 2021. and then fell further in may of 2022, following the leaked opinion of dobbs v jackson women's health. it overturned roe v. wade which had prevented abortion nationwide. there is a hearing on capitol hill this week and here is the headline from that hearing from in pr, a former evangelical activist says he pushed the boundaries in supreme court dealings. we cover that hearing here on -- covered that hearing on c-span. right wing christian activists sought to work their way into the meetings of conservative supreme court justices. offering meals to advance their policy agenda. the former leader of an evangelical nonprofit told members of congress on thursday. reverend rob shane nick testified before the house.

he led a group known as safe in action and he now describes himself as a dissenting evangelical. he said he recruited and trained stealth missionaries for a project called operation high court. here is his testimony this past week. >> operation higher court involved my recruitment of wealthy donors and stealth missionaries who befriended justices that shared our conservative social and religious sensibilities. in this way, i aimed to show these justices that american support of them -- americans supported them and thank god for their presence on the core and the opinions they rendered. our overarching goals were to gain insights into the conservative justices thanking -- thinking and show their resolve to render solid, unapologetic opinions, particularly against abortion.

i called this our ministry of emboldened mint. it was not an attempt to change minds. beyond small talk, our missionaries did not engage liberal members of the court. my recruits for operation higher court were older, highly accomplished, and independently minded. they did not take kindly to being told where to go, what to do or how to do it. successfully deploying them required their autonomy. i did suggest tactics to cultivate affinity. but otherwise, our folks were on their own. most of them limited their support to regular prayers on behalf of the justices families. assurances of goodwill at social functions and sending greeting cards on special occasions. but they might also host justices or their spouses for meals at restaurants, private clubs or their homes and sometimes the justices

reciprocated. the hobby lobby leak resulted in -- from one of these arrangements. host: that was the reverend testifying on capitol hill. we covered it on c-span. you can find the entire hearing on our website, c-span.org. a poll found that a share of democrats say supreme court justices do a poor job of keeping decisions free from politics. the number of democrats who say that nearly doubled since january. your view of the u.s. supreme court, that is our question for you this morning. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. an independents, (202) 748-8002. text us with your first name, city and state at (202) 748-8003 . you can join us on facebook.com/c-span or on twitter with the handle at

c-span wj. here is matthew on facebook writing it is much less activist than it used to be. the current court has shown a willingness to defer to the constitution instead of imposing its choices. it defers to the state. most people forget the constitution can be amended and wants to -- want to rethink things that are not in the constitution. more from that hearing this week . the event? -- the evangelical who is part of that high court, reverend rob schenck, being asked about specific outreach to justices. >> this campaign, which i think to most americans is shocking, there was actually a sophisticated effort to influence, either by bucking up or by strengthening the views or changing the minds of justices

on important issues, this is shocking to me. but, in addition to that, was there also travel with supporters of the higher court campaign, with justices of the supreme court, both to vacation day -- destinations and vacation homes? can you give an example of some of the trips the justices took? >> yes, mr. chairman. i was aware that justices alito and scalia had visited the home, the second or third home, i'm much or how they counted it, of the rights -- wrights in wyoming. i was not aware of any other, in particular. >> were you aware whether the

justices traveled with their spouses? >> i don't recall, mr. chairman. i will correct myself. i was aware of one trip justice scalia took with mr. don wright that involved hunting. i think they were quail hunting, perhaps in south america. i'm not sure. >> reverend robert shank testifying. your view of the u.s. supreme court is our conversation this morning. research conducted a poll in september and they found this. republicans and democrats increasingly view the supreme court as conservative. do you agree with that notion? or that they are too political? this past week or two, i have listened to a couple of cases. they seem to have dropped the party politics and got back on track. i was actually proud of them,

again. if you listen to oral arguments on c-span, you can find the oral arguments covered here. many of them, on our website, c-span.org/supreme court. stella in new milford, new jersey, independent. good morning to you. your view of the supreme court? caller: good morning, greta. i'm not sure that opinions regarding the supreme court matter anymore. i'm not sure that opinions regarding congress or the presidency matter anymore. my deepest concern is i -- i have been stuck here at home and i am listening to all of these hearings and politicians. i think our government has just

become too big to succeed. there is so much. we have news reports about censorship. host: why do you say you are not sure it matters, the people's view of their institutions? why wouldn't it matter? caller: i think we have gotten to the point now, where our system is just too overwhelmed by everything. i was recently listening to a hearing, the information about committees. and they were saying that the way that the committees are scheduled, most of our representatives, senators and representatives, can't even show up. so, i am just so confused.

