have a big tax bill, that is in their interest to do. whenever the democrats have a tax bill, it is at the top of the list to do. when they get the house in the senate together, and the last dollars that always seems to fall out, those are the very same guys paying themselves these absorbent salaries. in that way i am a bit of a populace. even donald trump talked about it. he said we are going to do something about this. but in the end it did he do something about it? there are tax breaks that joe biden take advantage of. host: peter morici economic professor at the university of maryland. thank you for visiting with us. in the last half-hour, we have open phone our.

(202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republican. (202) 748-8002, independents. they said sunday the biden administration is considering ignoring in order by a federal judge in texas blocking the government's approval of that abortion pill. here is a portion of that conversation from cnn yesterday. [video clip] >> when you turn upside down the entire approval process, you're talking about every kind of drug. our vaccines, insulin, the new alzheimer's drug. if a drug that if a judge decides to introduce his personal opinion for that, what drug is not subject to some kind of legal challenge? we have to go to court.

for america's sake and for women sake we have to prevail on this. >> my next guest, democratic congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, to ignore the judges rule. some legal experts argue the fda has broad discretion to simply choose not to enforce a ban and allowed the drug to remain on the market. yes or no as the hhs secretary, do you want the fda to enforce the texas ruling, if it is upheld in the short-term? >> we want the courts to overturn this reckless decision. we want yes that women continue to have access to a drug that has proven itself safe. millions of women have used this drug around the world. >> what if they don't act in the intern? >> the airfield court, supreme

court, whatever court has to understand this rule by this one judge overturns not just access to the abortion drug, but any number of drugs. >> what if they don't? >> that is speculation i believe is not worth engaging. >> are you taking off the table you recommend the fda ignore a ban? >> everything is on the table. the president said that. every option is on the table. host: that was from yesterday. for the open forum. a caller from florida. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. you had that guy on there who was talking about social security and where the money is coming from. what nobody ever talks about, when is the last time they raised the level of money you have to pay for. most people think everybody pays

on all the money that they make. if they are a billionaire they are paying into social security. on a billion dollars. that is not true. the maximum amount you can be charged i think it's something like 150 thousand or even 200,000. and after that you pay no social security. that is what needs to be raised, according with the cost of living. and they should start from when they started the program, add it all up and see where they are at and change that amount to support social security. host: jeff in florida. jo linda in alexandria, virginia. independent line. caller: thank you for having me on. i just wanted to comment on tax season. the point about wanting to raise the taxes. whether it is to file social

security or other issues. i want to call to the public to really think about the core issue underlying everything is that our tax system is so problematic. every tax season it is a little bit of a game of figuring out what are different things we can put in to maybe try to lower the tax amount here and there. and this whole antagonizing a specific group of people is so unhelpful. whether you are saying tax the rich or the other side saying there are too many people benefiting from social programs, those are not the problem. the public needs to be judicious in not being influenced by that rhetoric. it really goes to the heart of the issue of a really broken tax code.

i really wonder maybe someday in my lifetime we can see that change happen where we go to a better tax code. it is likely not going to happen but i just want people to stop listening to those calls that target specific groups of people. host: do you do your own taxes? caller: i do. turbotax. this season, my husband and i are decently high earners. not falling into the category where president biden is calling to raise the social security tax cap. but because we are professionals who still have a lot of student loan debt, we have to play around. on different turbotax accounts to try to see which type of filing, whether it is filing married, jointly or married separately, you consider is it more financially sound to get a

divorce so it is easier. host: i don't mean to laugh. caller: it is the reality. turbotax allows us to play around on these things. that shouldn't be how the taxes come in. that is completely problematic and ridiculous with -- and ridiculous. host: independent line. caller: she was talking about $400 to $500 on a meal. nobody spends that on a meal. we are the richest country in the world but we can't find the money. how is that possible? there is a big budget you can slash and cut out. military spending.

