>> coming up on washington journal, michael waldman talks about efforts to reform the supreme court and his new book, "the supermajority: how the supreme court divided america. then, tina descovich discusses efforts on parental rights in public education. washington journal is next. ♪ host: welcome to washington journal for july 18, joe manchin and jon huntsman appeared at an event sponsored by a bipartisan

group to talk about the interest of recruiting a democrat and republican to run as a possible third party in 2024, arguing a bipartisan approach is the best way to deal with problems the u.s. is facing. others criticize the effort, saying it would be a spoiler in next year's presidential election. do you support or oppose the effort? if you support the effort, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, call (202) 748-8001. if you want to text us your thoughts, do that by texting (202) 748-8003. you can follow the show on facebook and twitter and leave your comments there and follow the show on instagram. this took place in new hampshire

, saying the centrist group signaled monday it will present a candidate for the third-party presidential ticket by super tuesday. if it is clear by then, the choices are former president donald trump and president joe biden and if the group sees public support for an alternative. it represented the furthers the group has gone going forward with the unity ticket project in underscored movement from a largely behind-the-scenes presence to a more visible force , one that has left democrats increasingly alarmed about the prospect of a third-party candidate spoiling the reelection of president biden. more to that story online, you can find the event that took place in new hampshire. here is a bit from senator joe manchin as he talks about a need for a third party.

[video clip] >> they have gone too far right and too far left. either side cannot win without the independent, centerleft and center-right. if they have another option, they are in trouble. they have to say ok, we have to look at this. everyone thinks we need to do something. >> if they get in the race and spoil the election, with that factor into -- >> if i get in the race, i am going to win.

the only place in the world -- that is not with the american people want. host: that was joe manchin talking about the potential third-party ticket. if it is going to be a contest in 20 24 between current president joe biden and former president donald trump. what do you think about the effort and the third-party unity ticket? (202) 748-8000 if you support it , (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. a source out of new hampshire follows up from the reporting of that event yesterday, saying it was on saturday the group

released a 63 page policy group with included recommendations for a bipartisan commission for solutions to solve the national debt and all of the above energy policy and society's responsibility to protect human life. that is the story from new hampshire, you can find the policy document online. some of the principles that the no labels group -- when it comes to the politics of problem-solving, america cannot solve its biggest problems and deliver results the hard-working taxpayers want unless democrats and republicans start to work together. saying leaders must act now to solve today's economic challenges and before they become impossible to solve tomorrow.

washington must stop spending more than it takes in. the annual budget should be responsible. under the section of immigration and border security, adding america is a nation of laws. we must regain control of borders and stop releasing migrants who enter america illegally. under public safety, public safety is the highest priority. we need to fix the criminal justice system so career criminals cannot keep committing crimes. much more to the commonsense document that came up before the no labels event. you can see it on c-span later today. do you support a potential third-party ticket? (202) 748-8000 if you support it, (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. from maryland, supports this idea. tell us why. caller: policy over party.

policy over person. the policy is what matters, and we have been duped for many years into believing in either a person or party. this is brilliant, this is long overdue. this is what it used to be. people need to go back and read the constitution. it was the president, then a separate election was the vice president. we have been doing president and vice president at the same time, now we think it is normal, but that is not the way it is supposed to be. i am a registered independent, i vote for policy. i could care less about the person or party. i think it would bring our country back to civility and reason. a republican would not blame a democrat and a democrat could not blame a republican because

in the executive, you would have both parties at the table getting things done. host: this is mark in philadelphia on the oppose line, good morning. caller: good morning. i oppose this, this is nothing more than a boldfaced attempt by trump supporters to get him back in, it is another hail mary. there was a case in arizona where the arizona democrat and i think state legislature is trying to get donors to this sham party, the donor list made public. no labels refuses to do it. at the end of the day, we know who is behind this. it is probably some far right oligarch who wants a to get in. do you know they are not going to run a ticket if ron desantis

gets the nomination? what does that tell you? it tells you it is aiding and abetting the former president. host: nancy from minnesota, also on the opposed line for the no labels effort. good morning, you are next. caller: good morning. i am totally in favor of keeping the party, it gives you a background and gives ideology, rather than no label. no label gives you nothing. that is it. host: what do you mean no label gives you nothing? caller: no label tells you it has no history, it has no background of telling the person with the history is of their party of their history, their current opinions get messed up

without a party label. host: that is nancy in minnesota. if you go to the no labels document, the list of principles this document represents when it comes to energy issues and environmental issues, part of it says one of the goals is all and above energy strategy is the best way to lower prices for american families, saying america needs to be able to build clean energy technology. these are the principles i possible third-party could represent, should it happen. do you support or oppose the effort? pick the line that best represents you. you can text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. in virginia, opposed line. caller: good morning. i want to talk about joe manchin