now, we have this cryptocurrency and president biden shined -- signed an executive order to pursue the federal reserve, of incorporating cryptocurrencies into our economy, in light of this ftx scandal. host: i will jump into say we should stick to the supreme court. next week -- this week coming up, we have coverage of two hearings related to cryptocurrency. go to c-span.com for more details. there is more to come from congress. what she is referring to is a conversation we had between a republican and democratic member of congress who served on the community to modernize congress. that happened recently here on the washington journal. you can find it on our website, where they talked about committee assignments and how

lawmakers don't have enough time to sit and listen to other lawmakers questioning during hearings because they have to get up and go to another committee assignment or they have fundraising, a meeting with constituents, etc. maxing in kansas, democratic caller. your view of the supreme court? caller: thank you for taking my call. i've had this opinion for a while and i think i'm right. of all of the three branches of government, the supreme court is the most powerful. the supreme court can overrule a decision made by the senate. the supreme court can overrule a decision made by the president. the supreme court can tell the fbi how to investigate and who to investigate.

the court can terminate anything. i think it is obvious that no one in this country is protected by anything unless the supreme court says it is the right thing to do. that's obvious. why would anyone think that the supreme court doesn't have the power that it does? host: your point about overturning what the president does, here is nbc news, with a story about a recent case. now, they have put their lives on hold. they reported more than 40 million borrowers were eligible to cancel up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt under the president's forgiveness plane. the remaining balance of $19,000 for one of the students that they profile, she had high hopes that she would get relief. instead, her debt and that of

roughly 16 million applicants will never be forgiven. a ruling is expected next year in the summer of 2023. ron, a democratic caller in missouri. good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: you are. we can hear you. caller: the court has become politicized because republicans know the only way they will stay in power is to stack the courts and gerrymander and go to their normal means. besides that, when i look at the number, the 56 and 60%, look at the voting. in the general election, it

falls close into those lines. of course, the conservatives will approve of striking down abortion. let's see what they do with this north carolina vote. because gerrymandering is a big thing right now. it's the only thing that keeps republicans in power right now. host: ron is referring to the supreme court oral argument recently over the north carolina election map. we discussed that on friday. ron, go ahead. caller: i've just got a bad cold. host: we will let you go, ron. john on facebook says i am satisfied with the court, overall. to everyone yelling term limits for the court, how about we get term limits for congress and then discuss term limits for the court. do you think there should be term limits for the court?

your view of the high court is the conversation this morning. we will hear from richard in illinois, and independent. hi, richard. caller: i think we should stand behind our supreme court. they were picked, not because of the dirty things that people pick on. those are very smart people. they have good reputations. everyone of them, whether they are democrat or republican or independent, we chose them to be on the supreme court. it is a very important job. host: what do you mean, when you say we chose them? the president nominates them and the senate confirms them. caller: i realize that. but we chose the president, didn't we? as far as i'm concerned,

everything that happens in washington, d.c. is picked apart so bad that nobody trusts anything that is going on. what we need to do is stop thinking about what they did in the past and trust them with their decisions that they are making now. i trust the supreme court. they were picked because of their reputations. host: richard, do you vote on a candidate for president based on how they may choose the supreme court nominee? caller: no, i pick the president on his reputation of politics reputation. i'm sorry i'm studying. host: it's ok.

