journal." weake your calls live. the latest on the federal debt limit negotiations with max cohen, congressional reporter for ncbowl news. after that, can cuccinell, the founder of never back down, a new super pac supporting florida governor ron desantis talks aboutampaign 2024. they new book -- the new book to change the law without public hearings. we speak with texas law professor and author stephen vladeck. "washington journal" is next. ♪ >>. it is sunday, may 21. president biden wrapped up his visit to japan for the g7 summit. instead of traveling onto

australia and papa new guinea, he would return to the white house. here, biden will continue to meet with congressional leaders in hopes of ironing out an agreement to lower the debt limit. administration officials say that limit could be reached as soon as june 1. we want to hear from you today, what are your thoughts about the g7 trip and the debt limit debate? democrats, you can dial us at (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is (202) 748-8001. independents, we want you to call us at (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text message at (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you live. you can find us on

facebook.com/c-span. on twitter @cspanwj, and on instagram @cspanwj. let's start off by talking about the debt ceiling. here is an article i want to pull up by the hill. the headline says, mccarthy signals that limit negotiations cannot move forward until biden returns. biden will be returning to the white house today. here is this article from saturday, it says speaker kevin mccarthy signals on saturday that he does not think that limit negotiations can move forward until president biden returns to washington. "unfortunately, the white house moved backwards," senator mccarthy told -- a republican from north

carolina, " i do not think we will be able to move forward until the president can get back in the country." again, that is from the hill. let's hear more from mccarthy. this is going to be him speaking to reporters in the capital about debt limit negotiations. [video clip] >> the white house -- unfortunately, the white house moved backwards. i think the standards and socialist thinking the party has had has had a real effect on the president, especially with him being out of the country. i don't think we will be able to move forward until the president can get into the country. fed we were first, i went to the president -- february 1, i went to the president. to the last date to now, they have moved backwards. they want us to have more money

than we spend this year. we all know how big this deficit is. we have to spend less. host: that was speaker kevin mccarthy from the capital on saturday. again, we want to hear from you now. what are your thoughts both about those debt ceiling talks and about biden\ cutting his trip --biden cutting his trip to the g7 short? let's go to the phone lines. andrew, new york, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: wonderful. caller: i have a few concerns. i had voted for joe biden, but i have a lot of concerns. i live in long island, new york. we seem to be deceived a few things by the democrats. i do not like to look at things this way, but it is getting to where i wonder what you can believe.

we were deceived on bail reform. we were definitely were -- were definitely deceived on immigration. now, i feel like the answer that joe biden is giving, not that i am siding with republicans, but i do not the why we cannot look at things before we pass the budget because they have had march and he has ignored that. i have a real problem with this, pass the budget, we will talk about it later. that never happens in politics unless they want it done. if they wanted it done, they do it now. you know once they pass this budget and raise the debt ceiling, which i believe is the right thing to do, of course, but you will never get to sit back down at the table and discuss these things. i have a problem with the democrats saying one thing and doing what they want, which the other side does, to. i believe we have a problem on both sides, and it is getting to

the point where i do not believe you can trust either side anymore. host: all right, andrew. got your point, we appreciate your call this morning. to andrew's point, this is this morning's washington post. as you see, there is an article that says any debt deal may be a bitter pill to all. i want to read the first couple of paragraphs from the article. it says, there is still no deal in place for congress in the white house to avoid a catastrophic default on the nations debt. even if talks continued into the weekend, one thing was already clear, a lot of republicans and democrats do not like the deal, whatever it is. on the right, the house freedom caucus has called for negotiations over the debt ceiling entirely, saying "there should be no further discussion" until the senate asks on a house

bill that would raise the borrowing limit while sharply cutting federal spending. on the left, growing coalition of senate democrats is calling for president biden to prepare to invoke the 14th amendment, pushing forward unilateral but potentially risky moves that would sidestep the close circle of negotiators trying to hammer out a compromise. house are trying their own longshot bid to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts, circulating the petition that could force the boat. i'm going to read a little bit more. it says, in the middle, the negotiations broke down for much of the day on friday before resuming later in the evening. with the clock ticking toward a possible june 1 deadline, the two sides still seemed far apart. again, that is this morning's washington post with a recap on

this -- not everyone being happy right now as those debt limit negotiations continue. let's hear from rick in tampa, florida, democratic line. you are on, break. caller: good morning. i think lost in these discussions is the gop trump tax cut for business a few years ago. hi think what is going on now is, we are looking for spending cuts for those that can afford it the least. we had this huge tax cut for corporations. that is all i have this morning, thank you. host: all right, rick in tampa, florida. leroy is calling us from raleigh, north carolina, independent. caller: good morning. first of all, there is no shortage of money because --

host: leroy, did we lose you? caller: no, no, i am sorry. there is no shortage of money because all the white wealth was created off the backs of free slave labor. [laughter] if you would charge the billionaires their fair share of taxes, you could balance the budget. the fox news work and mccarthy should be deemed a terrorist organization because they are working against everybody. they get free health care for life. they are not going to lose a doggone thing. they do not care about the little guy. all of these white people that really want to hold up things, this is going to hurt them to. i could go on and on, but i wanted to get that point across. host: all right, leroy.

let's hear from lucretia, cocoa, florida, democratic line. go ahead, lucretia. caller: hi, good morning. i want to let you know i firmly believe that the republicans have been nothing but bullies. as far as i'm concerned being a disabled veteran and on social security at the same time, let the budget go. i am tired of them cutting all the time, one thing it their way and no compromise toward our side. the state of florida has gone to be a fascist state now because of desantis. it is like, i have had it. just let it go flat and say we are tired of the bullying. that is it. thank you. host: all right, lucretia. we have mentioned that president biden wrapped up the g7 trip this morning. he will be heading back to washington to continue those talks.

before he left, he did speak from japan about the debt limit. here is an article this morning in politico. biden must move from extreme positions on debt ceiling talks. president joe biden wrapped up three days of meetings with g7 leaders and other allies by staking out a clear position in the debt limit negotiations occurring back in washington, that played out in the background throughout this weekend long summit. the president, who said he would speak by phone with house speaker kevin mccarthy from air force one on his flight home, put the onus on republicans to move toward the middle. president biden also had a news conference this morning, this is where some of those comments came from. let's watch a little bit more of president biden speaking from japan about this debt limit. [video clip]

>> i want to take a few minutes to address the new budget negotiations as i am heading back home to deal with. before i left for this trip, i met with all four congressional leaders. we agreed the only way to move forward was in a bipartisan agreement. i have done my part. we put forward a proposal that cuts spending by more than $1 trillion on top of the nearly three trillion dollars in deficit deduction i previously proposed through a combination of spending cuts and new revenues. now, it is time for the other side to move from their extreme positions because much of what they have already proposed is simply, quite frankly, unacceptable. let me be clear. i am not going to agree to a deal that protects, ford simple, $30 billion tax break for the oil industry, which made $200 billion last year. they do not need an incentive of

another $30 billion. while putting health care of 20 million americans at risk by going after medicaid. i am not going to agree to a grill -- to a deal that protects excess payments from pharmaceutical industries and refusing to count that while cutting over 100,000 school teachers and assistants jobs. 30,000 law enforcement officers jobs cut across the entire united states of america. i am not going to agree to a deal that protects wealthy tax cheats and crypto traders while putting food assistance at risk for nearly one million americans. it is time for republicans to accept there is no bipartisan deal to be made solely, solely on their partisan terms. they have to move, as well. all four congressional leaders agree with me that default is not, default is not an option. host: that was president biden

speaking at the end of the g7 summit about the debt limit, right before he was scheduled to fly back to washington to continue those negotiations. let's hear from another caller now. sheila is in modesto, california, democrat. sheila, what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. i think the rich should pay their fair share, regardless of the party affiliation. that is just the thing. that is all i have to say this morning, thank you for taking my call. host: all right, sheila. we are going to pause to bring in max:. -- max cohen, he is going to share the latest on those debt limit negotiations. good morning, max.

max, are you there with us? can you hear me? ok, i think we lost max. we will try to get him back on. let's go to louisville, kentucky, republican line. richard, good morning. caller: it did not take long for a young person to get on there and talk about how bad white people are. i hope in the future, washington journal will try to pan down some of the people coming from the democrats side. let me say this about the debt ceiling. i think republicans ought to just get out of the way, give joe biden, the democrats, everything they want. let them spend, spend, spend, reparations for the ancestors of the slaves, give the millions of dollars. let them open the border.

let the people flow through. when it is all said and done and this country has gone to help in a hand basket -- hell in a hand basket, then we will see what we can do. host: all right, richard. this is an article from msnbc. a lot of the disagreement is between the white house and house republicans. there is an important voting block with house republicans, that is the house freedom caucus. here is an analysis piece on msnbc, it says why the house freedom caucus's debt ceiling demands matter. it says, as dangerous -- as a dangerous debt ceiling deadline draws closer, leaders from both parties express cautious optimism yesterday that budget

talks were advancing in a constructive way. there is a chance an agreement will come together before the united states defaults on its obligations. it was against this backdrop congress is most right-wing faction yesterday called for the negotiations to end before a deal can be reached. the washington post reported the house freedom caucus that it is calling on house speaker kevin mccarthy to suspend his negotiation on raising the debt limit with the white house and instead focus on getting the house passed, limits grow through the senate. there should be no further discussion until he sat -- the senate passes the legislation. here is how the far right contingencies it, the house passes regressive partisan ransom note which freedom -- house freedom caucus members wrote. matt gaetz recently told politico house speaker kevin

mccarthy and his team "just picked up the house freedom caucus plan and helped us convert it into the legislative text." that is an analysis piece from msnbc on the house freedom caucus'position. let's try again, max cohen, congressional reporter, punch bowl news. are you with us? guest: i am, thank you so much for having me. host: thank you for churning -- joining washington journal. guest: it is my pleasure. host: can you give us an update? it seemed like there were more downs than ups this weekend, but was any progress made? guest: that is a great way to put it, more downs than ups. the two sides remain very far part, that is the fact of the matter. president biden speaking in japan bashing publicans counter offer, which he says helps the

corporations and hurts low income americans. that is how the democrats see the current proposal. republicans want severe budget cuts. -- which would amount to a spending freeze. the republicans went a bit more than that. biden --the two sites are far apart on the spending guidelines going forward and there are currently no meetings scheduled for today. president biden and speaker mccarthy are expected to talk. host: can you tell us a little bit more about the breakdown? they are far apart, but is it on everything? are there particular sticking points? guest: sure. from what we understand at punch bowl news is that democrats said, let's just freeze all spending, spoke -- social spending on domestic programs. to keep it at current fiscal

year 2023 levels. republican said we need an increase in the defense spending, which would -- if you are increasing that and cut overall, a bigger cut then domestic social spending programs. that is the current breakdown as we see it, republicans said, we want to cut everything, we want to expand these programs and that is going to mean we've got to cut everything else a bit more than was previously expected. host: can you give us an idea of the timeline? we keep hearing june 1, but that means congress has to act sooner because it takes a while for legislation to make it through the process. can you walk us through that timeline? guest: 100%. that is a great way to look at it. congress is not fast institution.

we expect a deal needs to come together either today or tomorrow at the latest in order to get us enough time to move through both houses of congress. house speaker mccarthy was elected through multiple speaker votes, he committed to letting members review a bill 72 hours before it is voted on. that means we need something written on the house floor. this weekend -- agreed upon monday. today and tomorrow are crucial days to get this package through. if we do not see progress by negotiators, it could be difficult to get something done by june 1. i would like to add, sometimes this happens in negotiation. sometimes, things look bad before the big breakthrough. host: so, we just heard president biden early this morning with pretty tough in his words. just before that, i would say he seemed optimistic.