, he is a disaster for the american public. he is the man behind this scam. this is a coup to defeat joe biden, who is popular against trump. trump is not going to win the election. he was picked by the young people and this is just a way of joe manchin, led by a bunch of rich, right-wing people to hijack the election. host: if it is the case it is effort to reelect president trump, how does joe manchin benefit? caller: joe manchin never cared for anybody else but for him. joe manchin only knows what he is up to. every time a democratic party tried to do something for the common good of the american

public, it was mansion who is in the middle. this time, god knows what he is up to. the effect will be it is going to break the democrats and hope that trump can get in. this is a coup to hijack the democratic process in defeat biden. host: you can add your view to the mixed by calling us, texting us or posting on social media. from t new hampshire public radio site, they highlight the fact it was a packed house at the college. senator manchin made clear he was not there to ask for support for his own personal presidential ambitions. he was there roughly six months before the next primary with a bigger goal in mind. i am not here running for president, i am here trying to save the nation, speaking to a

crowd that included governor chris sununu, self identifying moderates from state republican and democratic parties. mansion who has hinted at a third-party run said no label is bigger than any single election. it was the former utah governor who ran for president as a republican in 2012 and described the no label vision in similar terms. it was during the course of conversation yesterday new hampshire where jon huntsman talked about the idea of the effort being a spoiler in next year's election, here is part of what he had to say. [video clip] >> forget about the issues and importance of expanding or enhancing democracy. you live in a place like china or russia, they do not have any

choice. they are complete authoritarian systems. when i start hearing people say that is not a good thing, i say i have heard that before, but not in this country. here, we do it differently. this is the most innovative, creative, smart country in the world. the only element of american society that has not been transformed is politics. it is still the same old same old. if we end up in 2024 with the same nominees as we did in 2020, is that the definition of

insanity or what? host: a possible third-party ticket by no labels, we are asking if you support or oppose the idea. michael from arizona supports the idea, you are next. caller: i support the idea of any third party. libertarians have their own thing, to, then the green party had their own thing and look what happened. make a caucus, show us what you can do. no labels, sure. but make a caucus, show the people what can be done. the libertarians have the cold new deal, so what deal do they have for the people? what is your next thing? what is it you want to see done for america? as a veteran, i am tired of seeing this conflict going on. i believe in liberty, unity and freedom. so let us focus on what is best

for america. go and look up all the questions, answer them all and figure out where you land. no labels, good his concept -- good concept. make it happen in each party. host: when it comes to the efforts no label is making, the washington post says the group is working to get state ballot access around the country for the potential third-party presidential run. group leaders say it will only fill the ticket if there is a clear path to victory. since the two-party system, there has never been a viable third-party contender. the concern the effort would damage president biden has prompted current and former members of congress and others

to launch a group this week to undermine the label ambitions. robert douglas tweeting us this morning, saying the solution is not another party, it is getting rid of existing parties and not letting parties form from now on. ronald from facebook when it comes to the idea of a third-party ticket saying in theory, yes. the people with real power in this country, he puts in parentheses big money donors, would do anything to prevent it. another saying no labels as a political ploy by president trump to defeat biden. you can make your claims on twitter if you want, the facebook page is facebook.com/cspan.

michael is in florida on the opposed line. caller: i oppose. if you have mansion and huntsman in it, you need to find out what they have been supporting and not supporting for the last 20 years, that is your no labels. nobody knows who is funding these people, they did not want to come out to say who they are. unless they are able to show all their cards on the table, i would not support anything that is not transparent. host: if it was mr. manchin and mr. huntsman, what is it about them you do not know what they stand for? caller: they have been out there for 20 years. huntsman ran for president one time before. mansion has been against biden.

west virginia is a very conservative state. i do not know if he is a democrat or republican. he is part of the problem, he is not going to resolve anything. he will keep things in a state of inertia. host: michael is in maryland, go ahead. caller: good morning. what i feel makes this silly is these third-party runs -- there is no county counsel, there is nothing from the bottom up. it makes me feel like they are just wasting your vote when you

put these parties on the ballot. it is just for president. the president is going to have to work for democrats and republicans. do you think they are going to work with some obscure green party or no label party or libertarian party? no, they are not. they are going to do a mitch mcconnell thing and no, no, no. both parties. these parties have got to develop -- i do not know if you call it a base or what, they have got to be running house members, senators. they have got to be running governors, state senate, it state delegates. all the way down.

all of these house members came into government, they were mostly black house of representatives, but they got voted in to help, to contribute to what lincoln was doing. host: similar thoughts were expressed on this program by the new america foundation, talking about the no label approach to presidential elections. here is a portion of what he had to say on the program. [video clip] >> at the presidential level, third parties are always going to be spoilers. if you want to give people more choices, you have to build from the bottom up. more parties in state legislature and in congress,

then you work your way up, starting at the presidential level is the worst way to build a third-party and create more choices. it just causes fracture and chaos. i really do not understand why they are doing this and why they are raising all of this money for something that will not build anything beyond the 2024 election. it is a one-shot thing, it is a lot of money wasted for something that is almost certainly going to fail. i think there are much more productive ways to channel that in bowls. if you want to have third parties play a viable role in

single winner elections like presidential elections, there is a tradition in the u.s. throughout the 19th century in which you have multiple parties nominate the same candidate, then people can choose. that is still legal in new york and connecticut, there is litigation effort in new jersey to bring it back. imagine if there was a moderate commonsense party on the ballot and they chose whether to endorse joe biden or donald trump. people who say i do not like democrats or republicans, but i want my voice to be heard and not undermine and spoil this election, voting on the common sense moderate party line. that gives people real power and build something. it is not a one-off, candidate-based approach to a single election. we are building a party.