we understood. stephen in michigan texts us to say my opinion of the supreme court is that they -- there should be forced retirement at age 65. there should be a minimum age of 40. rhonda in jacksonville, north carolina, democratic caller. hi, rhonda. caller: hi. good morning. i just want to say that thomas, number one, was charged with sexual harassment. he shouldn't be on the court. after dr. plessis ford and deborah ramirez shared their stories of sexual violence against brett kavanaugh, the fbi received 4500 tips but has never indicated that they followed up on any of those tips. instead, the tips were referred to the trump white house. the same white house that was dragging dr. ford through the mud for daring to speak out. this is the most honorable

position -- to me -- almost more than the president. i think these people and the guy who just called said we need to look at their past. yeah, let's look at their past. they should not be on the supreme court if they have sexual harassment and attempted charges against them for sexual violence. when trump came into office, he put brett kavanaugh in there. they blocked merit portland -- merrick garland from being on there. i think everybody on the supreme court is fine except for thomas and cavanaugh. -- brett kavanaugh. they should not be up there. they probably would not even be able to get a good job with those kinds of charges. it is ridiculous that they blocked brett kavanaugh's sexual violence tips and trump covered it all up so that he wouldn't be on the supreme court. -- would be on the supreme

court. i think it is an honorable position and i think they should have a life term. host: lambert in new york, independent. we will go to you, next. caller: good morning. i have no problem with the structure of the court, even in terms of the different people. my problem is how it is hard -- the constitution and the laws of the land are agreeing between -- an agreement between individuals. and if someone violates those agreements and the lower court,

you will know if it is being violated. they make loss that are attractive loss and they apply to you as a person -- laws that are -- laws and they apply to you as a person. you can't take it to the court to get it resolved. as little people. only the big people are able to do that. host: understood. mark in new york, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. this is a loaded question. i think about this a lot because i think the supreme court is completely copper mice. there are three wonderful women on there. justices sotomayor, kagan and ketanji brown jackson is fantastic.

however, the conservatives on the court committed perjury. i watched every one of the hearings. they all held their hand up and swore that they would not change roe v. wade because of settled law and that is what they did when they got the majority. i have real problems with this court. i think there definitely should be maybe a 12 year term and that is it. this lifetime appointment, they are not kings. i don't appreciate what they have done. especially walker, he shouldn't be there. mitch mcconnell denied president obama his rightful pick and would not bring merrick garland up for a vote. that is cheating. he didn't do his job and i don't understand why the democrats didn't sue mitch mcconnell and take him into the court for that kind of nonsense. they pushed in amy covid

barrett. host: coney barrett. caller: with only two weeks left on trump's time. i look at the court as the conservatives have taken over by cheating and lying. it's awful. it is terrible for our country. host: mark is a democratic caller in new york. both sides brace for new combat and abortion wars. both sides are taking on a stricter -- taking a look at how they did in the midterm elections. they report that antiabortion groups are pulling back from ballot initiatives as a way to restrict abortion, having failed with those measures in kansas, kentucky and montana. they are pushing to reinforce abortion restrictions where they have had success and the majority in court jurisdictions

and republican-controlled legislatures. it goes on to say after winning six of six ballot initiatives, abortion-rights supporters are pressing for more. especially in states such as ohio and missouri, with the legislations being gerrymandered and staunchly antiabortion. yet, ballot initiatives are not an option in every state. you can read more in the new york times this morning. wendy and connecticut, democratic caller. your view of the supreme court? caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: i agree totally with the previous caller from new york. the only thing he didn't mention was justice thomas's wife, who was part of the insurrection. there is something goingn. i don't think the average

american knows all of the details. there should be term limits. host: rebecca in california. you are up, early. an independent, good morning. caller: good morning, everyone. especially to you, greta. the woman who never ages. [laughter] it must be the moisturizer. anyway, i wanted to make a comment on this morning's topic. i believe that they have turned into eight glorified think tank. it really isn't doing what it is meant to do. absolutely yes to term limits. that has to be. and then it has become way too political. i agree with some of the previous callers. most of all, it only took me eight years to get through to you. host: wow. caller: yes! finally.