so, has biden shifted, or do you think -- did you get a since he still remains optimistic? guest: that is a good question. i think the previous line you alluded to -- you are saying all party leaders agree to that. does he have to portray that kind of optimism or the financial mike it's -- speaking in japan with world leaders might start to distrust the united states ability to pay their debts. i think when push comes to shove, the leaders are optimistic. they know they disagree on certain things on spending limits. i do think there is a willingness to accept that, no matter how much the disagreements is going to be weighed one --with the exception on some of the right of the gop,

party leaders went to avoid that no matter what. host: along the same lines of the white house, biden has been optimistic. you and i have both seen these statements coming from surrogates of biden, white house officials, who have been critical of house republicans. can you tell us how that is playing out both in the public and also how that is being received by those republican negotiators? guest: i think the negotiators are not paying too much attention to that because what we know as negotiators on the democratic side, we have young in the white house and joe biden advisors that know the budget process well. on the republican side, gary graves and patrick mchenry, those are the two trusted mccarthy lieutenants. this group of four are the main

names, those four people are serious negotiators. i do not think they are involved in drafting these statements. i think negotiators put their head down and deal with the negotiating. we saw gary graves leave a meeting in congress on friday. he said, they are being obstinate. some of these things -- behind closed doors, i think they realize they should get a deal. host: on that note, you said these next two days will be crucial. what is the past -- path forward? what do you think could shake over the next two days? guest: that is a really good question. if i knew, i think every thing would be great. i do not. i think -- what democrats imply

they expect there to be is a freeze on spending essentially amounting to a continued resolution for the next year. everything we spent in fiscal year 2023, we spend it in fiscal year 2024. this is somewhat on the middle ground. democrats proposed a big increase in spending. they are not going to get that. republicans have said they want to bring things back to fiscal year 2022 spending, a 22% cut across the board which is not going to happen. both sides need to come to the middle. my guess is, you get a big increase in -- funding, and maybe there is a cut on domestic programs. i think there is a framework you will hear to be had on other aspects, permitting reform making it easy to -- easier to drill for oil and gas and

reclaiming unspent covid money appropriated but not actually spent. the framework, we have talked about these guidelines for a couple of days now. host: last question, max. at what point should we be concerned? at what point should we really start talking about the fact that the u.s. could default on its spending or its debt? guest: i think we are there, to be quite honest. we are very close to this deadline, a matter of days. we need to get together to pass the house and senate. as i said earlier, both sides are publicly sniping. as a country, we do not want to be here. this is not ideal. i think this monday evening

there hasn't been a tenant public statements at the white house --monday evening and there is this public griping back and forth, then i would get concerned. host: all right. again, max cohen, punch bowl news congressional reporter. we will stay tuned to see what is going to shake out. thank you again for joining us. guest: thank you for having me, it was a great conversation. enjoy your sunday. host: thank you, you two. back to the phone lines, we want to hear from you. as the debt limit talks continue and president joe biden wraps up his trip to japan for the group of seven summit, what are your thoughts? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and dependence bang, -- independents, (202) 748-8002.

baton rouge, louisiana, cj is on the independent line. you are on, cj. caller: good morning. there has been a plan put forward by the republicans about 30 days ago. i do not know if joe was sleeping or he has been in his basement in delaware. he comes on three days ago and says we have a problem. we do have a problem, we have a spending problem. i think about 1% of the top -- the top 1% of the people paid 40% of the taxes. in fact, there is some people that pay -- there is some people that do not pay any taxes. zero taxes. that is somewhat communistic.

from the democratic party, what can we expect? they have always liked the communists. it is really sad that they hold the country hostage like this every year. cut the damn spending. host: all right, cj. cj brought up that house debt ceiling plan. i want to go through briefly some of the highlights of what is in that house republican plan. number one, it raises the debt ceiling into 2020 for. it reduces federal spending to fiscal year 2022 levels. it limits future spending growth to 1% annually over the next decade. it recovers unspent covid-19 funds given tstate and local governments. it creates new work requirements for recipients of federal aid programs like food stamps and decayed --medicaid.

it calls irs to hire new agents and staff. it blocks any efforts to cancel student loan debt, and it would reform energy permitting and repeal green energy programs. this is all from the washing -- sourced from the washington post. that is an overview of the house republican debt ceiling proposal. we are going to go back to the phone lines now. ruth on the democratic line in kingston, new york. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to make three points. the first is, the fact media has framed this falsely as a negotiation issue is not supposed to be about negotiations. that has been explained, but does not seem to catch on and the media keeps pushing the idea

democrats should be negotiating with this when we are just paying our bills. the two major points though is, marjorie taylor greene and her gang of insurrectionists, they do not care if it goes into default because she is on the record as trying to wreck things. if the economy gets wrecked and tension is established, they function on chaos and that will work to their favor. they will blame the democrats. they are trying to hold us hostage to take food off the table, to destroy social policies that create more tension, more poverty, more desperation and frankly, more crime in the country. they will blame the democrats for that. one way or the other, they feel they are going to get away with this and it is going to be to their advantage no matter how it goes. one thing not being taken into consideration, this will hurt billionaires and corporate america more in terms of

interest rates and everything else with a default, which is essentially the beginnings of a bankruptcy as far as the rest of the world is concerned. that cannot help anybody in corporate america. the basic, real money behind this is not going to want to support a default possibility, but i would not bank on this. that is my comment, i hope some people listen to it. thank you very, very much. host: on the republican line now, chris is in indiana. chris, go ahead. caller: good morning, everyone. host: good morning. caller: i have been a conservative for a long time. for pete's sake, i have got majority independent. i am amazed, the people that all in that flame the republicans or -- blame the republicans are blame the democrats sound beyond

identical to the people in washington, blowing all the money and raining up the debt. ok? the first thing i have got to hit on is, through the course of the last 10 ears of my life, i got into politics -- 10 years of my life, i got into politics. i am amazed how many people are involved with taking money away from the poor and not how many people are taking money from the system. granted, the republicans have their issues. republicans for the most part one to take the money away from the people that are abusing this system, not the people that need it. ok? or deserve it, like the people that have worked their whole lives instead of younger people having three or four children when they cannot afford it. ok? first of all, you talk about taking -- the last guy talked about taking food away from

people. we do not want to take food away from people. we want to restore this country back to people working and take some of that money back that is being abused. i want to talk about one more thing before i go. host: go quickly. caller: i was talking to my u.s. senator yesterday. i talked to him about, i titled it the great delusion. of both parties. please listen, everybody. the delusion of the republicans, when they get in power is, we can just have eight or 12 years, we can turn this around. guess what, it never happens, a democrat comes in. when democrats are in power, if we can have power for eight or 12 years, we can turn this around. we can tax the rich. guess what, this is my message to all republicans and democrats, this keeps stepping over year after year after year. we are going to keep having this

same, silly conversation while the republicans and democrats are working it in washington. guys, we have to quit supporting both parties because we are going to be in this conversation in another 10 years. host: chris, we are going to have to leave it there. ira is in palm coast, florida. democratic line, good morning, ira. caller: good morning. my comment on this whole affair is this. the democrats and republicans, the united states government has to pull back in the world. what is going on is that the american government is jealous of certain areas in the world. what i am going to put in front is china, they are jealous of china. the united states is trying to hold back on china on that front of the united states. the united states government is -- they did not want that to happen.

here in the state of florida, we got desantis. he is running the state of florida because it is hurting our economic development. central florida with disney has pulled back growth areas in central florida. desantis is running around talking about, florida is where woke goes to die. he do not know, he is really hurting the state of florida. i am about to be woke, because black people are woke. what happened to them over the past or hundred 50 years as far as -- 450 years, i am plaid -- i am proud to be a woke person. host: frank is on the republican line. silver creek, georgia. caller: hi, good morning.

yeah, there is a problem in america. no lack of long-term -- lack of long-term planning. we only do a four or five year plan because we have got to make it quick, we have got to do it quick. we do not think about the outcome 100 years down the road. that is the reason why we are at right now. we reap what we sow. here we are, taxes are going through the roof. somebody has got to pay for this debt. property taxes have gone up 18% on my house this year. who is paying that? well, it is the 55 and older group because we are the ones that have the homes. 46% of the people in this country rent or live in a cardboard box. the people that own property are the ones paying most of the taxes in this country. we get away with the birthday tax, that was on your car. a lot of people are not -- they

should be paying more taxes. we are just getting taxed to death here. it is on the horizon. if you cannot see it, you need to open your eyes. i agree with the guy who said, just give them everything. if we do that, we will be a communist nation. the country will collapse and we will be like venezuela and cuba. host: all right, frank. let's hear now from michael in stamford, connecticut. independent line. caller: hello, good morning. the only reason this is an issue is because republicans want to make it an issue. they -- i saw the clip of trump a couple of years ago, we will never talk about the debt limit and put that in negotiation, never, never. the republicans are sitting around going, no, no, no, that would be crazy.

they talk about the economy when trump was in. didn't this whole country check out for two years for the trump virus and the trump virus and trump himself is a virus? all the spinning comedy tax cuts he did, this is money trump spent, not biden wants to spend or anything like that. mccarthy, he has got his buddy santos over there, he needs this guys boat. this guy is a psychopath. he cannot say anything without lies. everything is a lie. he goes on and on and on. the biggest problem is the republicans. they want to try and make things fail and get destroyed. that is it. desantis, that guy is a joke. he wants to make america florida. you ever hear that thing you say, a man from florida, you put in a date and come up with something crazy? that is desantis for you.

mickey mouse punches harder than desantis. he is going to feel it hard pretty soon. have a great day. host: all right. let's go to michigan on the democratic line. go ahead, sue. caller: hi. as far as the debt ceiling goes in the budget, those are totally different things. that that ceiling needs to be paid because those are costs that have been incurred like our charges. if you buy something on your charge, you have to pay. you cannot say when it comes time to it and pay it, you cannot say i do not feel like paying it. that is what is going on here. i was a badgett analyst -- budget analyst for the federal government. these are two different things. what the republicans are doing is holding us hostage. they do not even care if we die. i have a mother, she is now gone, she has passed away.

if they -- on their debt, these people will die. my mother had social security. her social security would be taken away. if my sister and i were not alive, she would be dead because she would have nothing, you know? republicans do not care if these people die. as far as the guns go, they do not care if the kids at school die. they do not care if their own kids die because they are in bed with the nra and the gun lobbyists. to say these two things are related is ridiculous. they are trying to do this to hurt president biden. they do not want him to win because they know he is doing a wonderful job for this country. they are just getting on this, spreading these lies everywhere. it is getting to the point where they do not care at all about us people and this country unless you are a billionaire.

that is all they care about. as far as mccarthy begging people 15 times to vote for him and giving them all types of things, he is going to give away hiding from us is telling us -- what, he is going to relied on that debt ceiling? that marjorie taylor greene, she is insane. host: sue, i am going to have to leave it there. we appreciate your call. we've got another caller there, flynn is calling from evans, georgia on the republican line. you are on. caller: yes, good morning. the thing that i have to say is, this country is divided. we only have three parties. of the three parties, independent, democrats and republicans, the most divided country in the world. nobody won't agree on anything when they have countries that

have more parties, 10, 15 parties and they do a better job than this one. democrats, republic -- democrats attack republicans, republicans attack democrats. it looks like since we had donald trump that cuts the democrat plan from obama, oh, from clinton, they had a plan to change this country. because trump came in, did you know his job and i do not think we had any issue since after biden won. i have seen my gas bill increase, my electric will increase --bill increase. tax increase, food increase. they blame it on damn donald trump.