host: if you want to hear his full thoughts on what he had to say about the no label efforts and third-party efforts overall, you can go to our website and find the program. no labels potentially running a third-party in 2024, we are asking if you support or oppose the effort. if you support it, (202) 748-8000, if you oppose it (202) 748-8001. text us at (202) 748-8003. some saying when it comes to mr. manchin, he is unpopular amongst democrats. the strategy is to peel off votes from president biden, good luck. this is gay in north carolina saying she opposes it. historically, no third party has ever won. voters play close attention.

rest saying a third-party has zero chance but can change a general election, hope this is the year that happens, adding that president biden is toast. then robert is in michigan saying it would eliminate president biden's chances, a trump away and is the end of democracy. again, text us at (202) 748-8003 . let us hear from bill in california on the support line. caller: good morning. i think this is great, actually. i supported both parties over the years at different times. eileen slightly conservative, but consider myself independent. i am fed up with the extremes and i think that biden and trump are not the best candidates this country can produce. i am anxious and supportive of

seeing this make a difference in this country and fullest together somehow. host: what do you think about a third party that would make a difference now that third parties could not do? caller: you have got i think the third of the country does not want biden to run again, a third of the democrats do not. a third of this country really does not want either of them running. to me, it has never been that high. it is over 30%. i think it is time to see somebody else come forward. i think it was a blinken that was the last one -- it is time

for this country to move forward in a more positive direction, both of these candidates in these parties are pulling us apart. we need something new and fresh. host: he made the point about support for the party system as it stands, nbc did a pullback in june underheategory of supporting a third-party or independent candidate, 44% said th would consider if the other candidates including president biden and former president trump. 52% saying they wouldot, 62% of republicans saying they would not. gallup today poll on party identification back in may, saying 30% of those polled represent themselves as republican, that is a little more than it was a year ago.

democrats 27%. that is less than a year ago. independent, 41% saying that is how they identify themselves. if you want to make your comments, from north carolina roy on the no label effort. caller: hello, i have watched you for years. more parties means more chaos. the two-party system is simplicity, most times that is good. what we need to do is clean up our parties. america has fallen asleep because they have been born into freedom and now our country is on the edge of destruction because bad guys have come into parties and gotten control of it. the republican party is trying

to clean itself up and get good, hard-core constitutional god loving people in there. the media, which you guys are part of, i hate to say it, really try to tear america apart. we believe mostly in the same things. god, family, government leave us alone. most of us are like this, democrats and republicans. host: if that is the case, why not a third-party made of one of each of that is the case? caller: one of each of what? host: you said democrats and republicans largely believe the same things, why not a third-party party representing both of those interests? caller: no, then there's going to be a fourth and a fifth. if you got rid of all parties and had the american party, may be something like that, i do not know.

the founding fathers said once we come up with the party system, you will tear america apart. that has happened. but no. host: tyler in west virginia, hello. supporting the effort. caller: hi, i support this because the two-party system is not working. everybody can see that. there is no such thing as a spoiler election because most people want a united nation, they would support something like this if they support the greater good of the nation. abraham lincoln was a third-party, we all know how great of a president he was. host: why do you think such an approach will work in today's politics? caller: we are so divided -- politically we are divided.

i think most people think the same, most people are in the middle. that is why independence are becoming a larger and larger party. the two-party system wants to take that away, they want to take the power away from the people. host: a third-party would make a difference and change things so radically then what they already exist as? caller: i think if we get the third parties, all of them, libertarians, green party in this new party on the debate stage, it would be over for the two-party system. host: is your support for this effort connected in any way to senator manchin? caller: no, i would not vote for mansion. i am not a mansion -- manchin supporter. he represents my state, but his support in the state is

dwindling. host: tyler in west virginia giving us his thoughts on the no label effort possibly running a third-party in 2024, maybe you support it as some of the callers have expressed. maybe you oppose it. this is from nancy on our facebook page. she writes that no labels is nothing but a bunch of rich people who feel entitled to by the office of the presidency. say no to no labels. this is brenda from texas on the opposed line. caller: thank you for taking my call. what you just read just summed it up. this is what it is, a bunch of republicans trying to buy their way into office because they smell defeat. democrats, you have it in the bag. do not mess this up.

i wish they wouldn't do this. stay focused, we have this in the bag. do not do this. trump is going to be in jail. we need to hold on so we can hold onto our country. this is what is important. thanks for taking my call. host: in maryland, on the support line. you are next. caller: i support the idea of any independent party wanting to sit there and create new party, but they have to do the groundwork of persuading people to support them and getting people in each state rather than just the presidential thing. i support the idea, i find it naive because we have a lot of

third parties, they are on the ballot. people vote or not vote as they want. the reason parties exist is because people agree with a certain agenda, whether it is democrat or republican. you see that so many times. those who are moderate who disagree with their party and side with portions of the other party, like joe manchin, they have to do the hard work to create a party and they are not doing it. in a way, i support them. on the other hand, they are trying to grab something for themselves. you cannot do that. you have to work to create a party and they are not doing the groundwork to create a party.