until you get your military spending under control you cannot eliminate the poverty in your country. until you eliminate the poverty in your country, you will not eliminate how people think about your country. host: would you say canada is better than the u.s.? how do you that? caller: the number of homeless people on the street. the only country who has actually eliminated homely -- eliminate homelessness is china. host: let's hear from austin in pennsylvania. democrat line. caller: i wanted to address the claims your previous guess was making about morality. i believe it is complete red herring. morals are confusing and it is meant to confuse the voters

because everybody has different morals. they are objectively worse if people are extremely rich and the majority of the population is starving. in states like kansas where the republican tax system almost destroyed the entire economy. in places where conservative leadership almost crashed the entire economy. it is just idiotic or c. people present it as immorality, there is a discussion around morals, it should be completely avoided. host: that is austin in pennsylvania. we will do open forum for about 20 minutes or so. (202) 748-8001, for republicans. (202) 748-8000, for democrats.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you heard of the decision involving the abortion ban. also on the same show talking about that decision from an appropriators point of view. here is a portion of what he had to say. [video clip] >> i had six children. i am a prolific pro-life-er. here in texas we have a heart bill -- a heartbeat bill that was passed. it is important states dictate their futures. we have to have the courts uphold these. it is very dangerous when you have the biden administration coming out and saying they may not uphold a ruling. as an appropriators on the house republican side, i look at the

house republicans have the power of the purse. if the administration wants to not leave, -- not live up to this ruling, we are going to have a problem. there may come a point house republicans side will defund programs that don't make sense. >> you said you want this to be states rights, but is in a federal judge saying on a national level a pill cannot be administered? the opposite of states rights? >> the states had their ruling and now the federal government is coming in and dictating layers. it is important we have to get back and allow our institutions to lead. we cannot undermine them when we don't agree with things that are there. i am from texas. we don't have marijuana here. there want to is in california and other places. if those are the kind of things your community wants, work it

through your state, through the federal level. but we have to uphold our institutions. it is dangerous when we overrode them. host: from michigan, republican line. good morning. caller: i love the show. i wish congress and people in the government were actually watching the show. am sure they d't even tune in because they would really see what the people like and they wod have to do something. you showed a clip from the gentleman on cnn. it seems when a lot of these get on air, they are talking about one pill that hasn't been approved yet. first off it is the end of his conversation, he doesn't ke to speak in hypotheticals. you are talkg about a drug yet he brings up insulin, other drugs.

all these drugs thahave already been approved and are working great. when the democrats open their mouth, they throw in all these hypotheticals. this is about one pill, this is not about insulin, th is not about other drugs, this is about -- this is not about everying else. the caller to calls back made the statement 50% of america is a strangely wealthy a the other 50% are starving. why do people call up and throw dispute whic out? even the people who are elected officials are guests on cnn, fox news. we are talking about one thing yet they slice all these other things into it. host: that is richard there. richard let me push back on one point. many legislators are aware of this program. the key features when congress is in session is to invite legislators to have conversations not so much with

us, but with you. anna to answer questions from the public going on in the halls of congress, on the house and on the senate side. but keep watching. we appreciate all the legislatures who make time for us. from tom is in texas, democrats line. hi. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. talking about social security, with a cut social security out or cut it real bad, this country is going to hail in hand back. social security is keeping a lot of things propped up because people spend their money and it is in circulation. people need their social -- people need their social security. i am one of them. host: from nick in illinois, republican line. you are next up. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say thank you for pushing back on the canadian caller. there is a lot of people in our country, a lot of people around

the world uneducated, flat out across the board. we have them in government too. that is the way it is with freedom of speech. out of 39 million people, there is 3 million people from canada who are. i spend $100 making cheese cakes in illinois. host: president biden expected to travel overseas the early part of this week. ireland being one of the main spots he will make. president joe biden set to touch down in northern ireland. for heading to the republic of ireland. president biden do to visit to mark luke 20 for agreement --

20th year agreement. the white house confirmed he would make the trip with the press secretary saying the trip? tremendous progress citing the good friday agreement 20 years ago and to underscore readiness the united states supports northern ireland economic potential to benefit all community. that is a part of the coverage. watch out for that trip going on this week. if you're interested in another perspective on the good friday accord, bill clinton, president at the time writing an op-ed in the washington post. you want to read about president clinton you can do so on the page of the washington post. on the independent line, this is richard. hello. caller: good morning. i am interested in the fact farming is becoming very

difficult to do now. in the present day. one of the issues is that most of our farmers had is stratospheric aerosol injection program is being implemented throughout the entire country and if people would open their eyes and look and see that this is a real problem to our atmospheric condition. especially with that's the biggen

the planet. another thing i would like to mention is how the heck does nancy pelosi come up with $250 million in her bank account? i can tell you -- her husband is a real estate dealer and when nancy pelosi preached to get the waterfront property in san francisco improvement plan, he made $1.3 billion on them deals. that's go back and look at the finances of all these cricket people. i used to think mexico was the

crookedest place on the planet. i think we are now, worse than ukraine, worse than anyplace else. host: you say you identify as a proud boy, why is that? caller: because i am a proud boy. host: why are you part of the organization. i'm just curious? caller: i'm part of the organization because we are all conservatives and we all believe in the same thing and in freedom and rights and anticorruption, anti-crime. we are all law-enforcement enforcers, ex military people. i spent 10 years in the army. i'm the oldest proud boy on the earth in 11 countries. host: what about the members of your organization involved in january 6? do you support that? caller: no, i don't. we were all told in our chat and organization, not to go to washington dc.