that is the past, think about the future, what this guy is doing. that guy is not doing anything. he is thinking about the green deal. -- giving hotel rooms that cost thousands of dollars in new york for immigrants and they say we will get them --humanity and think about, i am an immigrant, came 1998. i paid my dues, i paid my bills, i had to go through a lot of things to get my citizenship. i had to do a civic test, 100 questions. they put me naked. they did a prostate check to make sure i did not have disease. now, they just let people in. just fill up this country. host: appreciate that call. our next collar is coming from

barboursville, virginia. mark is on the independent line. caller: hi, good morning. excuse me. i've got a few points. one, i am a libertarian, not an independent but you do not have a libertarian line. so much as the 14th amendment i hear everybody talking about having biden focus to satisfy the incurred debt. i think what people are really forgetting is the 14th amendment came about during reconstruction. it was there for the confederacy to make the states not be liable. the power of enforcement under session four that everyone seems to be quoting, all you hear is about this session four. session five specifically states, and this is from the

u.s. government website, that congress should have the power of force of appropriate legislation. nowhere in the 14th and movement does it say the president, any president, democrat or republican, can just say, you know what, we are going to have public debt, no discussion from the house which controls the purse strings, which represents the people. so. biden knew this 14th amendment -- worked around the stalemate at happen in congress and with the house. he is by indirect action diverting the will of the people, who are representing the house. that is about all i have got. host: all right, mark. this is a political article -- political article. the headline, biden's 14th amendment message to progressives, it ain't going to happen. presidents advisors fear such a move would trigger a legal battle undermine global faith in

credit worthiness and damage the economy. it does not look like president biden is considering invoking the 14th admin to solve this debt ceiling crisis. our next call is anna in texas on the democratic line. caller: yes ma'am, good morning. i am 74 years old. i have been voting ever since i was 18 years of age. we blame president biden. we blaine trump. we blame whoever. we are the people who do not it out and vote. president obama stated one reason, one good reason if you do not vote for your governor, your lieutenant governor, your attorney general, your state representatives, your state senator, your congressman, your

u.s. senators, who the heck do you think is starting this stuff? who do you think is denying us? it is congress. it is the house. it is the senate. it is not the president of the united states. we need to get some clear understanding of who is doing what to the american citizens of the united states. in 2004 --i'm going to go back to george w. bush. when you are talking about capping all the oil wells because then iraqi war, we were getting oil from them. saudi arabia, we were getting oil from them. when you talk about voting, we do not vote anymore. we complain every single day of our life, we complain. you have been given blacks, whites, browns, everybody.

you have given the right to vote, but you do not do it and you are going to blame the president of the united states. michael jackson said you need to look at yourself in the mirror, we are the problem, not the president of the united states. host: ok, anna. we will leave it right there. gina is up next in mississippi on the republican line. go ahead, gina. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i would like to say one thing the democrats this morning. i just want to remind them that their party is in charge now. not trump, not santos -- not desantis. you people keep calling and blaming them. biden has been in charge now going on three years, you are still blaming the other party. you need a civics lesson on how the government works.

no matter what the house passes, if the senate does not pass it, it is not going to be a law. good grief, people. you need to get over your trump derangement syndrome. you have already started in on desantis. this is the reason we are in the shape we are in today. you people started this war between the democrats and the republicans win trump came down that elevator. you seem to think that we republicans have forgotten how you treated him and how you treated us. now, you want to act like you are mother teresa. you need to wake up and realize you people, the democrats, started this war. all those years ago, and you are still at it. host: all right, gina. our next collar is on the independent line. carol is in houston, texas.

caller: good morning. i would like to address the lack of bipartisanship in our government. we have lost it. each party has a narrative. the republican narrative is, we need more military, more war. i think america is getting tired of it. now, the democrat narrative is that we need to tax more the rich, the rich pay plenty, maybe we should go to a flat tax to make that more fair. and, we need to spend more money on the poor. i think the other consideration we need to talk about, i do not think either party doubts that we need to lift the debt ceiling. what we are disagreeing on is how we are going to change the budget. one thing i will say about biden that i do not like, he often refers to the deficit instead of the national debt. i encourage americans to look

into the difference between deficit and national debt. thank you. host: all right, that was carol in houston, texas. our next caller is nick calling from west haven, connecticut. democratic line. caller: hi, thank you for having me. i jotted down some things on some thoughts so i do not go too far off track. i just want to point out history. republicans in charge reset in a recession. democrats in charge bail us out and rebalance the budget. reagan's trickle-down economics did not work because of corporate greed. so, you have got to point out who represents the people and to

his representing corporate america. the only one thing i want to point out is that we have --i want to say this right, i do not want to screw it up. we have corporate america who is more concerned about profit, controlling our health care. host: did we lose you? caller: no, i am right here. can you hear me? host: go ahead, finish your thought. caller: here is my thought. you have corporate america who is more concerned about profit in charge of our health care. with putting our health care in the hands of corporate america, you have got to rethink that. that is all i have to say. thank you.

host: thanks, nick. john, miami, florida on the independent line. what are your thoughts? caller: a quick thing to say. people do not remember it when bill clinton was president. he reduced every federal agency 5% and their budget for the eight years he was in. he was able to balance the budget and the agencies did not like it but were still able to work with the 5% deduction. so, that is one of the problems we need to address. host: all right, john in miami, florida. let's go to mary calling from cape cod, massachusetts, independent line. caller: hi, i just wanted to be brief. massachusetts is a very democratic state. we have not had one elected

official that has been practically anything other than democrat. maura healey is in now. when they are trying to ask the covid funds to be rescinded so that they pay against some of the increases that we had in the budget under trump because of the -- because of covid, they had to spend more money to try and get it back to the finish line. those funds are sitting near that they were not being spent. what she is trying to do now is spend them so they will not be any money left to put back into the kitty. i think that is unfair. have some of your democratic states look to see what their governors are doing with some of that money that could be put back into paying down future debt, and seeing if the democrats that are in charge are

just spending it willy-nilly so it will not be there. thank you. host: all right, our next caller is vernon in newberry, florida. democratic line. vernon, are you there? vernon? ok, we will have to come back to vernon. let's try jaden in rock hill, south carolina, independent line. caller: yes, good morning. this is really crazy, this debt ceiling thing. you know, this is two separate, complete issues. biden is traveling overseas trying to do something for america. you know, back during the gulf war, everybody had to get on

george bush's side. that is what they are doing now. these people are agreeing -- biden is trying to win a war now. why can't we share some unity? this right here is ridiculous. if i was biden, i would not budge. the last time this happened, the republicans lost their guy. that is what they should do, if they give into these people now, it is going to keep happening. he is going to have to draw the line and explain to the american people, the american people will understand. i am so glad that the democrats are getting new leadership. they should have never lost the house. they gave that away, i do not know what happened with nancy pelosi. it is just bad. it is bad, bad, bad. mccarthy guy -- that mccarthy

guy, it is ridiculous. i cannot believe people are sitting here and trying to back him up. there is no backing up for him. we have got to pay our bills. the bills that we ran up, if you owe a bill, you cannot hold your wife hostage and say i am not going to pay this bill until -- you know, this is the last thing i am going to say. what we are doing now is turning away the american economy. it is not the vote that is going to do it, it is what we are doing now. look at other countries around the world. they are looking to what we are doing. do you think they are going to invest into america? this is ridiculous. i hope the american people see it. i really do. thank you very much. host: all right, jaden. let's go to madisonville,

kentucky. eddie on the republican line. caller: yes. i just want to say that --the flat tax, i think that is the greatest thing that there ever was and why we do not have that, i do not understand. it is great. there are no loopholes for anyone. it is unbelievable why we do not have it worldwide. back to my point on that. is there any way that we can do something about the utilities for people? these utility companies, i mean, there are so many people that are struggling and cannot hardly pay their utility bills because they are so outrageously high. then, you have government

programs, but they do not get enough really to help the people that need it more than one time that cannot get help. they are losing their houses. they are losing everything, they cannot pay for stuff. something has to be done. host: we are going to take a quick break and up next as for the governor ron desantis expected to formally enter the presidential race next week, we get a preview with former ceo trump administration official, former virginia attorney official and founder of the pro-desantis super pac, never back down, ken cuccinelli and later university of texas law professor stephen vladeck discusses supreme court increasing lack of transparency in his new book "the shadow docket." ♪

♪ >> in the last three years alone, the number of satellites orbiting our slower old bird -- lower orbit, tonight on q&a feature writer ashley vance talks about his book when the heavens went on sale. about the private companies launching the small satellites for commercial and noncommercial use and the risk they represent. >> these tech companies have gotten so large, they do these worldwide giant infrastructure plays and i think space is the next step of that and people need to wrap their heads around the idea that whatever status quo they used to exist, or even russia and u.s. could get along, like the space station, that era

is over. the companies -- it is not just the companies you should worry about, a company like russia space program collapsing, with a be a rational actor as the new regime takes hold? >>shley vance and his book when you heavens went on sale tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span q&a. you can listen to q&a and our podcast on our free c-span now at. -- app. ♪ >> be up-to-daten the latest in publishing with booktv podcasts about books with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller lists as well as, industry news, 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: we are back with ken cuccinelli. the founder of the never back down pac and he's going to talk with us this morning about the expected presidential run of florida governor ron desantis. good morning. guest: good morning. host: thank you for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: tell us about never back down. who is a part of it? what is your mission? guest: never back down is a super pac. for viewers not familiar, a super pac is sort of a campaign without a candidate. we formed ourselves to support, first of all the idea of governor desantis running for president.

we have been running ads and targeted republicans to tell them more about the governor and create a more favorable environment to make it more likely he will say yes to the question of getting to the run for president. we do not take direction from a campaign once it comes into existence. we play follow the leader. the reason we came together is because all of us, who are working on this, really believe governor desantis, first of all has a spectacular track record, also, believe he is the best option for leadership for america as we approach the 2024 presidential election. we started working on it after the midterms where there is not a red wave in america, but there was in florida. and that was thanks largely to governor desantis. happy to talk about why that happened. that kind of leadership. both

policy first with the political successes have followed would be invaluable to america. we are suffering from malaise of the biden administration and inflation and so forth. i heard some complaints from the earlier colors of a couple of things -- callers of a couple of things. i was reading about the debt ceiling and these are not good looks for president biden. he's opened up borders. lots of policy differences that have really, clearly hurt america. argue continuing in that trend -- and continuing in that trend and i think americans are looking for new leadership and critically, of course, the president, -- president trump who is also running can only serve four more years. governor desantis could serve eight because of the 22nd

amendment. that is important. we saw with president trump could do in four years. i helped participate in that. i was the deputy secretary acting at the homeland security. i was proud to support that agenda. i believe in that even that edge and it can be better limited by governor desantis -- i believe that even that agenda could be better implemented by governor desantis. after hurricane ian, he was rebuilding bridges in 10 days. a spectacular performance all around and i think america is hungry for not just positive leadership, but a demonstrated track record of success. there's a lot of fatigue across america. i have traveled a lot of it, talking to ordinary voters, and especially republican and independent voters. they are very intrigued and excited about governor desantis.

we are seeing that in early states. i would like to talk more about that. that is were never back pain came from. inspired by the governors performers and viewed him as the best option for leadership for america going forward. host: you mentioned the super pac. can you briefly tell us the rules regarding donations? guest: the rationale for super pac's is candidates have donations limits of $3300, which is a lot of money for an ordinary person, but when you build a campaign nationwide, it will limit how much money you can bring in. candidates do get discounted rates for tv ads and radio ads. they get the lowest available rate. they do save money in other places. super pac's do not have financial limits on what they can raise.

they can come from individuals all over the country. they can come from companies. needless to say fargo ask anyone, the first person i call his general -- before i ask anyone, the first person i call is general boss, but super pac's did not have limits. we play -- pay full commercial rates for at like coca-cola or delta or anyone else. we do not get to communicate strategy with the campaign. we have to watch the candidate and campaign, see what they do, and then try to amplify their message. that is what we are hearing -- drink up to do. -- that is what we are gearing up to do. telling back story on how governor desantis grew up, paying his way through college, going to the military, help

found the freedom caucus, on the republican side is a really big deal, when he was in congress. that kind of history people do not know. they know some of this performance in florida. they do not know specifics. we find the more they learn the more they like him. the super pac plays a role in that, but we will not be steering things because we cannot. that casserly candidate. we expect -- that comes from the candidate. we are him to get in. we expect that decision to get mate but we do not know much detail do you do. we are excited about that. host: we are talking with ken cuccinelli, the founder of never back down pac, supporting the expected presidential run of florida governor ron desantis.