anyone, have a good day and try to have a good holiday. host: thanks a lot. we hope you keep calling in. let's go to robin in santa fe, new mexico. hi, robin. caller: hi, greta. how are you this morning? host: good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. your view of the supreme court? caller: well, my view used to be i used to respect them more than any other entity in the country. and now, in the past -- i guess since trump, actually since clarence thomas -- my opinion has gone down, down and down. to the point where i now no longer respect them at all. like, zero. like, anything they have to say, i don't want to hear it. i don't want to hear it, because i know it is crap. host: what would change your

opinion? caller: what would -- host: what would change your opinion? caller: ok, expand the court. have oversight, so that clarence thomas can not take himself out of something that his wife is involved with. and also, this country is not made up of predominantly catholic. the supreme court, six out of nine are catholic. this antiabortion craft has -- crap has come from the catholics and the born-again christians. so, why do we have six out of nine people that were raised catholic on the supreme court, making decisions for people who

have other religious beliefs or no religious beliefs at all? that is a real problem. and we need to distribute religion or non-religion among the justices, if they are going to have any sort of legitimacy whatsoever. i also agree with the woman from north carolina, the guy from new york and the woman from california. with absolutely everything that they say. thank you. host: all right, robin. here is mike from robin. when the supreme court can accept gifts, how can they way justice -- weigh justice? here is david asking and ethics expert about the rules for supreme court justices when accepting gifts or trips. >> our supreme court -- are

supreme court justice is permitted to take trips, private trips with individuals that can be valued at thousands of dollars without disclosing that benefit? >> they are. there is a gift statute but the regulations that apply to lower court judges do not apply to the justices of supreme court. they are not bound by that. what you have is justices accepting gifts aced on whether they choose to accept them or not. -- based on whether they choose to accept them or not. at the highest court in our land, we should have a transparent process where the justices -- for the justices to resolve those conflict of interest. -- conflicts of interest. >> -- >> no. >> can you describe for the american people, what is the consequence of permitting free

gifts of any value as it relates to travel or other gifts? what is the potential danger of that? why does it matter? >> there is the potential danger of influence in the specter of wealthy activists using their money to get the justices to change their mind or decide in their favor. or importantly, an independent and impartial judiciary is what ensures that the law protects regular folks. like your host: from the house judiciary committee. if you missed the hearing and art interested -- and are interested in what happens in the supreme court and is it too political, you can find it on our website. there is legislation growing -- brewing out of the house judiciaryomttee that has not

come up for a fullloor vote. republicans will take over the majority in january. it reminds -- suggests a code of disclosures forgive see receive and requires the justice to recuse -- disclosures when justices received gifts and the close and -- and disclose who funded. it did not get a vote on the house floor. let's hear from jack in maine, republican. caller: you say you want to talk to me, i am a republican. you haven't talked to anyone

republican in the last 30 minutes. you say only democrats and independents. host: i didn't say that but we have to wait for them to call in. caller: i am the first republican caller in the last half hour? host: apparently. caller: i believe you like i believe twitter and all of the other mainstream media people. a half hour and you are going to tell me no other republican called in or if you did they are not taken calls. host: are you going to talk about the supreme court or this? caller: i am going to talk about the supreme court. the supreme court is great. donald trump did the right thing and everybody else calling about

this, open your eyes. host: are you done? caller: yeah, i am done. host: mary, st. paul, minnesota, democratic caller. caller: i have been listening to the callers and was surprised of the last one saying only republicans -- democrats are calling in. it is unfortunate the supreme court has lowered itself in the eyes of many of us due to the fact that it comes across as being quite political. i happen to be someone that remembers that when franklin

roosevelt was in his last term when he passed away on april 12, 1945. i remember the impact that had because for someone like myself i had never known another president. it had not occurred to me they couldn't serve as long as they were reelected. i think there is something wrong about having a lifetime ability to serve. i was shocked when i heard justice kagan say something about the italian jurist that died. host: scalia.

caller: she talked about that they were a friend, she talked about he was always after her to go on a hunting trip. he wanted to take her on a hunting trip. she had never hunted or handled a gun and as a result, she said i finally told him i would go. she went with him and had a lovely time and she went hunting with him several times. i was rather shocked, and it revealed something about her own self saying, i liked it. she didn't talk about anything she hunted or killed, but i would like for them to be going back where we don't know that much about them and we can feel,

they are trying to be as objective as possible and i do think being on there for an indefinite period is too long. i have had a lifetime of being able to watch and observe and i do hope they will put time limitations on that court. host: tammy is a republican in louisiana. caller: i heard that lady and the guy who said you are just taking democrats, and he is exactly right. you called eight democrats and four republicans. host: do you not understand how this program works? we don't call you, you call us. that is how the program works. caller: i have the solution for that.