there were 12 or 13 of the guys that were proud boys busted at the january 6 thing. it turns out some of them were fbi, six or seven of them were fbi people. host: where did you get that? caller: do your research. host: you tell me. you made the claim. where do you get that? caller: i get that out of the information i read. host: from where and from whom? caller: here's a perfect example of it. in rico terrio. supposedly our big spokesperson, who is also black cuban. he was a big-time proud boy. all of the sudden, it turns out he's a federal informant.

you can take that to the bank. i'm done. host: georgia, democrats lying. hello. caller: i wake up in the morning in the first thing i do is turn on c-span. there was a caller early on who said he don't think the politicians watch c-span. i disagree to a point we get on the phone and we talk about everything but what we should talk about is what the topic is. the gentleman just got done talking about a proud boy. that's what makes this country what it is now. members of this group and that group. i'm one of the guys that worked on the waterfront during the pandemic. we kept america and the world going. the longshoreman men and women throughout the united states of america never stopped working, regardless of what it was.

we put our families at risk and we worked to make sure the customers get the product they need to keep their families going, whether it's medication, whatever it was i'm so proud to be a longshoreman today that i can get up in the morning and listen to this show that i think brings more information to this country than any other shoe that is around. i want to talk about the texas supreme court justice who made that crazy decision about a pill that will affect the lives of women. i heard the color who said a while ago that they might start defunding some different things they need to fund. but when you are taking the rights from a group of people, a 50 law that was in place and a supreme court justice that made a decision to take down roe v. wade, i think it's one of the most damaging things that could have happened in american

history. host: the associated press reporting this morning officials are poised to boat -- two vote today to reinstate one of the two democratic lawmakers expelled for their protest on the tennessee house floor after that deadly school shooting. nationals metro council has called the meeting to address the vacancy left by the expulsion of justin jones. councilmembers have publicly commented they want to send jones back to the statehouse. both of those men who were expelled from the state congress in tennessee appeared on nbc's meet the press to talk with its host about the issue. here's part of that conversation. >> justin jones, let me start with you. you met with vice president harris, vice president --

president biden. what was their message to you? >> thank you so much for having us on. the most resounding message we are hearing from the white house and across the world and people across this nation is that this attack on democracy will not go on unchallenged. the tennessee republicans resurrected a movement led by young people to restore our democracy to build a multiracial coalition. we are in the midst of a third reconstruction here in nashville and the messages we will continue to resist. this is not the end. their decision to expel us is not the ultimate authority but the people will hold them accountable both at the county level and in the special election. >> have you talked to any of your colleagues or former colleagues since this vote? have any of them explained why you were ousted and gloria johnson was not? >> no.

i have not talked to our former colleagues. the reality is an institution filled with people who are more concerned about supporting the nra and the second amendment than it is protecting the first amendment right of children and teenagers to be able to come to the capital and advocate for gun violence prevention laws is not the type of legislation we deserve and need to have in the state of tennessee. the speaker of the house called those children insurrectionists. that type of political ideology that is destructive to our democracy and what ends up happening is the perpetuation of systems of injustice like patriarchy, like white supremacy that leads to the expunction of two of the youngest lack lawmakers in tennessee. -- youngest black lawmakers in tennessee. host: chester mill, ohio, the republican line. caller: i want to sam a former republican. host: are you a republican

currently or not? caller: i'm leaning more toward being an independent. host: are you a republican or not? caller: not now. host: i have to let you go. we try to keep the line open. we expect you to pick the line that is best for you. independent line. hello. caller: i would like to say good morning to all my fellow immigrant americans. we are all immigrants here. we need more immigrants to help pick up the slack as far as work and paying taxes. women should be able to have the pill. where was i going? the pill needs to be there. the democrats and republicans are in bed together. they take turns being in

trouble. you are in trouble, now it's our turn to be in trouble. nothing gets done. when i was growing up, i'm 60 now, disabled truck driver -- when i was young, it was called kicking the can. they don't call it kicking the can no more. they just like to spread chaos and debt. the corporations have been in bed with our government for a long, long time and until we can get the corporations out of our government, it is going to stay the same. host: the washington reporting this morning the house oversight and accountability committee has subpoenaed several more bank records for the biden family business deals following bank of america records that reveal suspicious payouts months after perez -- vice president biden left the vice presidency. the committee is demanding information from hunter biden