host: you can see the no label event on c-span. from the wall street journal talking about the no label expert, no labels equals trump? mr. manchin is thought of as an ideal candidate, but he also embodies the dilemma. although he has been a thorn in the side of his party, he is known as the man who caved when he was most needed. his vote saved president biden's inflation reduction act and hurt him with state voters. he is trailing in the polls against his likely republican opponent for reelection, the former west virginia governor jim justice. andre in ohio on the opposed line, you are next. go ahead. caller: there are two points i

would like to make a, one of them was already well-made. how can you have a party if you do not have legislators in the state, or people on the school boards? parties are parties. they are not three guys at the top of the ticket. the whole idea in that sense is ludicrous. sorry for the pronunciation. the other point is there is a third-party in the united states, it has been here since the early 2000s, it is the socialist party of the united states. a guy by the name of trump. host: he is the head of the

republican party. robert and virginia is on the support line. caller: good morning, i support it. people in the country, they are telling everybody they do not have a chance. but i think if they represent both parties, people running in the third-party -- i think trump should be banned from running, that is my opinion. host: why does a party that represent both sides, why do you think that will be effective? caller: i think people are fed up. some in a people are fed up with their own party. i do not want to see trump we and under any circumstances and i think that biden is too old. a lot of people do not want to see kamala harris take over the

presidency if biden wins and a year or two later in they have to put him in an old folks home. host: paul waldman writing in the opinion pages of the washington post about the no labels effort, talking about the common sense document. the idea part of the website contains almost no ideas. the talk a lot about getting past partisan squabbling in washington to find real solutions, but it is hard to pin down what they want to do. when to start taking positions, people might disagree with you, which these groups are keen to avoid. the conceit of common sense, there simple policy solutions to complex problems waiting to be implemented. policy battles are usually built on deeply held values that are in conflict.

there is no commonsense solution to that question that everyone will agree on. paul waldman making his thoughts no, you can do the same thing on our lines. opposed in texas, go ahead. tell us why you are against it. caller: i feel that independence should be represented in the house and senate. they should be taken more seriously and it should not be fraction into multiple parties. the green party and new to me, i do not understand totally what they are representing. i would like to see the independence solely as a third-party and not extra parties, and they would have seats in the house and senate.

just to be equal to the others. host: we have had several no labels representatives on the program talking about these efforts. if you're interested in hearing from them, you can go to our website. if you go to the search box, you will see all of the events in interviews we have done with various people connected to this idea of running a third-party ticket. that is c-span.org. in washington, d.c. on the support line. you are next. caller: i agree with the gentleman from virginia a couple of calls ago. both trump and biden for various reasons are unfit to serve as president the next four years. i think the beauty of the no labels effort is it will awaken

those to do something about the system we now have, meaning republicans need to provide that in primary elections in each state, majority winner is required. that is how trumpwon in 2016. democrats need to recognize mr. biden is way too old and failing to continue in office for four more years. kamala harris is not particularly qualified. if people are unhappy with no labels, they need to reform their own parties before october 1. host: from steve rogers on facebook, when it comes to the effort from no labels he supports it. their choice of a viable candidate could change

everything. lisa from facebook saying a strong third-party could be good, but not now when democracy is in peril. she adds a vote blue all the way. the facebook is facebook.com/cspan if you want to post their, c-span is @cspanwj. the support line is (202) 748-8000 if you support the no label for them what to tell us why. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . text us at (202) 748-8003. on the opposed line from new york, we will hear from david. caller: hi, can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i agree with the previous person who posted on facebook. that if trump gets the presidency, it is quite likely

repressive measures will come into play in all parts of our political system. he does not care about being democratic. that is the problem with no labels. if we did not have the electoral college, it probably would not be a problem. but because we have the electoral college, if trump wins the swing states, because no labels takes away votes from biden and democrats, then trump is in. they are very disingenuous in terms of their presentation. they say the american people want there to be a third-party and base it on the polls, but then they say the polls that say trump could win the presidency

through the electoral college in the swing states, that those do not matter. so i do not trust this operation at all. the problem is the electoral college, but there is no way to get rid of that quickly. host: jeff on the opposed line in massachusetts. caller: good morning. i was calling and because i am not sure if your listeners know that back in 2012, there was a different type of party that was on the ballot up until about two or three months before the presidential election called americans elect. i am not sure if you heard of it before. host: i recall it, go ahead. caller: i think the idea of having a republican democrat or democrat republican president vice president may make a lot of sense. i do not believe the government