all the republicans call on all the lines so they can't be biased. host: here is becky from san antonio, texas, texting, justices are doing a great job. democrats lose on some decisions and they whine until they get their way. courtney, independent. are you there, in georgia, independent? caller: i called on the publican line -- on the republican line. i was calling about the supreme court justices. it seems like in the 1950's we had a high percentage of people who appreciated the court.

i believe and they changed the rules in the house of representatives to change help many people it took to vote one in, that is when it started to be a problem. then they want to change the rules in the senate. when you start changing the rules, the percentages of approval will go down. there is something going on in the united states that i think people just don't understand each other anymore and are cold so far from one side to the other. the court has changed because of politics, yes, it has, but it should stay the way the constitution presented it. host: listen to california republican darrell issa from the past week or he defended the integrity of the supreme court and other federal judges. [video clip] >> sitting in this body with all

of the rules that we now want to add to the court, some of which i support, but all of those rules don't change the fact that on balance -- unbalanced the court has been and a group of individuals, nine at the top over 600 article three judges and countless more article one judges who for the most part deserve the public confidence of the american people, that the vast majority of them all of the time endeavor to do the right and honorable and ethical thing. it does us no good today to look at legislation by denigrating another body. the facts are, their event mistakes, perhaps even lapses of judgment and of this body has on

occasion and to remove a federal judge. that doesn't change the fact that although they are human beings and we should do everything we can to promote greater confidence, we gain very little by implying this is a bought and paid for organization or that their ethics, which were very high in everyone's mind on the others of the aisle when they decided with them on an issue or two, suddenly is fraught with unfair influence when they don't win or two of the last decisions. host: congressman darrell issa, republican from california at the hearing. we are getting your view. cj in buffalo, new york, democratic caller. caller: good morning. a couple of things i think makes

people's view of the supreme court a little negative, for me, personally, the fact that donald trump was so wanting to spike the football that he got a bunch of conservatives in their on social -- in there on social issues. we know on social issues he is one of the most off the chain people in public life, a total hypocrite. and, being,, -- and karma being karma, the nine months obama looked at merrick garland for a

seat that was denied, amy coney barrett, nine weeks and she was passed through. what people forget is, we were already voting -- some states were already voting for the presidential election, and that is what got donald trump out of office, because finally enough right-thinking women and men who appreciate women and what they have two go through with any medical, intimate decision, it came back to haunt, which is great. at least trump is gone. he shut his own self in the bone spurs. the other thing that is sketchy is justice roberts, when the

memo was leaked on the overturning of roe, he is like, we are going to get to the bottom of this. between the justices, they all have four clerks, 36 people to investigate and we still haven't come out who was the leaguer, but it was -- leaker, well it was roberts on how dividing that ruling was going to be. thank god -- i am an old irish catholic white i and all of my irish catholic sisters and friends are actually pro-choice,

not pro abortion. when it was time for my kids to come along, they came along, but i would never take that away from my wife and nobody really should. host: here is one from el paso texas saying i agree with the color from santa fe, new mexico, as in a lifelong atheist i've never been represented by scotus or congress. the story written about the justices and their religion, it wrote the justices in the abortion case are simply cradle catholics. for all their differences, they failed conservative and strong opposition to abortion.

it goes on to say, five justices voted to overturn roe. of the six, they voted to uphold the abortion restrictions in question. all six were raised catholic. bill in north carolina, republican, what do you say? caller: i am calling about the lifelong appointments. i think it is terrific, only because, could you imagine if the supreme court justices had to compete for some kind of election every six or eight or year as it was? think about your county judges. i think being appointed for life is terrific. i know my opinions of things have changed since i was 20, 30,