associate -- the latest volley of demands revealed in a memo issued by democrats accusing republicans of issuing secret subpoenas to investigate affairs. the washington times where you can find that story. peter in new york, republican line, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment on the first color from last week. the first caller from last week who talked about how he was informed and knew everything about it and it was those republican fox listeners that don't have an understanding of the world around them. the host said to her, what do you listen to? he said i listen to msnbc, atlantic magazine, the new yorker, the new york post and i'm the most informed person in the world. i'm sitting there and if people want to be informed, if you watch msnbc, you should listen to fox. the people who listen to fox

listen to other sources. i like listening to c-span because they bring in other opinions. if you just want to listen to one type, you don't know really what's going on. you can disagree but you shouldn't listen that's probably one of the biggest things we face that i'm 68 and when i grew up, you had reporters and newscasters that would show different opinions that weren't so opinionated. one of the things i wanted to say is that c-span had the two tennessee legislators that were sent out there and you didn't have a story about the people. it would have been great to have a story from the people why they did that and why it was necessary so you can show both views. host: that's peter in new york.

on the networks today at 2:00 p.m., a discussion on the state of the global con me which will feature the treasury undersecretary for international affairs. that will be at the brookings institution. if you're interested in learning, watches starting at 2:00 on c-span and the app is c-span now and you can watch online at c-span.org. willis in mississippi, democrats line. caller: thanks for having me. host: go ahead. caller: i'm a big fan of your show. host: i'm going to put you on hold for a second because i need you to turn down your television that way it keeps the interference low and it also keeps the conversation going. new york city, independent line, hello. caller: good morning.

i just want to make a quick statement. i want to say i'm mystified by the general american public as to why they would refute a president who comes along and says i want to put americans first in america and people have a problem with that. . i think only people under a mystical spell would have a problem with that. january 6 incident that happened at the capital, when i think about it, i didn't know -- notice one congressperson who displayed bravery to defend the capital. instead, they ran like carrots. host: that finishes off this round of open for him. coming up, he discussion, taking a look at the transparency of the activities of the member of -- members of the supreme court.

gabe roth will be joining us. that conversation is coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> edward acorn has been a lifelong reader of abraham lincoln. in 2020, he published his first book on the 16th president called". every drop of blood" in his second book just published on lincoln, he dropped back to the beginning of honest apes national political career in. 1860 the subject matter was inside the republican convention held in chicago. this time, the book is titled ". the lincoln miracle"

\ he's a former editorial page editor of the providence journal and lives in rehobeth, massachusetts. >> thas on the next episode of bo notes plus available on the c-span now free mobile app or were ever you get your podcasts. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of happening in washington live and on demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your finger pit tips -- stay up-to-date with latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for the c-span b networks and he's been radio and a variety of compelling podcasts. it's available at the apple store and google play.

>> c-span shop that were is there online stores of brows were latest collection. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase of support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: gate brought joins us now. he's joining us to talk about the supreme court and how it approaches disclosure. guest: thanks for having me. host: can you talk about your organization when it comes to matters of the supreme court, what position do you take and how you are funded and who supports you? guest: it's been around since

2014. we are a 5013 c profit organ is -- nonprofit organization and funded by various foundations and individual donors. host: when it comes to matters of the supreme court, generally, when it comes to justices on the supreme court, how they handle disclosure of the of activities? guest: each justice like each member of congress in each top-level official in the executive branch has to file an annual financial disclosure. they tell the public once a year what debts they have and outside income they might have earned from teaching or book royalties and any trips they went on paid for by third parties. there is a personal hospitality exemption but disclosures they file are fairly similar to what members of congress and other

lower court judges file on an annual basis. host: what are the differences between a person -- if one of the justices travels under hospitality or something else? guest: that changed recently. until three weeks ago, if you were flown on a private plane by a friend, you didn't have to report it your annual disclosure. if you state at a resort or ski chalet or hunting lodge owned by a friend or a commercial property owned by a friend, you didn't have to report it on your annual financial disclosure. that has changed as of march 14 so starting the next round of disclosures due in may, the justices will have to report if they took any private plane rides for free or they stated any resorts for free and it doesn't matter who paid for it. it could be the brookings institution or a liberal or

conservative mega downer, they will have to start reporting it but one of the other main difference is the members have to file a report within 30 days of where they went and how much it cost. supreme court justices only have to file a single report once a year that just says who paid and it doesn't say how much the hotel cost or how much the flight cost very much the meal cost. there is no internal ethics office at double checks with the justices to be sure they are crossing theirt's and dotting theiri's. the senate and house both have their own internal ethics offices. if you remember congress, the sponsors themselves have to file a report with the ethics committee and that doesn't exist for the justices of the supreme court or lower court judges. host: i want to talk to you about the rules.