-- may be the country, but not the government in terms of readiness for a third-party. but perhaps as a transition, having that type of split ticket provided we can get the right people to move forward, in my particular case i was a straw candidate until americans elect, until they secured a high profile candidate or candidates for president and vice president. that did not happen. that concept did not survive to the day of the election. host: you may have elaborated a, what is wrong with the no label effort? caller: i think having some transparency at least in knowing you have got a republican and democrat, there is some transparency, at least you have some idea which side of the

pendulum the individuals are on. but more importantly, you have a better chance of individuals forming a caucus within government, which is important. i do not know the government is ready for the third-party, but a split ticket, i think you could have these individuals forming their caucuses and working together to get things done. it will not be easy, but it might be more viable than a no labels type of alternative. host: one of the people supporting it was the founding chair of no labels, a former democratic senator from connecticut. he was in a debate with former democratic senator doug jones of alabama, the topic was no label, the idea of a unity ticket.

here is part of the dialogue. [video clip] >> 60%, 70% of the american people do not want the choice of donald trump or joe biden. in norma's number are saying they are independent. the two major parties are failing the american people because the american people see that republicans and democrats spend most of their time fighting each other to maintain their own power instead of working together to fix our country and make it better. we are trying to give a voice to that majority of the american people, the common sense majority that want something different. i will sum it up this way. the problem is not the third choice no labels is offering the american people. the problem is the american

people are not buying with the two parties are selling anymore. >> 70% of americans do not want biden, 60% say they do not want trump. >> those polls right now mean nothing, you know that. you have gone through this process before. the same could have been true for ronald reagan and jimmy carter. we have got a president who has spent the last two and a half years bringing jobs to this country, 13 million. he is bringing down inflation, brought american allies back together. he has brought the chips act, done all of the things for the american people. this past weekend, you saw the biden harris team raised $70 million, 30% were new donors. that is not a candidate being rejected by the american people.

it is a fools error to think that a third party can win in this country. there is no way they can get to 270 electoral votes, which means they will be a spoiler. host: from miami, florida, hello. go ahead. caller: i am a member of no labels, although i have been a lifelong republican. the problem is that our party, the republican party, it has a majority, which is only 25% of the electorate. the democratic party has majority, which is 25%. so 50% of the electorate is not represented. that has led to no action on a significant number of important problems.

it is not clear if joe manchin is sufficiently popular to get people to split the ticket, which is what they would have to do. the argument is that if the executive were managed separately by a third party, then perhaps important legislature would be passed. in the absence of that, we are always going to have this problem. in order to have one party rule, you have to have 60 seats in the senate, which is difficult. as a lifelong republican, i support no labels as a possible way out of the problem. host: when did you decide to become a member of no labels, and what drove you to that decision? caller: i have been following what they have done and supported what they have done

when they were pushing the problem solvers caucus, which was an attempt to have moderate republicans and moderate democrats come together on some bills. it has not been particularly successful. host: melvin giving his thoughts, we will go to dave in pennsylvania on the opposed line. caller: good morning. a lot of us would be happy to see more people to choose from, we select what they give us. where can people like me share information with you to show that you are not showing or seeing? a lot of us are tired of plausible deniability. i cannot share with c-span because you did not allow people

to share certain information on your site. it is frustrating that none of us -- even you c-span, you try. you really push for the biden administration. host: to clarify, we do not push for any administration. we are talking about a third party. caller: you can say that, but the american people know better. we want to know where we can send information to the washington journal to remove plausible deniability. host: i do not know what you mean by that, we will leave it there. the support line, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you support the effort, tell us why. caller: i support no labels because i am going to vote for

president biden and they need to quit talking about his age. age is just a number. host: you said two different things, you're going to support no labels and president biden. how can those things be true? caller: i am going to vote for the no label. host: i will pause you, we will go to richard in delaware on the opposed line, good morning. caller: good morning. we talk about the real world for a second, the callers from different states i think it would be helpful if you asked them if a third-party candidate could actually win in florida or pennsylvania or ohio, if they could actually win that states electoral votes. the answer is no. secondly, how are they going to

get to 270? it is unrealistic, no labels knows it. if this is a political party interested in transparency, they should publicize their list of donors, which they do not want to do. they are mostly republican donors who want to see biden weekend and trump elected. host: he said these candidates could not win states you listed, why that specifically? caller: because they will not. i live in delaware, that is a nonstarter because biden is going to win. do you think in new york or california or illinois or maryland that a third-party? ? candidate will be a democrat do you think in texas or florida or south carolina that a no? ? labels candidate will be a republican there is no clear

path for them to get to 270, and they know it. if you ask the people calling up , well-intentioned as they may well be, if there are no labels candidate could win the popular vote and get the electoral votes, i doubt any of them would say absolutely it is possible, because it is probably not. host: why is there no clear path to 270? caller: county electoral votes in florida, for republicans. illinois, new york, california for democrats. no no labels candidate is going to win in those states. what are they going to win? new hampshire, may be. alaska. it is unrealistic.

if they were going to be a political party, tell us who your donors are. host: we will go to david in illinois on the opposed line, you are next. david from illinois. one more time for david. when you are on the line, if you would, be ready to jump right in when you get your chance to talk with us. in the meantime, turn down your television set. one more piece of tape to show you from mark kelly from arizona, asked by the -- about the no labels idea and what it would do for states like his in arizona. here's part of the conversation. [video clip] >> senator manchin has repeatedly refused to rule out running for president.

no labels qualified to be on the ballot in arizona, president biden won by less than half a percentage point in 2020. do you think joe manchin and no labels could cost joe biden his reelection? >> i do not think no labels as a political party. this is a few individuals putting dark money behind an organization and that is not what democracy should be about. it should not be about a few rich people. so i am concerned about what is going on in arizona and across the country. the president has a strong record to run on, we have about 18 months before the next election. my hope is this all gets sorted out. i talked to senator manchin frequently about a lot of things, this included. >> what have you told him?