we want you to call in now with questions about governor desantis or the 2024 presidential contest. or in -- any comments you want to make about the presidential field. the elves numbers -- to remind you of those numbers. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. include your name and hometown. will start getting to your calls in a moment. you mentioned governor desantis is rumored to launch this upcoming week. i have an article from the wall street journal about that.

what will be your organization role to prioritize, knowing that you cannot work with the campaign directly? guest: we have started to build our own ground game. we have been doorknocking in iowa during may. the presidential campaign has ever done that before. talking to voters one at a time, sending at their doorstep -- standing at their doorstep. we have run campaign ads in -- nationally but with additional focus on the first four states which are iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, and nevada. i have been traveling to those days talking to voters and activists. i come from a grad respect ground. -- grassroots background. that's what we have been doing so far. i expect we growth the ground

game and i also expect we will engage in amplifying the message and history of governor desantis as he rose into the race. we hope to be a positive amplifier for him and for his campaign. that is the goal. those two messages, building our own grassroots foundation that he can run and we will communicate with voters one at a time and we will do more traditional super pac thinks what we will try to raise money and deliver a paid message as well. people like me will go on in public forums and talk about the governor and his history and to share why we think he is the best choice for america. those three things are all going

to go on in parallel and the specifics of the message will really be determined by governor desantis. like i said, we will play a little bit of follow the leader. host: i want to pull up another wall street journal article. it has been reported that there is going to be an upcoming transfer of funds, about $86 million, that will come from a state committee called friends of ron desantis to be transferred to your pac, never back down. can you confirm if this is going to happen? guest: i cannot confirm if it is going to happen. i hope it is going to happen. leadership of the state bac -- pac will make the decision. because the money was raised without federal limitations, cannot go to the governors presidential campaign, but it can go to a super pac because we

raise funds without limits. our restrictions are communication restrictions. we are hoping that holds up. that could be the decision of the friends of ron desantis leadership. but certainly, that will go a long way, and not surprisingly, to finding a ground game across -- funding a ground game into super tuesday as well and we plan to be better prepared on the ground that any campaign has been before. we have already begun in iowa this month. that will grow to other states as time goes on. if that money transfers, that will be a big part of allowing us to build out the ground game. host: why do you feel -- there are former officials say maneuvers illegal, washington-based election group

said the transfers happens, they will file a complaint, but a similar transfers have happened with other campaigns in the past. tell me why you feel confident that this is legal to make this transfer from the state committee to your federal pack? guest: you just hit it. this is not the first time it is been done and it has been essentially litigated at the fdc intercom up to a draw and a drawer means the action stands. we are not doing something new here. we are following a path that others have tried. it is important to us to stay within the boundaries of the law. we are committed with that might be difficult question if we were the first ones. there's a good deal of comfort -- confidence as far as that goes. host: let's take some calls.

democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. our first caller is sam in mississippi on the republican line. you are alone, sam. caller: good morning. how are y'all? host: doing well. caller: good. i'm a big ron desantis supporter and i think he has all the credentials we need as presidential candidate. i did vote for trump the previous times but i think he's got too much baggage and i think we need to really be, must get into the race, more forceful against trump on his attack ads. i think he is the best candidate that can beat biden. if i didn't does not have any business running for president again -- biden does not have any

business running for president again. i feel we need to do something about that. i have a question that trump has been running quite a bit about -- i'm 64 years old. i'm coming close to getting social security and keep running the ad about cutting social security and medicare. i do not know the circumstances behind that. maybe there's a legitimate reason why but i really think he needs to answer that. because people, i can tell you for my own experience, social security is a huge thing for me. i paid for it all my life. for some want to be much think that needs to be answered -- mentioning that, it needs to be

answered. host: let's let can respond. guest: thanks. i appreciate the question. i certainly agree with you that president trump will have a hard time, much harder time than desantis, beating joe biden even with joe biden atrocious track record of performance. on the social security front, you set your 64 years old. president trump has taken a few different positions on this. the do nothing position results in 25% cut across the board in 10 years. you will be 74 and still receiving social security in that year when the money runs out it will be cut by 25%. that is in law today. that is the do nothing position that is the biden-trump

position. i do not know exactly what the governor will say on this. you are right, he is not interested yet. there are things he has touched on that are federal issues. this is not one of them. i am interested in what he's going to say and when he steps forward to speak to it, you can bet at never back down there going try -- we are going to try to amplify that. i respect your concerns of social security and i'm sure the governor does as well. he is also in the past, in congress, expressed concerns about his survivability. the very problem i described to you when you will be 74 years old. he's concerned about that. he said as much repeatedly throughout his career. of course, we all know, and it is be highlighted in the news today with the debt ceiling fight, america's government is very bankrupt, not merely

bankrupt, but very bankrupt. it is going to take really significant leadership that has a performance of -- track record of performance to come in and help preserve social security for those who needed -- need it. i believe the governor is the most courageous and a person to do that. -- smartest person to do that. one the reasons he has been successful in florida is he ignored the advice, do not do too much, do not take on the tough challenges, get in here. instead he took on tough challenges and the people of florida rewarded him. he went from wanting in 2018 by .4, 32,000 those in florida to almost 20%. hundreds of thousands of people who voted against him in 2018

turned and voted for him in 2022 because governor desantis takes on and solves challenging problems. sam, this a big challenging problem. i fully expect the government will address it. i have confidence in his intellect, concern, and care for the american people. he showed that for many years including his military service. it's why the -- it is on the issues i am to hear from the governor myself. trump is making a dishonest attack here and ironically, he held the same position he is now attacking in years past. dennis become part for the course already for the trump campaign -- that has become par for the course are ready for the trump campaign. host: danny in georgia. caller: please let ken

cuccinelli talk a little bit less. he talks about ron desantis. let's say the hurricane created biden came down there and gave for the billions of dollars. that was not ron desantis. during the last flooding in fort lauderdale, major funding, ron desantis did not even bother to show up. are you kidding me? as far as ken cuccinelli goes, maga stands forte make attorneys, get attorneys. you're one of the attorneys that had to get an attorney. then also, trump is going to roll ron desantis. even if ron desantis beast trump -- you know trump is going to say it is a rigged election.

the republican party is going to get a dose of their own medicine. the really think trump is going to just walk away? how -- guest: danny? host: let him respond. guest: i was going to address some of these. you hit a few different things. hurricane ian, when the media and charlie crist were hopefully waiting great destruction in florida, the governor of florida was supremely well prepared. i joke about myself before i went to the dark side, i went to law school, i was an engineer. i had a great appreciation for what it takes to rebuild a bridge and rebuilt a causeway overwater. the economist the governor pulled off after hurricane ian hit lee county, came ashore on

the gulf side of florida, where nothing short of phenomenal. joe biden had nothing to do with it. joe biden showed up later. but it was not the federal government that prepared. i oversaw fema and the department of homeland security, states are the first responders. the federal government is there is a backup. you see the differences state to state. you cannot point me to a state that has had such a severe, natural disaster that was so well responded to by its governor. i do not remember one ever. you mentioned leadership -- leaders showing up or not, east palestine ohio is still waiting for joe biden. i do not think they're going to see him. that is not the kind of leadership ron desantis brings. he has been a hands on and he pays attention to the details i like both biden and trump. --

unlike both biden and trump. that follow-through makes a huge difference and is why i support governor desantis over president trump. i was there. i worked on policy in the trump white house and it was pretty messy you have a president picking people who oppose his own agenda, whether it is john mack is, empowering fauci. the list goes on and on in the trump administration. in fort they run smoothly. their focus on the mission of helping the people of florida. his emergency response throughout his time as governor has been spectacular. danny, i do not think you are hitting a soft spot therefore governor desantis. that is a protect -- spectacular strength that is nonpartisan.

anybody who could do the things he did to be prepared in follow-through, but only he has done them. he is the best chief executive we have had in america in decades. president or governor in decades. i appreciate the call. we disagree a little bit but i do agree with you on stepping away from trump. that is why i stepped over towards the santas. it is not so much because trump is not good, it is because of the santas is far, far better for america. host: our next caller from milwaukee wisconsin, pat on the independent line. caller: ken, in order to dissent has to win the primary, he has to stop talking about policy stuff is hard to take trump personally. for him to stand a chance against trump in primary, that's

what you're going to have to do because politics in this country has become more of a show and not about policy anymore. if desantis wants to win, -- i can really remember the conferences. people in america do not know who he is. get out there more. start attacking trump personally. there's lots of material out of their. host: your thoughts? guest: pat, it is true that a lot of americans sort of have a feel for ron desantis, they do not know details or who he is. what we have found is that the more people learn, they learn about him being a baseball player who put himself through college. his -- the only member of his class from harvard law school to

go to the military and of course he was a prosecutor and a teacher and a congressman. those personal elements draw people closer and make him feel stronger about the governor. thus far, when the president has lobbed his traditional juvenile attacks at the governor, the governor has been pretty into right his responding. it is been untraditional. he has not gotten down to the mud with the president. to use nascar analogy, there will be swapping of paint, undoubtedly, this is a competition, but i do not agree with you that the way to do that is to just come in and personally attacking president trump. he had many good policies that all of us supported. i hope movement them -- i helped

implement them and i was proud to do so. i think ron desantis can do those better. ron desantis has to personally introduce himself, family, and his story. he has a great american leadership story i think people are going to be attracted to. it will be nice to not just have a fighter. governor desantis has proven he is a real fighter but also someone who has an optimistic vision for america in the realm of policy. i do not agree with you on personal attacks. i think one of governor desantis great strengths as he is so good at -- across so many areas of policy and in republican contest, there still three buckets, social conservatives and he has been superbly positive on life and protecting children and am fighting the woke culture.

second amendment still a big deal. president trump is talking about the gun grabbing. sitting next to dianne feinstein white house. then taxes which both candidates, republican nomination, trump and desantis, both have taxcutting records, but i would say governor desantis also has a track record of controlling spending. florida has one of the lowest depths per capita in the country -- debts per capita in the country and that is the area america is more obviously desperately in need of fixing. as sam noted, the first caller come on his social security question, is going to mpeg people like him. he is 64 years old. you cannot escape the math. that kind of policy leadership is a part of the attraction. people are worn out on personal attacks.

i'm not sure coming in and being the best personal attacker is the way to run for president. i do not think americans will appreciate that. it is not what attracted me to governor desantis candidacy as possibility. it was his policy jobs and consistency over 10 years. it is going to be little rough-and-tumble. yes, i agree people do not know who he is. i see that as an advantage. there is an upside as he introduces himself across america. that is something we will try to help but -- help do at never back down, the super pac. thank you for your comments and questions. host: paula in west palm beach, florida. republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to know why c-span bringing this guy again and again? why do you do this?

c-span and all the left wing media would like to support ron desantis now. i think president trump deserves another term. he kept all of his promises. i think he should be elected. he knows all of these things in the republican party and in democratic party. he should make them pay the price what they have does a him and his family. everything he and his family had to go through. guest: psul, i understand. you're not alone. i do not believe anybody deserves to be made president. it is not about the individual or it is not supposed to be. it is supposed to be about america. i made my decision to support desantis because of everybody out there in america now, he appears headed shoulder above

anyone, of any party in his ability to lead america in positive direction. it should be about america and making the lives of americans today and in the future better and safer. governor desantis is better prepared to do that. you say president trump knows where are -- all the snakes are, he brought a lot of them in. it was unfortunate to see how self destructive he was within his own administration. i can tell you from the inside all the time, lousy execution all the time, and continuously having to overcome his own hirings, his own appointments. i mentioned some of them earlier. the president complained about christopher wray, the fbi. he hired christopher wray at the fbi. he complains about mark milley at the chief of staff's.