what put them in that place in the first place? guest: i think it was years of lobbying by members of congress toward the federal judiciary. in the years following justice scalia's death, more interest around this issue because just as cool -- scalia died on it -- because justice scalia died in a trip he did not report any flu commercial from d.c. to houston. then he switched planes in houston and flew on a private jet to a ranch and martha, texas and that stay at the ranch would not have been reported under the old rules on his annual disclosure. there is a lot of intrigue around that for many reasons, one of which was in addition to a private plane is expensive and the hotel room it it was $800 per night but also the person who is paying all that had a

case that reached the supreme court. i think that peaked a bunch of interest. there have been other weird travel experiences unquestionable travel expenses from the justices in the intervening years. it really crystallized with the 2016 scalia trip and it took a while but then the democrats have been lobbing judiciary to change the rules which is potentially easier to do than getting a bill passed in congress. it was coincidence that the thomas story came out last week. three weeks prior, the judiciary change the rules you have certain noncommercial flights and commercial stays on your annual disclosure no matter who was giving it to you. host: on its face, what do you think of this authority? guest: i helped them on it.

i was happy came out. anytime you're a public official in your accepting lavish gifts and lavish trips, it raises russians. every american -- it raises questions. we want our justices to be above board. i don't think there is any question that in many of the trips reported, clarence and ginni thomas were not acting ethically. is there a way to impeach them, of course not. i think that story is a reflection of the existing rules. we need to change lax rules and make it so that supreme court doesn't have the weakest oversight in the three branches but maybe because they are supposed to be these neutral entities, they should have stronger ethics among the federal government branches. host: gave roth is with us until

10:00 a.m. and if you want to asking questions -- -- ask him questions -- you probably seen the statement concerning these matters saying that my wife kathy and i have been friends with justice thomas. hospitality we've extended to them is no different from the hospitality we'd extended to many other friends. from harlan roth, what do you think of the response? guest: justice thomas has been on the supreme court since 1991. to me, i think you have to look at a friendship that developed

after an individual has attained a position of so much power in our federal government. i think that we are talking about -- it's one thing if justice ginsburg was staying at a friends house in western massachusetts before she went to the opera and didn't reported on her disclosure but it's a completely different thing to be flown in a private jet halfway around the world and be given a letter's vacation and be someone who is sponsoring turning a cannery into museum where justice thomas's mother worked. and paying for a statute of thomas as middle school teacher in suburban new york and flying justice thomas tune investiture of a lower court judge. i'm not sure why he couldn't have flown commercial.

to me, it's the quantity which speaks volumes. to me, i think all the justices should have friends and i don't think they should live monastic lives but it reaches a certain point where it's reasonable to ask questions about propriety. host: you have probably seen the clarence stop thomas statement saying he did nothing wrong because it was early in his tenure when he did these things. he said this personal hospitality who did not have business before the court was not reportable. what is your perspective on his responses? guest: i'm sure glad he is going to abide by the new rules but there is this assumption that the justices would follow the new rules but because there are efforts on the lower courts and

justices positions were created by congress, there is tension about justices following them. presumably he and his colleagues will follow the rules. this idea that you are taking this loophole and flying a private plane through it is just ridiculous to me. the federal losses personal hospitality extent -- personal hospitality extends to a personal friend. a private plane is a facility or property but if you look at the senate rules, it explains that a private plane doesn't count and the fact that the judiciary didn't include that little clarification until three weeks ago, this is one of the things where you will want more disclosure and more transparency from your top officials in a

political third branch. maybe by the letter of the law it doesn't violate anything that it doesn't pass the salt test. this is gave roth -- gabe roth joining us for this conversation. we will start on the independent line in maryland. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a question as it relates to conflict of interest. it doesn't deal with this direct subject matter but it's difficult to hear topics pertaining to the supreme court. the particular justice i'm interested in is brett kavanaugh.

in my opinion, during his confirmation, it was awkward and it was expedited. there were a lot of questions that were not answered it he set on a case of mine at the circuit level for the district. however, i discovered was also a special counsel to the administration where he confirmed an appointee through the judiciary committee which i had adjudication against that agency. my concern as i realized through public service announcements, where does the conflict of interest lie. i solicited against his confirmation for the supreme court although that case matriculated to the supreme court at that time.