>> i will not go into details on conversations i have with my fellow senators. host: one more call from david in illinois, opposed line. you are on. caller: earlier this week, washington journal showed an interview from a member of the no labels party, he was asked what legislation would help with gun control and violence. his answer was no legislation could help. i think that tells you a lot about this party, thank you. host: david in illinois finishing off this hour of calls about no labels and its efforts, angst to all of you who

participated. there are two guests joining us for the remainder of the show, first we will hear from michael waldman, discussing efforts to reform the supreme court in his new book, "the supermajority: how the supreme court divided america." later on, tina descovich on efforts on parental rights in public education and related issues. ♪ >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of c-span's podcast that future nonfiction books in one place so you can discover new authors and ideas. we make it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing current events and culture. book notes plus and q&a, listen

today. you can find our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile video app, or erever you get your podcasts, and on our website. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, congressional hearings and other events throughout the day. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern, catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the stories of today. ♪ >> this 79, inspired by the cable industry, c-span has

covered all of it, from house and senate floor, and congressional party meetings. c-span gives you a debate on how issues are decided, with no commentary, no interruptions and unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, citizens are truly informed, our republic thrives. stay informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are. because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues.

host: our first guest is like a waldman, president at burning school of law. thanks for giving us your time. we'll talk about the themes in your book but recently wrote about the e court. this was onhe 11th of july, saint 2023 was more tempered th incdiary year that came before. suly the justices have notice how in is the only source of power. the coll can't continue to squander it. trump has a bigger goal, a fundamental conservative transformation of the country with lifetime tenure of these government officials that keep their cool at the chance to do that. i was wondering about the idea of a transformation. could you elaborate?

guest: right now we have a six vote super majority. it has been in place for two years, they are moving quickly to shape the first -- the country. we saw the dobbs decision overturning roe v. wade and half a century of production in the constitution for women's reproductive rights. we saw by far the most sweeping second amendment ruling in history in the bruin case. we saw the beginning of a significant push to restrict the power of agencies like the epa to regulate and protect the environment, deal with climate change and public safety. this year of course we saw the long cherished conservative goal overturning affirmative action in higher education and quite clearly more to come when it comes to curbing the power of government to protect the

environment and public health and safety. this term was more tempered. there was a significant, unexpected causative ruling in the voting rights act case where they did not finish the job of destroying the voting rights act. with the direction of the court is quite clear and it aims to change the country by changing the court's interpretation of the constitution. host: you mentioned the redistricting case, the legislative case as well. but you recently said the court actually makes decisions on certain things that go against the idea of a 6-3 majority. guest: the independent state legislature has a lot -- it was a crackpot idea and they should never have taken the case. it would have been the esteemed

conservative judge, it was the most important cases -- if the rule for what that north carolina legislature wanted, it is a set of the legislating power of the states has unchecked power to set election rules. but the time when they made a ruling that i felt was a positive one, like the voting rights act, they kept the law in place. it was a good thing we did it because after a decade in which the supreme court has weakened the voting rights act, putting aside those two cases, they have been moving aggressively and carefully to continue pushing to the right with a theory of how to read the constitution that is itself new and radical.

they are claiming to be originalists. last year in june they crammed in decades of conservative social policy in three days. they're acting less like a court and more like a political body. one of the reasons we see is that the consequence of that is that public trust in the supreme court has collapsed to the lowest level ever recorded in the polls. certainly the justices chief justice john roberts thinks about the public standing of the court, they have to be well aware. they are continuing unmistakably in the direction they set. host: you mentioned pulling, in june, when asked about the views of the supreme court, only 29% said they show approval of their actions versus d percent -- 68%

that said it is mainly vote invaded gush motivated by politics. guest: those are devastating numbers. we have an unusual system, the supreme court is a singular institution. we wait for these big rulings, they are nine unelected government officials with lifetime tenure, making these big rulings. the court only has the power to do this because we the people give that power. we are willing to see it as they court. when the supreme court is extreme, ideological, overreaching or partisan, there could be a fierce public backlash and collapse in trust in the withdrawal of that public consent. the part of the constitution

dealing with the federal courts is only 1/10 the length of the parts dealing with congress and the presidency, which were assumed to be the democratically accountable branches that would do most of the governing. we have this court in the role it is in now because we the people have conferred our trust in that institution. when it squanders that trust, it squanders the ability to act. host: michael waldman, with the brennan center for justice, president and ceo. he is also the author of "the super majority: how the supreme court divided america." if you want to call in, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 four