he hired mark milley. list of soul -- so long people he hired. i do agree at all that he knows where the snakes are. i think he has a blind spots for the people in washington. do not think he is anti-establishment. he never cross ryan when he was president. he endorsed paul ryan for speaker. president trump was very unconventional and he still is, but he is not antiestablishment. governor desantis clearly is. again, this is not about who deserves what, it should be about what is best for america. i hope other people come to the same conclusion that millions of floridians have the governor this and this is an outstanding leader and is one america needs right now. i appreciate your question. i do actively agree. -- i do not

completely agree but i hope we both come to the agree desantis becomes the gop nominee. host: a comment on twitter from lee says, we know who desantis is, gay bashing, book banning, abortion banning, even telling disney what it can and cannot say. then as government retribution when disney does not do what desantis wants. there may be some conservatives who are cheering that on, but we know that on the more progressive side, that is a criticism of governor desantis. what are your thoughts about he is proceed from people he might need to win over in general election? guest: so, i do not agree with lee's characterization of those activities. people have the right to their

own opinion, views and i respect lee's, i do not agree with them. you asked the question in terms of the -- that matter to america. let's look at what he did in florida. in florida, he became governor by .4% in 2018. four years later and a lot of policy successes he impounded through and worked hard to achieve, he won by 1.5 million votes, almost 20% in america's largest soaring state -- swing the state. i think we will look as they ron desantis took florida out of the swing state category. it is not something we can sell now but his leadership was not just about winning, he also helped others. he had enormous coattails down ticket.

i am not just talking his state legislature where he went narrow margins to big republican margins. he was helping the rest of the team. he also helped write down the school boards. in some areas were covid revealed what a lot of school officials were teaching and shoving down the throats of our children, terrible stuff, he stepped in to protect them. he did not hold back and just do policy. he got into the elections in florida. i did not remember seeing a governor work that far down ticket in school board races and the results were overwhelming. if i remember the numbers, he supported 29 candidates for school board who one and only five who did not appreciate while governor desantis one miami dade county, he also helped lift the school board to be a conservative school board

that does the will of the parents instead of teachers unions. the teachers unions is suing the governor right now over his recent legislation from the session. he is going to win the lawsuit as he has the others because he has been so well-prepared, stayed within the boundaries of the law in advance good policy. lee singled out a couple of things and am touching on them generally let's be more specific. parents were shocked to learn about the centralized agenda being taught right down to kindergartners. governor desantis oppose that as did parents over florida. he not take my word for it. -- you do not have to take my word for it. he does not went to 1.5 million votes after engaging in that policy fight to put parents in possession if the -- in the position, if parents and

independents and democrats came over and voted for governor desantis because he got things done that made their lives better. i do not expect anybody to agree with anyone else want to percent of the time. -- 100% of the time but the policies he mentions, governor prioritizing parents and children and their lives and what they are learning. that is a position that is widely held across the political spectrum. the only people i find do not want it is people who want to use the schools to forward their own agenda. the governor has taken the position that no agenda, no political agenda, should be forwarded in school or higher education. he has been very successful at removing those agenda driven efforts by the radical left that they were jamming these inappropriate gender theories

and sexualization of children and were talking about elementary school. were not talking about 18 years old. we're talking about five years old, eight years old and the governor was successful in that and the people of florida, including democrats and different -- independence came and voted for him. that is a test in theory lee and i think the people of florida do not agree with you. i respect your opinion. that is what we have open minds like this and while we have elections. god bless america. we get to have disagreements peacefully. the governors in the right place on this. i will note many of the other candidates and -- in republican primary agree with you while disney. -- about disney. the governor standing strong against their attempt to jam their world culture down children's throats and by the

way, taken them down from being a government in florida. there is no other company that has these sorts of special deals that disney has had in florida where they govern over their competitors in orlando area. not anymore. that's taken down to an ordinary level of government where everyone is represented equally. that strikes me as a very solidly conservative free market position. it is not as pro-disney as it was before and it is not pro-disney competitors that are right there in orlando area but it puts them on a level playing field where we ought to be. host: vernon from florida on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i'll listen to ken cuccinelli there. i live in florida.

he states desantis is opening schools up for the kids as far as getting them away from the sexist things and all of that. i greet the elementary schools -- i agree with the entry schools, kids do not need to know anything about that but when you say grown people going to college and high schoolers. also closing down books. when you say what he's trying to say there is no slavery. right along with that, he gets in a fight with one of the biggest corporations in the state, they pay for everything they need around them, they put all their money in to the place and the state. he just lost the state over $1 billion in revenue because of his hard headedness, bullying.

what he does and what i see is -- mx military man, 32 years serving for the country, i've been to other countries and the way he is carrying himself as authoritarian. for me, i would never vote for a man that has the ideals he has. understand ken cuccinelli has to speak up for him. host: thank you, vernon. guest: i appreciate your service. i respect your opinion. i mentioned the governor won by 20% in november 2020 two but that still means 40% of folks voted against him. i understand that. he has taken the approach that he is the governor for all floridians, whether they vote for or against him.

you mentioned you are concerned about the books. the governor did a press conference when the media was criticizing him over his protection of children in schools that include in in -- inappropriate books. the governor brought up the books of the press conference. the same media that have been criticizing the governor cut the video feed when he started putting the books. why? they were inappropriate for the media. if there inappropriate for the media, don't you think there inappropriate for children? governor desantis does as does the parents of florida. i think others strongly disagree. it is an easy attack line to say someone is pulling books out, but this is not a book man. a book ban makes the book unavailable.

parents wanted more control over that. when they learned some the things being delivered to their children, including pitch -- pictorial how-to books on gay sex, regular sex, with pictures -- the governors putting these up on media and they are taking down the video feeds. because not only is it inappropriate on media, it is inappropriate for children. it does not meet the topics do not get talked about but i delete that is led by parents at home. you did mention the governor open schools. the governor came to national notice when he was bucking the trend's uncoated. he was one of the -- on covid and he was one of the first to open businesses to get through the choice to either to reopen and get children back in schools. it is easy to miss something that did not happen to you.

florida did not have the learning loss for his children. you did not of -- notice because he did not happen. it happened in the rest of america because other governors and the president, himself, president trump did not have the wisdom to follow the data the governor desantis did. they did not have the courage to do the right thing for children. it was along with the media stampede and it was a thunderous stampede when he came out to put children back in schools, he was attacked from every angle, including by republicans, the president of the united states, donald trump, because he was not going along with the donald trump lockdowns. and the tony fauci lockdowns and he was right and the children of florida have benefited by the millions.

i respectfully say if you live in most of the rest of america, the children around you would have had learning loss because their leadership was not as good as your leadership in florida. my last point will be on the disney item that has been reported recently that disney canceled a project in florida. two-year-old project and for those who do not know, disney got a new ceo name vibe iger, he hates that project. that project i'd when bob iger became ceo. and biden inflation. the price of the project went from $850 million two years ago at the beginning of the biden term, to $1.3 billion. while disney has the cut over $5 billion in costs because they are losing money in stock value as they keep pushing their woke agenda without success, their

last two woke movies lost a quarter billion dollars, that is why the project is not going forward in florida. even disney reporters, and yes there are disney reporters, acknowledge this has nothing to do with the governor desantis. host: we're going to have to leave it there. ken cuccinelli, founder of the new super pac, supporting florida governor ron desantis, never back down. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: my pleasure. y'all have a great sunday. host: coming up hear from university texas law professor stephen vladeck discussing the supreme court increasing lack of transparency in his new book, "the shadow docket." but first it is open forum. start calling in now to discuss news or public policy issues on

your mind. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. what are those issues might be discussing his bank failures. federal reserve vice chair michael bar and other regulators testified on recent bank failures before the senate thinking committee last week. you can watch the full event on c-span but we want to share a portion with you. [video clip] >> let me turn to the review of svb. following svb failure, i let her review with federal reserve supervision and regulation of the bank. staff not involved in supervision of f -- svb discuss it -- did the review.

the report takes a look at the conditions that led to the bank's failure including the role the federal reserve supervision and regulation. there are four takeaways from the report. first come svb board of directors and management failed to manage the bank risk. second, supervisors do not fully appreciate the extent of the vulnerability as svb grew in size and complexity. third, when supervisors identify vulnerabilities, they do not take sufficient steps to ensure the banks could fix the problems quickly enough. fourth, the board tailoring approach impeded the fact supervision by reducing standards, increasing complexity, and promoting less assertive supervisory approach. the four key take away show failures by svb board and senior management and failures by the federal reserve. i will outline how we can

strengthen our regulation and supervision basement we have learned and based on federal reserve existing authorities. on a regulatory side, svb failure confirmed the importance of strong level of bank capital. by the proximate cause of -- wiley calls was liquidity run, the concern was about the solvency. stronger capital will guard against the risk we may not fully appreciate today. it will also reduce the cost of bank failures. in addition we need to reconsider our credential requirements. these include evaluating how we treat available for sale securities on the capital regulations, how we supervise and regulate banks management of interest rate risk, how we supervise and regulate liquidity risk, and how we oversee incentive compensation practices. any adjustments to our roles would of course go to normal

rulemaking and have appropriate transition period's. i also point to prove the speed force and agility supervision. supervision should intensify at the right pace as a bank grows in size or complexity. once identified issue should be addressed more quickly both by the bank and supervisors. we need to ensure we have a culture that empowers supervisors to act as he of uncertainty. i want to reiterate the banking system remains strong and resilient. recent events demonstrate we as regulators must do better. we will. host: "washington journal" continues. we are back for open forum. it's your chance to weigh in on any news of the day or topic you would like to discuss. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001.

independents, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. let's go ahead and get straight to the phone lines. diane in mansfield, ohio on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was hoping to speak with mr. ken cuccinelli he is a filibustering to get -- to allow any of us to get through. he was asked about governor desantis not going to tallahassee for the flooding and his response biden had not come to east palestine. he said that after he said it is state and local government that is the first to respond and that is correct, which is why nobody from the federal government needed to come here. but whatever. he is the reason why i would never vote for desantis. he is going to get my transit

daughter killed. this unnecessary focus on the trans-people. you're going to get my kid killed. he dumbing down the florida education system in addition to banning books. the qualifications for teachers are out of the door. anybody who has been in the military can teach now. if you have an associates degree, you can teach. teaching is anteaching is an ar. it is not something anybody can do. he said sexuality sex education should be done at home. as a former sexual education teacher in college, i can tell you majority of my students, over the years, did not receive sex education from home or school. that is really dangerous. finally, other than the fact he's going to take will autonomy away from us, they think with the former felons in florida not being able to vote, i wonder how

many votes he would have actually received had they been allowed to vote. thank you. fortunately? waste my 30 days in the call i cannot talk to a man that i appreciate everyone else listening. host: to cleveland, tennessee robin on the democratic line. caller: yes. i'm in agreement with the woman from ohio because i had questions from ken cuccinelli also. i want to make a comment about the state of the republican party. it is the party of delusional governance. what are they doing to try and govern? they think blocking military promotions. buying everyday is a winning strategy for 2024 -- lying every day is a winning strategy for 2024. it is almost -- it is

delusional. ken cuccinelli is talking about desantis. there's nothing about him anybody with any morals, any judgment would want in a presidential candidate. the naacp issued a travel warning for the state of florida. i would not step foot in florida let alone go to florida to vote for somebody from florida. desantis is just as dangerous as donald trump. he is just as big of a liar as donald trump. the republican party is the party of delusional governance. have a nice day. host: up next jim calling from winter park, florida. public in line. -- a line. caller: good morning. i live in florida. i have lived in new york. it is a world of difference.

florida is a better state to live in. my call is more about something i am really trying to get people to understand. we do not have democratic and republican problems. we have the government against the people. we have a real big problem with what is going on in this country that has been put out by gentlemen, not member the name, but people should watch the youtube video because we are all on a path to what is on this youtube video. host: -- caller: principles of dealing with the changing world order by ray. host: we appreciate that. we'll have to move on. tia in charlottesville, virginia on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a doctor.