host: what would you like airgas specifically to address? -- our guest caller: caller: specifically to address? just the lack of transparency. host: thank you. guest: eight of the nine justices right now were judges in the lower court. if they hear a case in the lower courts whether they are a district judge or an appeals court judge or on the circuit court or all the judges of the circuit and they house anywhere from seven to 53 countries, then if the same judge becomes a supreme court justice he should refer -- he should recuse you in that the federal law.

if a judge or an individual has previously participated in a case, they should recuse themselves and be disqualified should they be asked to hear the case again if they move up to the supreme court. if that hasn't happened in your case, i typically will emails supreme court clerk the public information officer and say you missed one and usually they make a correction and they will deal with that say a justices now recuse in the case. sometimes you can be on recuse if it's the amazon versus smith case and of justice alito owns amazon stock, he can sell the stock and participate in the case. the justices decide whether they abide by the rules. if a lower judge in the caller's example moved from district to the circuit court in the case

also moved but the judge did not recuse. you can bring a complaint against the judge. there is disciplinary action that could happen. there isn't such disciplinary action at the supreme court. even the federal recusal law, there is no punishment for violating it with impeachment and removal. then how strong is the law so there needs to be more accountability measures and investigatory ability for the supreme court because at least let's have the transparency in place because otherwise, we are all in the dark and concerned about the propriety of the justices. host: alexandria, virginia, independent line. caller: thank you for c-span.

as an individual private citizen working in the financial services industry a couple of years ago, i was required to disclose any gift of any sort, box of candy, a lunch or something like that that was over $25. if the gift was over $100, i had to refuse that gift. i had to return it. i would like to look at this privilege that exists in all branches of government i think but certainly in the legislature and the judiciary and executive branches. there is a disconnect from what they have to do relative to what

we had to do as private citizens. guest: there are many industries which the gift rules are far stricter than for the supreme court. you think this would be the strictest. my sister g is as5 which is a grade in government. she's in little rock, arkansas and she couldn't accept any of the gifts clarence thomas had. you can accept anything from a lobbyist -- you can't accept anything from a lobbyist or foreign agent. if you have a non-friend, you are supposed to report it assuming it's more than $415. the bust of a blinken, the frederick douglass bible that clarence received were between 15 and $20,000.

those were reported on his financial disclosure. that pales in comparison to some of the other gifts that the justices have received. new gorsuch got an autographed louisville slugger bath. john roberts got a betsy ross quilt valued at $175. justice kagan got box seats to a big-time university of michigan football game. those are not like free flights on a private plane. it's difference by degree. i think that's a good point is that the gift rule, the disclosure rules but the tangible gift rules is confusing because in the statutes, it also means travel. but you are also talking about tangible gifts.

those need to be clarified and at the least, there needs to be in office within the supreme court that goes justice to justice and asks if they have received gifts. are you sure no one has given you a $5,000 painting? there completely needs to be better rules and regulations and i think members of congress because the supreme court will not act on this likely, members of the congress need to rewrite the rules to ensure the justices have the same gift acceptance rules that they had to follow, nothing more than $50. host: if there is no investigating body once these documents are turned in, what -- what happens? guest: the annual financial disclosure report last year was posted online. it's crazy it took that long to post them online. .

they are by law posted online. then you look through them. the court of public opinion happens next and journalists will read through them and one year, neil gorsuch reported getting a fishing rod from a guy in colorado. i didn't know who this guy was. i called him up and i asked why he gave me fishing rod and he said i read about him in the paper any mention you likes fishing and i thought it would be a nice thing to do. one of the first colorado-based supreme court justices. it was nothing nefarious so that's something that should be happening. using journalistic and investigative practices to see if any of the things that were listed impute a conflict of interest. you are also supposed to list

your spouse's primary place of work. several justices have spouses who work in the legal field and i don't think any of them have any reason to worry about conflicts. it's worth asking the question if justice barrett's firm will have case before the supreme court, in jane roberts firm will have cases before the supreme court of katie's addition of katie thomas is going to work with supreme court, there are more plausible reasons for conflicts with ginny. justice jackson's husband was a doctor but did some consulting work for legal firms on medical malpractice in the normal course of things, these are questions that should be asked. the justices we know are not being so forthcoming with that which they are receiving. we need stronger laws to make

that happen. host: representative alexandria ocasio-cortez have called for stricter rules. what the light of -- what's the likelihood of that happening? guest: it's the same as impeaching a president, he would need a majority vote in the house and to remove a justice, it would be two thirds of the senate which is never happened at one justice was impatient and acquitted. that was 220 years ago so i think impeachment talk is mostly pointless. it will not happen with a republican congress and even in a democratic congress, i don't think you would get a majority of the democrats behind that. it's not fomenting an insurrection but the other thing is that it's not something you will get 67 senators on.