independents. you can also text at (202) 748-8002. --(202) 748-8003. guest: -- we work to defend the systems of democracy and there would protrude -- in our country. we have $40,000, mostly individuals from foundations and businesses and law firms. we have found there is a huge amount of interest in protecting american democracy and protecting our constitution from across the political spectrum. we think we are in a great fight for the future of american democracy in this country. as a think tank and advocacy group we try to be part of that. host: was your book based only

on decisions of the recent supreme court or does it take a longer view? guest: lot was about the first full year of the super majority control of the court, ending in the big rulings i mentioned in june 2022. but he tries to take a longer view. when you look at the history of the country, the supreme court reflects the consensus in the country most of the time. or at least the elite consensus. there have been a few times when it has overreached and there has been a significant fierce and political backlash, but happened with the dred scott ruling, which said that black people could not be citizens. the response was outrage and it led to abraham lincoln's election to the presidency.

it had a lot to do with bringing about the civil war and the end of slavery. you saw similar dynamic in the early 20th century. after a notorious case, at that time at time of great industrialization and concentration of wealth and change, the supreme court justices felt their job was to stop government from being able to do anything about it. to protect workers, women and public safety. and striking down those kinds of government actions. this was a fight that lasted from the beginning of the century. it was very political. i had not realized until researching the book that teddy roosevelt in his 1912 campaign, he was running against his hand-picked successor and woodrow wilson was the democrat and there was a socialist. his biggest issue was taking on the activism and arrogance of

the supreme court of that era, leading to his fight against his cousin franklin roosevelt over the new year. -- new deal. the significant backlash came from that court and its aftermath. the warren court made important strides for justice, freedom and democracy, with cases like round versus board of education. by the end it was so activists on so many fronts it created a political backlash. the conservative counterrevolution. we have been living through that backlash for decades. today, this court is misreading its moment and overreaching and the political backlash has begun. host: michael waldman here, tom joins us from nashville, our independent line. you are on with michael waldman of the brennan center and the author of the book "the super

majority." caller: that was really good what you said about my favorite president. but i call about 50 years ago when they destroyed the national public school system. it was one of the best public school systems in the country is introduced forced busing throughout a metropolitan county. they made poor people come to where rich people lived. it did not work, it does not work. there are more people going to private schools today then you have ever seen. when you came up with this latest thing about roe v. wade, another big mistake but once again, this court is supreme. i like what andrew jackson said when the supreme court ruled against him. what kind of army does the supreme court have? but with that being said, you hit on a lot of good points from

roosevelt all the way to justice warren. c. host: tom, thank you. guest: he makes an interesting point, a lot of criticisms of the supreme court have been from conservatives who were unhappy. as this color -- cold -- caller expressed. the supreme court has not been activists in the way the gentleman describes on those issues for half a century. the kind of afterglow from that period, it both animates conservative rhetoric about the court up until recently but is also given liberals something of a false notion of the role the supreme court plays and should play in our system.

what people want among other things is protecting their rights and stability. there can be criticism of the original roe v. wade ruling, for example. justice ruth bader ginsburg was one people -- one of the people who criticized it. but sandra day o'connor wrote in a case, it became part of the fabric of american life. it became an expectation american women have, the ability to have reproductive freedom. when the court said as they did last june, it was wrong from the beginning and egregiously wrong and it rep set up, the original reasoning of the case is less important than the impact here and now. we see it playing out in the politics of many states. host: steve in north carolina, democrats. caller: good morning. host: you are on with the guest. caller: i am a conservative

democrat. i have issues with the court, obviously. but i think that too many people have turned to the court to say, we can't get our legislature to do what we want to so we will get the court to do it. i think that is so wrong. north carolina passed a state constitutional amendment, which i do not necessarily agreement -- agree with, recognizing same-sex couples as being legal in this state. the supreme court said it state constitutions don't matter anymore. the rights of the people in the states don't matter anymore. where do the rights of the people of the individual states and -- and and -- end and national takes over? guest: great questions. the constitution makes it clear

that when it comes to some rights, the federal constitution covers the whole country. when states or state laws are in conflict with the constitution, the federal constitution prevails. we want to live in one country with one set of rights. but i think the person who called is onto something. when possible, it is the best to secure advances for equality, democracy and justice through the chronically available branches. by voting for congress. a lot of what we need the courts to do is get out of the way. not to impose a political philosophy, i would argue in extreme it philosophy, in the guise of interpreting the constitution. the idea of judicial restraint, one at is something progressives and liberals cherished for much of the country's history, because they saw in other areas,

the harmful consequences that could have from an overly active judiciary. a great second example, some of which deal with north carolina. we talk about these issues on democracy, voting, money and politics, campaign-finance, we are looking at laws passed by congress and state legislatures or the people to protect voting rights. to advance campaign-finance laws that work against the excesses of big money in politics. and if the courts would step aside, we would have a more robust and functioning democracy. i would say the case coming out of north carolina in this term, which would have been a catastrophic's asked her how to go other way, was a relief. in north carolina, it shows the way these issues can play out.