i whole psych degrees. i'm a khaki. -- i make clergy. i heard him. he is anti-semitic. he's homophobic. republicans have no platform. he has no budget. all that is is a smear campaign on trump who is a psychotic nightmare. i'm also disabled from 9/11. i am looking at nothing coming my way. i'm 75 years old. there is no hope for future no more. jefferson wrote back and said i do not consider anyone from africa. our country is a nightmare. i do not think biden has done such a terrible job. i am tired of people down the

casting people who are elders, who are smartm there is no respected in our culture other than asian culture about elder folks. i'm five years old from biden and you could have told meet with six degrees, two phd's i am stupid, i think not. it is dangerous where our country is. i believe what biden is saying. we are precipice. i can understand that people can vote for trump or think desantis is equitable as far as being president when he spewing absolute discussed. i would like to know what regular sex means? sexuality has been here on this planet. --, sexuality has been here on this planet. there is nothing abnormal about it. this is a horrible situation we are in. and it's into nazi germany.

my family was lots in auschwitz. host: we are going to go now to canton, ohio. jonathan, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i'm glad to be able to verbalize my language and --two to to nelly and desantis. everyone has their opinion. i have listened to everyone's critique about each person's ability to feel the way they feel. i am coming from the perspective of black people could not even read. it was against the laundering slavery days. -- the law during slavery days. desantis talking about homosexuality and transgender is a camouflage. they want to erase black

history. cuccinelli ought to be embarrassed to be on c-span, on a national platform, commending desantis. for the simple fact one can verbalize that blacks were just able to start voting in the 1960's. he wants to take us back to slavery days. i believe anyone that --anyone with any common sense would be able to actualize and realize that. if not, they are just like cuccinelli. they want to be the swap picking out, that is white america. that is what cuccinelli represented today. i was as bald -- i was appalled

when he would respect desantis when he wants to erase black history. that was disturbing. i thank you for letting me speak. host: all right, jonathan. our next caller is john, troy, new york. republican line. caller: good morning, how are you? the reason we are so divided today is, i consider myself a pretty moderate person. the democrats are so crazy to the left the last five years, it is crazy. every metric you can point out, biden is worse. crime, the borders, absolutely overrun. he has no idea what is going on because he is mentally diminished or is doing this by design. to say the border is under control, telling people to believe me, not your own eyes is insane. inflation, we are 1.4% under trump. the war on fossil fuel, to say

we are exposing -- desantis is a nazi, he is banning pornographic books, it is not banning books. it is not exposing little kids to look at something they should not look at. we are starting -- we are supposed to sharpen the scalpels and start the hormone treatments? democrats have gone crazy the last five years. the war on fossil fuels, i remember the gas lines in the 1970's. can you imagine if a car took -- the rest of the world is not going to switch off of oil. they are going -- there are countries that produce it a lot dirtier than we do. i am the same age as joe biden, he can handle it -- everybody ages differently. donald trump took questions from

a hostile press every single day. biden gets softball questions, he fumbles and stumbles. anybody listens to biden 10 years ago compared to today, it is night and day. i appreciate the call. host: next, we have nina coming from florida, democratic line. you are on, nina. caller: good morning. i am a democrat and i appreciate the other democrats calling in, basically calling me a homophobic racist because i am not. i would like to know why the band books from florida are not shown on book tv on c-span so the whole world can see the pictures that are trying to be shown to our children. i appreciate governor desantis and i appreciate president trump and i appreciate president

biden, but we have got to go in a different direction in this world. this whole place is upside down. thank you for taking my call, have a good day. host: let's go to marion, arkansas. gary, independent line. what is your comment for open forum? gary? caller: can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: ok. i have been listening to everybody talk and i have been doing research on the differences between the parties. i would like to remind people that this is an individualist nation. we are the first individualist nation in the world. that was tied into the idea we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. the division between the two parties is pretty simple from the research i have done so far. the republican party is an individualist, constitutionalist party. the democratic party is a

communitarian, pure democracy party. popular vote prevails. it is the reason that the party has instituted a lot of the jim crow laws to preserve peace by making certain people go to different schools, ride the back of the bus, certain rights should not be paramount, individual rights should not be paramount to community rights. as a result, you know, people were segregated to reserve the piece. i think the more that we get involved with these policies that just try to stir us up and help vent us from remembering that all that matters is we have our individual rights preserved. that is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i do not think the republicans have done a consistent job

maintaining the individualist ideals, which are the right to life endowed by the creator. you should not be able to put someone to death, i think you are infringing on that right, of course. if we can keep ourselves reminded that any law that infringes on our right to life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness moves us closer to tyranny, the party that is doing that the most is the democratic party. on their website, they say nothing to do with the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. they consistency -- they consistently discuss policy and stuff that really does not give anything but move us closer to a government that just tells us what to do instead of allowing us the opportunity to do what we want. host: all right, gary. let's go to our next caller. bobby is in grayson, kentucky, republican line. you are on.

caller: i would like to say that if you are for joe biden and, harris -- kamala harris, it is plain simple. you are stupid. host: anything else? caller: yeah, that guy calling and saying white people are bad. that is amazing, because you watch op live saturday and sunday, you will see what is happening in this country. the black are running rampant. the illegals are driving around drunk, no license and stuff hitting people and they let them go. i would like to say all you democrats out there, y'all need to wise up because you are all stupid and too stupid to know it. host: ok. let's hear from art in clearwater, florida, democratic line. art. caller: i just want to make a comment about the founder of

that super pac that was on earlier. he was saying how great desantis is and all his policies. one thing you have to take into consideration, a lot of his policies came into effect after he was reelected as governor. he signed a six week abortion ban. he ended carry concealed permits. i'm just wondering what it would be now? i am sure it would not be 20% winning margin. in fact, he might even lose. i just want to make a comment these people and their policies, a lot of it is done after elected rather than during policies while they are running for election. that is all i have got to say, thanks. host: another florida caller now. bill in ultimate springs, florida -- altamonte springs, florida, independent line. caller: good morning.

i want to remind our democrat and independent friends ron desantis won miami-dade county by margins large enough to carry a large majority in winning the election. integrating the opposition parties is usually not a winning strategy. judging by desantis is victory, you should probably take on a different tact then running down the political opposition. thank you. host: all right. let's go to woodbridge, virginia now. michael on the republican line. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am excited about the republican party and our field of candidates in the upcoming primary. hopefully, one will come in like

governor youngkin. i hope the tone, the dialogue settles down. i really do not appreciate being called a nazi or the greatest threat to this country. i am arab. after 9/11, it was the worst hearing the hateful rhetoric toward arabs. now, being a republican and a trump supporter and being called the greatest threat to our country by our own president, even though i am not a biden supporter he is still our president and to be referred to this way repeatedly, including on the speech he gave in philadelphia is downright scary. christians, conservatives,

anything we have become more moderate, not farther right or anything like that. it seems the opposition just is more and more further to the extreme. that our children should be castrated or given chemicals, being able to have romantic fulfillment in -- and schools and stuff should make decisions like this for children. when we oppose it, we are called -- earlier callers referenced us as the nazi party. that is the furthest from the truth. my original point, i would like to see the dialogue toned down.

both sides, like the previous caller on the republican line was pretty sharp in his critique of democrats. i would like to see it change on the republican side, too. as an example, governor youngkin is very well spoken, articulate, does not say the worst things about his opposition, never refers to people as nazis, things like that. we are going to continue on calling people nazis and all of this stuff, it is a lose for the country. host: we are going to have to go to our next caller. jc in texas, democratic line. caller: hey, how are you doing? host: doing well. what is your comment for us this morning? caller: i want to make a comment about that kentucky guy about

four colors that. that is the reason the country is in a bad shape. those straight up, southern, country hillbillies. the country would be in good shape if it was not for those hillbilly haters. that is all i want to say. host: another caller from florida. elizabeth on the independent line. caller: hi, good morning. how are you? can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: i am an independent. i graduated with a political science degree in college. i am rooting for education --in politics. the policy that lots of the congressmen and government and in general support there is not policy correct. the concentration on the transgenders, a lot of this is

-- on first amendment rights. this -- desantis is getting a lot of steam primarily because of republicans. the covid comment from the congressmen that he has been very aggressive with covid and all of that, that is true. at the same time, he turned away free money from the national government. i do not really understand why any republican or democrat would turn away money that is designated for food stamps and assistance, to give the country time to recover. the money, if it is not used, it is lost. host: that is going to do it for us. we are going to take a quick break. coming up, university of texas law professor stephen vladeck will be discussing the supreme

court's increasing lack of transparency in his new book, the shadow docket. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> in the last three years alone, the number of satellites orbiting earth's lower orbit have gone from 2500 to 8000. tonight on q and a, bloomberg businessweek feature writer ashley vance talks about his book when the heavens went on sale about the private companies launching these small satellites are commercial and noncommercial use and the risk they represent. [video clip] >> i think we are in this new era where tech companies have gotten so large, they do these worldwide, giant, infrastructure place. i think space is the next step and people need to wrap their heads around this idea that whatever status quo and balance of power used to exist there,

where even russia and the u.s. could get along with something like the space station, that era is over. as much as the companies he should worry about, a country like russia's space program is collapsing. will they be a rational actor as this new regime takes hold? >> ashley vance and his book when the heavens went on sale, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a. you can listen to q and a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. ♪ ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat in how issues are debated

and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: good morning. we are back with university of texas law professor stephen vladeck, he will be discussing his new book called the shadow docket about the supreme court's increasing use of emergency action to change law without public hearings or justifying their decision in a public manner. steve, good morning. guest: good morning. thanks for having me. host: thanks for joining us. let's start by you explaining what is the shadow docket, and where does this name come from? guest: when we took up the supreme court, we took 60 to 70

big, fancy positions that we get each term from the supreme court, whether about abortion or affirmative-action. these long signed, thoroughly explain decisions that we may agree with or disagree with, but that we have lengthy explanations for. it turns out it is only about 1% of all of the decisions the supreme court hands down. 99% of the rulings of the supreme court hands down by volume are these unsigned, unexplained orders that reside in obscurity that are publicly accessible but not really understandable. the term shadow docket was coined by a conservative university of chicago law professor in 2015 to capture that other part of the courts work. an umbrella term to suggest, over here where we are not paying attention, there is a lot of stuff going on that can be significant. host: how is it different from

the supreme court's production of merits docket? let's start off. explain with the merits docket is and why the shadow docket is so different. guest: the typical case, whether it comes from a state or federal court, by the time it reaches the u.s. federal court, we have had years of litigation. parties have had multiple opportunities to be heard. we have had testimony, effectual record. there is the opportunity for friends of the court to participate. by the time the justices are handing down a decision on the merits docket, it has gone through usually two rounds of the supreme court where there has been oral arguments, lots of briefing, every possible consideration has been fully vetted. that is the norm. when the supreme court issues and unsigned, onyx plane order, it is usually come without the supreme court having heard argument, without an opportunity

for everyone to have been heard. especially when someone is asking the supreme court to intervene earlier than usual, a so-called emergency application where let's say i lost and a lower court and want the supreme court to let me keep doing the challenge while the case works its way through the court, now i am asking the court to step in without the normal amount of briefing or litigation in the lower courts. a typical ruling on the shadow docket comes with a lot less process. it comes with less transparency. it often comes a lot faster. for us, the public, it is harder to figure out why the supreme court ruled the way it did. last month, the supreme court's stay in a case challenged the fda's approval of mifepristone medication abortion. the supreme court put on hold a texas judge's ruling that would have blocked access to per stone

on a nationwide basis -- if a per stone on a nationwide basis. they basically preserve the status quo had no expert nation. we do not know why the justices were to satisfied with the lower court ruling. that has become the norm in all kinds of high-profile disputes from trump administration immigration policies state covid mitigation measures to biden administration policies and someone. that is what the book is trying to do. the book is trying to introduce to folks who are not necessarily the closest of supreme court watchers why these technical, procedural rulings can have massive, real world impacts on all of us. host: we are talking this morning with the university of texas law professor steve vladeck about his book. i want to go ahead and give the numbers out one more time, because we want you to start