40, 60. my lifelong opinions have changed and i expect justices to also. whoever has been democratic or republican their whole lives hasn't looked to see how people's opinions change. the lifelong appointments keep them from being influenced and gives them an opportunity to mature in positions they hold. that is my opinion. host: james, who is a democrat, in new york. caller: i think that the lifelong appointments, they need to be annually checked out. i just think that lifelong appointments is not a good idea,

because people's minds do deteriorate as well, and we don't make baseball pitches for life. they lose their ability to pitch , and the same thing with people in general, as we get older, some of our minds slip. also, that is what i think it is a good idea. host: john, a republican, in washington, d.c. caller: people talk about being atheist, but they want to determine at what point does abortion turn to murder? obviously the day of the birth if you cut the baby's head off that is coming out, most people would say that is murder. where does it go from abortion to murder? that is the question.

the fairytale about queenie hilary and the tiny giant, rb g, they wanted to have a spectacular bonanza where the second woman chief justice appoints the woman president, and that fairytale vanished when the night in shining armor came in, donald trump, and saved us all from that the brokerage. host: john, a republican in d.c. and skip is an independent in d.c. caller: being an independent i can see both sides. the problem that was talked about with lifetime appointment is it is not the choice of having people be on the court for life, but maybe term limits

for the supreme court. no one is talking about having them elected. that is not even on the table. it is about having a term limit for supreme court justices, and i think that would be good. the problem with the current court is mitch mcconnell not allowing obama's choice to go through and then having amy coney barrett confirmed right before an election. that was the biggest problem. for people like myself who is independent, i had a big problem with that. host: mary jo writes in a text, the supreme court has decided to put church into state and they are never, ever going to be fair. david, detroit, michigan, a

democrat, what do you think? caller: good morning. i think this is one of those rare conversations where i am more than motivated to opine on a topic. it is not that i set my clock every 30 days but i am motivated by the conversation and this morning is one of those. in my opinion, i believe there should be term limits, because i believe the court, up until this court, has transformed into being political. i can see that one day, sooner than later, an individual like clarence thomas will wait to retire until they have a republican president. so this going back and forth

like that, and the justices are aging and as they age, they will probably wait until they have the party that favors them and then they will retire, guaranteeing the perpetual placements of a republican led or partisan judge. so the supreme court justice has transformed into a political apparatus. host: should there be term limits? caller: i absolutely think so. i think 12 years should be adequate and every 12 years, whoever is the sitting president should be able to have a candidate. host: a republican, jim, maryland. let me try it one more time for you.

caller: i believe there should be term limits for sure, 20 years max. i believe they are an activist court themselves. one of three equal branches of government, they need to follow some sort of ethics and step up and put a panel of ethics together and oversee them. i think we should add four more women to the court and make it fair. i am a democrat who called on the republican line because the woman said the republicans should call on the democrat line to clog it up. host: steve in florida, independent. caller: i think they should have term limits because they are supposed to be three equal branches of government and two

branches are subjected to the peoples' vote. there are two term limit like they do with the head of the fbi. he's got 10 years unless he gets fired. so the thing is that stacking the court the way trump did, you are not going to get the cross-section of american justice unless you put limits on it, because they go by 25 years anyway as a generation. there should be generational changes. those justices that would be appointed with term limits would be closer to and have been maybe exposed to opinions of more people instead of just politicians and that is what i think and thank you.

host: kathleen, democratic color in pennsylvania, -- democratic caller in pennsylvania. caller: when clarence thomas was attending tea party functions with his wife. it became news and everybody became upset about it, and then it just died away. to me, that was just impropriety. you can't be a supreme court judge and be aligned with a political party. and then went mitch mcconnell refused to even interview merrick garland and just waited and waited and then we got kavanaugh and gorsuch and amy coney barrett, and they all sat there and they said we aren't

going to touch roe.] it is going to remain, and since they got that, what happened? it went back to the states. there is no ethical standard. i watched the hearings and was shocked to know there is no code of ethics. it is up to the head of the court and robert doesn't seem to have any control. they can do pretty much what they want and they have a life term. there is no consequence. it is turning very political, turning very conservative, and it doesn't represent me. host: kathleen referring to thursday's hearing in the house judiciary committee. she watched it on c-span. you can find it on our website,