it might not be the best use of time. a better use of time is looking at your own rules and drafting them onto -- and grafting them onto the justices. host: senator sheldon whitehouse put out a statement -- guest: senator whitehouse has been a leader in trying -- he is the chairman of the senate judiciary committee subcommittee . there is one in the senate. as his role, he works typically on a bipartisan asia so i think the most recent round of letters were democrats only. he has really pushed the judicial conference which is the policymaking body of the judiciary. the judiciary loves federalism.

it's very much in favor of federalism so everyone does their own thing on a lot of different policy matters but the judicial conference is a body to come together twice a year and they have committees and they talk about ways to improve the effectiveness of the judiciary. sheldon whitehouse has been asking for them to close the loophole and they have the power to do so. under the post-watergate law, the it says disclosures have to -- have to happen from all three branches of government and gives them the ability to tighten those laws without needing congressional approval. after scalia's death on a free ranch happened, he started pushing for closing the personal hospitality loophole and it took a lot of years that he pushed the judicial conference to change their policy and the committee decided to do so and they voted to change the policy

to require reporting of private planes and resorts stays three weeks ago. host: here is christopher in illinois, democrats line, thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. excellent topic. i wrote some notes down. i want to be clear and coherent. no individual organization should ever have any capability to sway any possible decision or opinion and the ultimate bottom line in my opinion is always much is given, much is expected. any possibility of all, any suggestion of favor intimating a ruling to go some other direction, to go along with what

somebody or an organization wants like somebody has a ranch or somebody has a museum somewhere in the world. it's profoundly dangerous. to be as neutral as possible is the whole idea behind the justice system. a small town in mississippi or the united states supreme court. host: thank you, caller. guest: we expect judges in our meniscal cords and lower federal courts to lead by example and lead with integrity. i think there is a yawning gap between what should we should expect from supreme court and what's actually happening when it comes to their ethical responsibility. host: from rich in new jersey, republican line.

caller: good morning. let me start this way, if it wasn't justice thomas appointed by republican, this wouldn't be a story. guest: of course it would be. host: let him finish and we will get your response. caller: did you do any investigation on our bg or sotomayor? none of them have ever taken -- guest: they have not taken a nickel but they have flown --host: let him finish and then you can respond. caller: where is the report on all democrat appointed justices? there isn't any? for 30 years, you guys have been going after justice thomas for every little thing since he was appointed. this is a nonstory, percival. -- first of all. how about putting biden and his

son on every day on "washington journal". you don't host: want to do that. we talked about that topic several times but we are talking about this topic now. guest: i'm not an expert on the other branches but with the supreme court, i've done extensive research on justice ginsburg and justice sotomayor and justice kagan and a little on justice jackson but they've all accepted gifts that they probably shouldn't have. justice ginsburg flew to jordan on the dime of an individual who had a company similar to scalia who had a company who had a case before the justices months before and accepted that flight. justice sotomayor flew to rhode island to give a talk in 2016 that she didn't put on her annual financial disclosure or

where the university of rhode island where she was speaking for commencement in put together a motorcade with her security detail and had her stay in 11 rooms for free and one of the nicest hotels in the state. we've done this work. that report came at the same week as the pandemic was getting going in march of 2020. briar went on a private plane to nantucket in 2013 and we reported on that so there have been words from other groups about other justices but we cannot do equivalency if there aren't equivalent numbers. if there were trips to indonesia and new zealand and the adirondacks and east texas like with thomas or the free hunting trips that scalia did not report, it's a numbers game and there were way more that they

were doing. as a nonprofit, it would be nice if there were two liberal justices who had a pension for a free trip as the two conservative justices but that's not the world we live in. i'm trying to respond to what i see in what's going on. it might have a partisan bent but it shouldn't and the rules that apply to members of congress, they should apply to the supreme court. if that impacts one just as more than another, so be it. by definition, they should be apolitical. host: democrats line next, hi. caller: i have a thank you for everything you do. i can remember i've been following the supreme court since nixon. i remember it being conservative

i don't remember it leaning or even a liberal majority, i don't think. host: it's been majority republican appointees for 53 years now. caller: my point is, if joe biden came out today and said i want to resurrect the u.s. supreme court committee that he had when he first get into office and says i want to appoint for justices now this year while he had the majority in the senate, what do you think that would do through the political world? i think it would shake things up. guest: i think to pass that law because it would change the law, you would have to get the house on board and i don't think house republicans will get on board with that and a majority of house democrats are not on board with that either. it's an interesting exercise.