calling in with your comment about the supreme court. if you read the shadow docket or your questions for professor vladeck, that number is (202) 748-8000 if you are a democrat. if you are a republican that number is (202) 748-8001. if you are an independent, (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text that question or comment, the number is (202) 748-8003. make sure you include your name and phone number. so, steve, you have been tracking the increase of shadow docket decisions since 2017. you have given us a recent example. can you give us some more examples of cases that really stand out as a problematic use of these more private, secretive ways of making decisions? guest: 2017 is an infection

point, not because the supreme court had never had emergencies before. as long as there has been a supreme court, there has been a need for some kind of expeditious review in a small set of cases. what really changed in the mid- 2010's was the justices were being asked to and agreed to use these kinds of emergency orders in ways that had nationwide policy indications. a couple of examples, president trump's border wall, folks will have different views about the policy wisdom of the border wall but different lower courts had blocked the construction of the border wall on the ground it was unlawful. the supreme court through and unsigned, unexplained stay, allowed president trump to build the border wall, even though the court would never actually weigh in one way or the other on whether it was legal. we saw that for a number of trump era immigration policies. 2020, we saw covid mitigation

policies in new york and california that the supreme court blocked after lower courts had refused to block them again with either no or very little explanation about exactly what was problematic about these measures. all we know is that the justices thought some of them were interfering with religious liberty in ways that actually were not -- were novel interpretations of the constitution's protections for religious liberty. president biden's vaccination mandate, the occupational safety and health administration's mandate that large employers require their employees to vaccinate or get tested for covid started in very, very late 2021. that was blocked by the supreme court through a unsigned order. congressional district maps and alabama and louisiana that lower courts had said were unlawful in violation of the voting rights act through unsigned, unsigned orders in early 2022. the supreme court allowed those states to use those unlawful

maps which had a direct effect on the 2022 midterm elections. anyway you look these days, we see big impacts, really significant impacts from these outside, on explained orders in the supreme court and in context in which there is not necessarily a coherent, neutral, legal principle that explains why the court intervening in case a but not case b in which at least appearances sometimes suggest the most accurate predictor of how the court is going to rule in one of these disputes is the partisan valence of who wins and who loses, republicans or democrats. that is not what the justices intend, but it is a really bad look that the absence of any justification, the absence of any rationale reinforces. we are supposed to think when we look at the supreme court, one would think about why we follow the supreme court, the central

principle is that the course agenda missy springs from its ability to provide principle justifications for decision-making. we may not all agree with the principles that the justices are invoking and relying upon, but hopefully, we will at least agree they are principles. the problem of the shadow docket is when are the courts are going to use these unassigned, unexplained release in ways that have massive effects, there is no principle to debate, no principle for us to accept as the justices. that is why this has become such a problem. host: so, you clearly are a critic of the use of this shadow docket. in 2021, supreme court justice samuel alito responded to that criticism of the shadow docket. i am showing an associated press article from that time. i also want to pull up an

excerpt of some of the --some of his criticisms. this was during a speech at notre dame university. justice alito said in part, "my complaint concerns all the media and pol talk about our sinister shadow docket. the truth of the matter is, there was nothing new or shadowy in those cases.dures we followed it is harde how we could handle mergency matters any dntly. the sinistershadow docket has been used toortray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods to get its way. in this -- this portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution." that was justice samuel alito in

2021. so, what would you tell justice alito to say there is nothing new or nefarious about the use of the shadow docket? guest: this is why i wrote the book. the book is basically an effort to argue and prove through voluminous material that what the supreme court has been doing over the last five or six years is both new and nefarious. i will start with the new. what is new is that the court is intervening more often than ever before. it is intervening in context in which before 2017, and almost never did to directly adjust and affect statewide or nationwide policies. not so long ago in the 1980's, 1990's, to thousands, the emergency docket was almost inclusively about last and it death penalty appeals -- last-minute death penalty appeals. the justices are treating these decisions as precedents.

and yelling at lower courts for not following unsigned, unexplained decisions. that is new. we have never seen impacts like this before where these kind of emergency rulings are the difference between whether abortion was going to be available in texas between september of 2021 and june of 2022. the newness i think is the easiest thing to prove. for nefarious nets, that is in the eyes of the beholder. if you look at the whole body of the courts decisions and see across that body how the courts interventions to protect from policies but not biting policies, to block covid mitigation measures in blue states but not read states, really smacks of the kind of partisan political behavior the justices are so often criticized for. i think there might be neutral justifications for any one of these rulings. the problem that i think becomes

crystal clear once you put them all in the same place in the book is that the overall pattern is what is so problematic here. one example, justice amy coney barrett gave a speech at the ronald reagan presidential library in april 2022 were she said with an eye toward controversial decisions that she knew were coming down on the merits docket, dobbs, the approach and case, -- the abortion case she said do not just listen to the media and how they portray our rulings when deciding if they are principle or not. read the opinion. two days later, justice barrett is the decisive vote in a 5-4 ruling that puts back into effect a controversial trump era environmental regulation that actually might allow for more pollution of navigable waterways in which there was no opinion to read. part of what i think justice alito gets wrong about the critique of the shadow docket is, it is not just progressives

trying to criticize conservatives. chief justice john roberts has been one of the critics. it is, the complaint is not about the bottom lines in these cases. the complaint is about the process the justices are using to get there. when we are talking about how the court functions as an institution, the prophecies it follows, that ought not to be partisan at all and that we, the justices as much as their critics, ought to be invested in the court looking like, acting like, behaving like, it is handling these decisions in an aboveboard manner. the problem when you look at these cases the last five or six years, it is hard to come away with that impression once you put them side-by-side. host: all right. we are talking with university of texas law professor steve vladeck. we are going to go to your phone calls right now. as a reminder, (202) 748-8000 free democrats.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. our first caller is mark in asheville, north carolina on the independent line. what is your question or comment? caller: i generally agree with professor vladeck's concern about the shadow docket. the example of the antiabortion drug decision in texas is actually a different kind of problem and i do not think the supreme court needed to articulate that concern. here we have another problem in the judicial system, which is one justice in one court in amarillo, texas takes a nontraditional view of saying that the fda, a federal agency, did not have the basis for proving the drug and had the supreme court not stated that,

that would have been the law across the country, which is a far bigger problem. i realize that exception to the general concerns that you voiced about the shadow docket. i just wanted to point out i think that what the supreme court did, which is debatable on whether they should have, i think pretty clearly the justices were concerned that an opinion by that texas judge, which was not well reasoned, did not really support what he was attempting to do, they needed to do something to prevent that from going into effect from across the country. host: your thoughts? guest: this is the nuance i think is lost by some of the more superficial reactions to the book. not in mark's question, but by others. in the mifepristone case, i agree it was incumbent on the supreme court to intervene, to stage a ruling.

mark, the difference is, it would have been much better in my view if, because the court was interviewing just a finely -- justifiably in my view --we have a good example of that. this week, we had oral arguments in the appeals courts where it looks like the panel that heard the appeal is leaning toward affirming his decision even though it has been blocked by the supreme court. if the supreme court had offered a couple of sentences saying maybe we do not think the plaintiffs have stand in, this lawsuit falls outside the statute of limitations, we do not think there is a merits claim here, that could have gone a long way toward informing the parties, illuminating the lower courts in a way they could have cut off what i think going to be more questions and decisions going forward. mark, i think we are on the same

page on the bottom line of the mifepristone case. if the justices are going to intervene like that, it would behoove them to provide some explanation as to why. host: our next caller is lynn in philadelphia, pennsylvania, democratic line. you are on. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment and ask you a calm -- and ask you a question. the comment, i have a problem with the supreme court, -- they had a retired union president that might have violated a ethics policy within the central government and some of them did get fired. the supreme court, the so-called supreme court of the nation, does not have an ethics policy. that makes nonsense. that is the comment. the main question i want to ask you, everyone --i saw on the

news this morning about the debt ceiling, the president should invoke the 14th amendment. doesn't that have to go through the supreme court? people act like the president has a wand and he can execute the 14th amendment. doesn't the courts have to hear that first? june 1 is coming next thursday. guest: that is a great question. the short answer is, i think it is very possible. two be a bit of a legal nerd for a second, there are procedural reasons why it would be hard to think of what that lawsuit looks like. the same thing happened with the student loan program. there were real questions about whether anyone would be in a position to challenge that program. to go back to mark's question, all it takes is a simple, federal judge somewhere in the country who is willing to say, yes, i can block the executive branch from taking this action. i think there is a more than

frivolous chance that if president biden were to go the 14th amendment route, there would be some effort to challenge that in court. the supreme court has the last word. to tie this together, because of the timeline you mentioned with the june 1 deadline coming up, that is part of how we get all of this pressure on the shadow docket. the usual lawsuit would take four, five years from when it was filed to when it ended up in the supreme court. here, it would be a case where the supreme court would have to weigh in in a matter of weeks. that is where we get pressure on the court to act quickly, and perhaps not explain itself went -- once it acts. anyone who things president biden can just flip a switch is probably kidding themselves. what that means the court would do is hard to say. host: next, we have tim in illinois on the republican line. go ahead, tim. caller: yes.

the illegal aliens, 30 million are now -- 30 million or more, free medicare. everyone who has paid into it are representatives -- host: tim, we are talking about the supreme court. do you have a question to focus on the supreme court aspect? caller: they ought to hear that case. host: all right. steve. immigration. guest: i am not sure what policy tim is talking about. immigration is a lightning rod as a policy issue, but has been a lightning rod for the shadow docket. we have seen during the trump administration, part of what ratcheted up the supreme court's use of the shadow docket was we saw the trump administration go to the supreme court over and over and over again when it's immigration policies were blocked by lower federal courts.

a quick contrast. during the george w. bush and obama administrations, across 16 years we saw the federal government go to the supreme court for emergency relief a total of eight times. during trump's four years, he went to the court 41 times. a lot of were immigration cases, cases where the court issued a stay, allowed president trump to carry out his immigration policies. we might think, one could argue that is reflecting the proper inference the executive branch is entitled to when it comes to immigration, that it reflects hostility to the kinds of rulings that the lower courts were issued in so-called nationwide injunctions. when you get to the biden administration, all of a sudden wind lower courts are blocking biden immigration policies, it is the biden administration going to the supreme court and asks for emergency relief, the justices say no.

this goes back to the interchange between justice alito and the book. it is one thing to say to a certain a speech, we are not asking him consistently, we are not doing anything nefarious. when you look at two very similar sets of cases about similar types of policy and see one set of cases favoring a republican president and one set of cases disfavoring the democratic president, that is the impression these rulings are generating and one i think this court can ill afford to reinforce. host: i want to bring up some comets we are receiving on social media. michael fortin writes, isn't most of this due to the fact congress has abdicated its role and authority to pass legislation in punting almost everything to scotus and potus? guest: i think there is a story here about commerce that is not the whole story -- congress that is not the whole story. when i started to work on the

book, i started in the middle of the trumpet missed rations. one of the things that became clear once trump left office, the shadow docket behavior was not a federal government specific phenomenon. in 2020, we saw a high profile supreme court rulings on the socket -- on the shadow docket in state policies, whether they were states covid mitigation policies or in taxes, the seeks -- the six week abortion ban. even if we think that part of the federal piece of this is how much more presidents of both parties have been left to regulate on their own because of congressional and action, congressional gridlock, that does not really justify or fully tell a story about the supreme court's rule because it leaves out these cases involving states where i think there is a different story about dysfunction. where i think there is room and where the book talks about the will of congress and the importance congress has gotten out of the business of doing its

job is more generally when it comes to the shape and size of the supreme court's docket. the book walks through in ways i think are really important, especially for folks who have not learned this history and law school, it walks us for the first 200 years of the supreme court institution, it was part of this rich, back and forth dynamic with congress, where congress was regularly pulling levers to exert different kinds of control over the court. congress controlled what cases the court heard. congress controlled where the court sat until 1935, the supreme court sat in the capital. congress controlled the justices travel, the courts budget. one of the things we are seeing across the board today, whether about the ethics point that lynn brought up in her question, whether about the docket we are talking about, whether these kinds of policy questions,, is that congress in general, has

gotten out of the business of pulling levers as a way of keeping the court in line. the court is unchecked today in a way it has not been in any prior point in history. there are conservatives who will celebrate that because of the conservative majority. there are liberals and progressives that will bemoan that. we should all be invested in a healthier dynamic, no matter what the court is doing in individual cases. that is where the congress part of the story becomes so important. host: let's take another caller now. thomas is in across, maryland. independent line. caller: hello. [indiscernible] i was wondering, how do you tell a committee or organization --a government is for the people, by the people, isn't the best thing callers can do is to organize and come together under what we

think is right and help america succeed so we can continue the blessing to the earth. thank you. host: were you able to hear the caller? guest: i was. it is a nice point and a reminder that just because the constitution creates an independent supreme court - -you often see folks that are defenders of the court say, anything that regulates the court, anything that pulls back the court's power is interfering with independence. that is not true. the constitutional structure as it was designed was meant for the branches to pull on each other. as james madison wrote in the federalist, ambition must be made to counteract ambition. i think thomas is right. whatever our views are, and we are going to disagree about a lot of this stuff, we are all invested, we the people, and trying to ensure our views are represented in congress and trying to impel our elected presented gives to act on those views.

to assert congresses institutional authority over the executive branch and judicial branch, whether or not that aligns in the short-term with our partisan policy preferences. host: next up is liz in new jersey on the democratic line. liz. caller: hi, good morning. i am calling, i think the debt ceiling is being used as a political weapon at this point by the republicans against the president. a, i do not think we have always had a debt ceiling law. we have always had the 14th amendment, which seems to be in my estimation, calling on us to pay our debts. not in the short run of the next seven to 10 days of this fight over the debt ceiling, but more in long range, i think the

progressives and other people that care about the constitution, i think we need to bring back up for ruling by the supreme court as to whether the debt ceiling is really constitutional and that it prohibits the president from doing what he is commanded to do under the 14th amendment, which is apparently to pay our past bills. host: i know you have addressed this already, but anything else you want to add? guest: just a point, this dovetails the prior question about the debt ceiling. one of the most important limits on the power of the supreme court and federal courts in the constitution is that they are only allowed to decide concrete cases and controversies. as much as we might wish for the court to weigh in on something that is going to come up repeatedly down the road, we need a concrete dispute.

with regards to the debt ceiling and the current court, it is possible the court itself might be inclined to try and avoid a ruling if at all possible. this gets to the larger point about how the supreme court usually operates. the norm is slow, deliberate process that culminates in a very thoughtful, lengthy ruling by the supreme court versus having the court decide these major policy questions in a matter of weeks. the book is about how we are doing the latter so much more these days and how the court is not coming off well and how it is handling that. host: before we go back to the phones, i want to bring up another question on twitter. this one is from mlb, who writes, john robert seems to have lost control of his court. since the addition of amy barrett. is he being bullied out by the more extreme conservative members of the court? guest: this is a function of how the court operates.

the reason why chief justice roberts had so much control between 2018 and 2020 is not really. because he is the chief justice yes, the chief justice is a senior to the other justices buzzed -- but does not have at more power. he had more power because he was the median justice. he was the one who could look to his left and see four justices and look to his right and see four justices. that is what changes when -- was replaced by justice barrett. i do not think justice roberts is being bullied. i think it is a misconception this is the thomas court or the alito court. it is about who the median justices are. as they go, so will go the court. i think the median justices these days are ehret and cavanaugh. we are seeing that in the shadow

docket, where they keep coming to the court these emergency applications that the court is denying over distance from thomas, alito, gorsuch, but with no separate writing from barrett or cavanaugh. this is the amy barrett and brett kavanaugh court. the reason justice roberts has been marginalized is his institutionalist views are no longer at the center of the court. he is to the left of center on that institutionalist part of the story. host: all right. let's get another caller in. chris in san antonio, texas on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. the only thing that bothered me about his point is, he is always attacking the trump administration. this happened during the trump administration. the biden administration, there

has always been three branches of government. maybe washington journal should remind everybody the executive branch, the congressional branch and the supreme court. now that the court is more conservative, it is getting attacked. i just think that the supreme court, that is what they are supposed to do when you have emergency actions. they need to throw back to the congress and president just like the debt ceiling. i do not think the supreme court should be involved in the debt ceiling. the congress and the president need to work that out. one last thing i want to say, guys at the university of texas, maybe you should investigate the university of texas football program. thank you for my call. host: that shadow docket in football he referred to. what else you want to respond to? guest: if your reaction is that you think the supreme court is

intervening into many things, this is the book for you. this is part of the story, that i think court is intervening in ways and contexts in which historically it has not and in ways that are in error geisha and a power that has been historically exercised by congress and presidents of both parties, there is no dispute there. on the point of the courts being attacked today because it is conservative, this has become a prominent talking point on the right. it is lacking for any historical appreciation. i remember when i was in law school reading about, seeing pictures of the impeached earl warren signs and billboards that were prevalent across the south. attacking the court has been a thing for as long as there has been a court. i think it is just that we are especially cognizant of the attacks today because the court has come to play such a more prominent role in our contemporary debates.

if we go back to 1801 and 1802, congress in 1802 basically stops the supreme court from even having a term from sitting for an entire year as a exercise of partisan lyrical power by the new jeffersonian democratic republican majority in both chambers of congress against the federalist supreme court. we can debate until the cows come home what is best and what is worst. the notion of what is happening now from a criticism perspective is new, i think is wanting for appreciation from historical evidence. host: all right. let's go to hunter, calling from san marco's, texas on the independent line. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. looking forward to reading the book. is there any concern that these criticisms will be used as an ammunition by justices particularly on the right or perhaps entirely on the right as

a means to justify denying relief on a death penalty applications for --death penalty context? guest: that is a great russian. the short answer -- that is a great question. not in that context specifically. the more conservative justices have been consistent in denying emergency relief in capital cases almost across the board. a couple of weeks ago, there was an oklahoma case involving richard gossett, where there were no public defense where the public blocked an execution. oklahoma was saying, we do not think the execution should go forward. i think outside of the capital punishment context, we are already seeing at least justice alito using these kinds of criticisms as ammunition on his dissent from the supreme court's stay in the mifepristone medication abortion case in

april, specifically criticizes justice kagan, justice barrett for prior opinions of theirs that attacked shadow docket. his point was that, i thought we were against intervention. to go back to one of our prior exchanges on the show this morning, i think that misses what the real critique is. i do not think anyone does -- no one suggests the court should never intervene when it comes to an emergency application. the question is, is the court intervening in ways that are consistent, that are explained whenever possible, and that are not just reinforcing partisan balances of disputes? is that going to dissuade justice alito from continuing to suggest there is hypocrisy afoot? i do not think so. i think he has been a one-man band on that. host: you mentioned earlier,

your book does suggest that congress could exert a little more of its oversight in control of the supreme court. your book does not say, definitely do this, but you do outline some possibilities. i have a political article pulled up when you go over those steps. can you talk about what steps congress could take if it wanted to limit the use of the shadow docket? guest: sure. the story the book tries to tell is one of eroding interbranch dialogue and one of eroding congressional accountability. part of why i do not take a strong position on specific reforms is any reforms would be a positive step up that mountain. if we are going to thing about congress could do to reform the court's docket, the first thing congress should think about is, how many cases the court is hearing overall.

the term we are in the middle up -- in the middle of now we'll wrap up in six weeks. we expect the court to hand down 57 decisions. that is under 60 for the fourth year in a row. before 2019, the court had not been under 60 until 1864. the court's docket has shrunk. congress could say, you cannot execute a prisoner until the supreme court has had a chance to resolve a pending challenge to the method of execution. that would take a lot of pressure off the shadow docket. congress could provide for more expedited appeals in which cases which plaintiffs seek nationwide injections against federal policies. that would get cases to the supreme court on the merit faster. congress could write into federal law the judgment standards that the supreme court has applied with regard to emergency applications in ways

that might push the justices to be faithful to those standards. there is a lot congress could do. it stems from the basic and broader point that congress has a remarkable amount of control over the supreme court's docket, especially over its appellate docket. that is to say when cases come to the supreme court from lower state or federal courts. the real issue to me is not how should congress exercise that control, it is how we should persuade congress to exercise that control and how we can get congress back into the business of exerting docket control as a means of exerting leverage and exerting pressure over the court. host: we had a question on twitter, one of those basic questions about the supreme court i wanted to let you answer. how did john roberts become the chief justice? a lot of people think it is by seniority. is that the case? guest: the supreme court has two

different sets of office. there are associate justices and there are eight of them by statute. there is the chief justice. the chief justice is always the most senior justice. he is appointed only to be the chief justice. even if he is the most recent appointee, as john roberts was for a brief period in early 2006, he is still the chief justice. it is the eight associate justices whose seniority changes as they stay on the court longer. right now, the junior associate justice is justice ketani brown justin -- jackson. that is what changes. the chief is always the chief. host: he was appointed by bush. guest: he was. this is another point in how we got to where we are. john roberts was appointed, initially nominated in 2005 2 replace justice sondra day o'connor who announced her intent to retire in the summer of 2005.

while -- justice rehnquist died from competitions of thyroid cancer. the bush administration -- that is how he became the chief justice. first nominated harriet miers and when there was pushback from conservatives to that nomination, that is how justice alito was nominated and confirmed to the court. that is an interesting part of the story. john roberts ends up being a fascinating player in the story of the shadow docket. one of the things we have seen and the book documents in the last couple of years is how been very critical and some of these emergency applications. not because he is unsympathetic on the bottom line, but because he really thinks that the emergency docket is not the way to do this, not the way to hand

down his rule is. a lot of folks on the right are going to look at someone like me and sadie is just criticizing the court because he is a progressive. but when it is john roberts standing up and saying this is no way to run the railroad, i would think we host: all host: have to take notice. i'm going to read one final text that we got. it says hi, this is maddie from austin texas. we just want to say hi to our dad on tv. guest: hi, girls. host: we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. thank you so much for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: at 10:00 a.m. you will be able to watch a replay of president biden's press conference earlier today from japan at 11:00 a.m., tim scott's 2024 presidential campaign announcements will take place from north charleston, in his

home state of south carolina. that's 11:00 a.m. monday. watch live at c-span, c-span now, or error-free mobile c-span now app, or online at c-span.org. have a good day. ♪ announcer: c-span's washington journal. everyday we are taking your calls live, on the year, on the news of the day and we will discuss policy that impacts you. monday morning, wall street journal congressional reporter

previews the week ahead in congress including the latest on efforts to reach an agreement on raising the debt limit. then, joseph bustos, supported for south carolina discusses republican senator tim scott's formal entry the 2020 presidential race. and responsible federal budget talks about current discussions over the debt ceiling. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday morning on c-span or on c-span now, error-free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls comments, text messages and tweets. in the last three years alone, the number of satellites orbiting earth lower orbit has gone from510 8000. tonight on q&a, bloomberg businessweek future writer ashley vance talks about the

book " when the heavens went on sale" about the private companies like launching the satellites for commercial and noncommercial use, and the risk they represent. >> they do these giant infrastructure. we have this idea that whatever status quo and balance of power youth resist where russia and the u.s. could get along in something like the space station, that is over. it is not just a company that you worry about, it is a country like russia. host: ashley vance and his book "when the heavens went on sale" on c-span q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of

our podcasts on error-free c-span now app our -- our free c-span now app. visit c-span shop.org and save during our father's day sale. save up to 20% on the latest selection of apparel, and more. there is something for every fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. longgone now at c-spanshop.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you thought this was just a community center? it is way more than that. comcast is partnering so that

students from low-in