we support term limits as a way to shake things up. the thing with court expansion is we have 13 justices and then if we get a different president and they will add six justices and there won't be a supreme court. that might be the end goal of the people who want to expand the court which is to reduce the power of the work to make it chaos. i think it's an intellectual exercise. i like the idea of disempowering the supreme court. i think our representatives in congress and the executive branch from the president on down should be the ones who are setting policy in this country. the supreme court is becoming most powerful and the least accountable part of our government and not that's not the way the founders had envisioned it. term limits to me is a better

proposition. it's politically neutral and every president under the term limit plan that are most prevalent would get to terms as a limit. then you would have 18 year terms or nine times two is 18 so that means of four-year term in a new justice and it would be a disempowering reform but i appreciate the biden administration bringing this conversation to the four. it has set in a drawer for the past year. host: maureen in florida, republican line. caller: kudos to you. wonderful investigation. i'm loving every minute of it. i used to be a probation officer in new york. it's definitely needed. i see in audit group until this

is cleaned up. i think that would expedite the whole thing. three things i would like to say. president trump is being used to hide what biden and china and russia are up to. they are distracting us with that. host: i apologize because it's not what we are talking about. this idea of a code of ethics for the supreme court, does it exist? guest: the project on government oversight came out with a model code of conduct that the justices should consider. when you think about a code of contact, there is one that exists for the lower court judges, the 2500 federal judges not on the lower just nons of -- none supreme court have to follow. i think you can take that coda

make a few changes and i would change it a little bit but i think there are ethical canons that are universal you could apply to the supreme court and discipline court would apply to themselves and you need to be more prescriptive as far as saying no attending political fundraising or taking gifts. there are things you can kick up a notch when it comes to their ethical requirements. this exists in every other court in the country. every lower court has to follow a code. justice kagan mentioned in 2019 the chief justice roberts was working on it but it's tough to write a code that covers everything. it doesn't take four years to do this.

my hope is that with this recent talk of justice thomas and other ethical lapses that it reinvigorate its the code but some sort of accountability measures so there is the ability of members of the public to file a complaint and pointed to the supreme or that you shouldn't have taken that flight were accepted that gift and there should be some sort of report that is taken and sent to congress saying these are the times the justices did not follow the code. given that we will not impeach a justice and none of them has done anything that's impeachable, i think we need to be creative about accountability measures. there are steps that can be taken on a bipartisan basis to ensure error highest court is not have the lowest -- that our highest court does not have the lowest ethical standards. host: gabe roth is the executive

director and you can find them online, thank you for your time. guest: host: host: thank you. "washington journal"washington journal another edition of" comes your way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. have a good day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including media come. >> at media come, we believe whether we are here, right here, or wait in the middle of anywhere, you should have access to fast, reliable internet.

>> media come supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers , giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> today, a look at the state of the global economy with the treasury secretary for international affairs at the workings institution. watch live beaking at 2 p.m. eastern. c-span now, or free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> all this week, beginning at 7 p.m. eastern, c-span is featuring encore presentations of "q&a", our hour-long program with interviews with journalists and historians. philip k howard provides a critique of public employee unions in his book.

he argues organizations like the american federation of teachers and the fraternal order of police have usurped decision-making power from officials and are arguably unconstitutional. philip k howard, tonight, at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a". you can listen on our free c-span now app. >> agriculture secretary tom vilsack testified on policy and recommendations for the 2023 farm bill. watch that tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span, c-span now come our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> edward acorn has been a lifelong reader of abraham lincoln. in 2020, he published his first book on the 16th president called every drop of blood,

subtitle b momentous second inauguration of abraham lincoln. in his second book, just published, mr. acorn dropped back to the beginning of honest abe national political career. that year was 1860. the subject matter, inside the republican convention held in chicago. this time, the book is titled the lincoln miracle. edward acorn is the former editorial page editor of the providence journal and lives in massachusetts. >> e acorn in his book on this episode ofoonotes plus. but notes plus is available on the c-span now free mobile app or >> coming up next, chris miller, former acting defense secretary during the trump administration, talks about military strategy, the defense budget, and how to best approach the competition with china. hosted by the cato institute, is