the caller says it is easy to divide estate, democratic governor and republican legislature, they are split half-and-half. the legislature passed a very gerrymandered map that produced congressional district that was disproportionately republican. the state supreme court said that violated the north carolina constitution. all states have their own constitutions with strong actions and the state supreme court said that violates our constitution. the state legislature went to the u.s. supreme court and said the constitution gives us legislatures the power to set election rules without these checks and balances. nobody ever noticed it until now, that is how each state is run. encouragingly, in an opinion written by chief justice john roberts, six justices said that is wrong. the constitution does not give

unchecked power to state legislatures. state constitutions among other things still matter and courts still matter. there were complications but it was a decisive rejection of this notion that was radical. ultimately, if we have faith in democracy and encourage our courts to step aside and stop writing doctrine of their own political views and pretending they are making constitutional rules, we will have a stronger country. host: minority leader mitch mcconnell wrote an op-ed. he says neither party can count on the supreme court to be its ally. he had similar thoughts on the senate floor. i want to get your thoughts. >> the exceptionally qualified justices, i have spent years vilifying and continue to prove their strength and inpatient --

independent jurisdiction. justice barrett was just as likely to vote with justice kagan as with justice thomas. let me say again, justice barrett was just as likely this term to vote with justice kagan as justice thomas. the courts's most conservative justices, thomas and alito, voted together less frequently than liberal justices sotomayor. the supreme court is not in crisis when it refuses to reliably and predictably advance democratic priorities. the court is not in crisis when it puts the text of our law above politics. host: the senate minority leader, what do you think? guests: not surprising, he put them all there. and many of the cases in front

of the supreme court or any supreme court are not big public issues. they are often technical. so they can show there will be agreement among justices on various issues. but when you look at the big rulings that have changed society in the last year and a half, ending affirmative action, overturning roe v. wade, radically expanding the second amendment protection against gun safety laws and cutting back on government agencies ability to protect the environment, those issues -- abortion, affirmative action, the fossil fuel industry, that sounds like a political caucus. there are very few people who have done more to politicize the supreme court then senator mitch mcconnell. let's not forget what he did, and other republican senators, when president obama nominated merrick garland, a moderate, well respected judge for the supreme court after justice

scalia died. and upending of all of the practice and tradition over a century. mcconnell and his colleagues would not even allow a hearing. it was a very political process. it is ironic at the least for him to bemoan the court as a politicize institution. host: michael waldman, the author of "the super majority: how the supreme court divided america." charlie in massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning. it is funny you bring up merrick garland. he would be ashamed -- he is such a fool. but the reason i called, this radicalism with the supreme court, our latest nominee could not identify what a woman is.

and in all seriousness, i want you to defend that argument please. (202) 748-8001 -- guest: justice catania brown jackson who the caller refers to was the most popular in the polls, not that that should be at the criteria. and has been impressive on the bench. she got lots of dacha questions from senators who were doing it so they would have some thing to tweet rather than as a serious of jurisprudence. someone asked her what is a woman, she said i'm not a biologist. i think she knew quite well the question was not a serious question, it was an attempt to get on fox news or something for five seconds of video. she has been especially good in her first year on the bench, and

the questions she asked on the bench, we saw the efforts in the ultimate decision on affirmative action. justice jackson asked this question during the arguments. it was compelling. she said there are two essays for somebody applying to the university of north carolina. one was from somebody who said i want to go to unc because my grandfather went here. tradition means a lot to me. the other essay was from a different person, said i want to go to unc because my grandfather could not go here because he was black. it would mean a lot to meet to go here. she said are you saying you cannot consider the second essay but you can consider the first, which is and affirm -- in effect affirmative action for white people? it was a compelling argument. saw injustice roberts sweeping decision undoing affirmative action and all of the

universities of the unit states, saying people can still write essays. don't know how that is going to play out in the real world. she has been strong in her first term on the court. she was smart to dodge the silly questions from senators. host: eric is next, independent line. >> good morning. quick question in response to justice catania brown. -- catania brown jackson. in this last opinion, she accepted as gospel and if strenuous report that said there was a higher survival rate of black babies when treated by black doctors. she has come under criticism because there's no basis and that is yet part of her decision. in terms of your high praise for her, she needs to be less cavalier about introducing bogus facts into our supreme court system. that is number one.

i think it is extremely rich that you were upset by the quote unquote politicize asian of the supreme court, -- politic ization of the court. i don't know if you were around for those decisions, but there was no basis for roe v. wade in the court. it references the quote unquote number of rights that were somehow hidden within the constitution without basis, so that even if you don't take a political stance, if you work pro constitution you would have problems with those. i would like you to comment. guest: if you read my book, you will see that i am quite critical of the language like in the cases before roe v. wade. for all criticism people might have over that specific way roe v. wade was ruled, and in a way,

justice ginsburg calls it a breathtaking decision. over many decades, more than half a century ago, it has become an expected part of american life that women should have the right to control their own reproductive health. i do think it is pretty radical for nine government officials to upend that and throw the politics of our country into turmoil on the matter. the first point the caller made was simply mistaken. he is right justice catania brown jackson -- catania brown jackson -- ketanji brown-jackson cited a study that black babies survive more with black doctors. that is true, she misstated the statistic but that is true. i have read a lot of opinions are liberals and conservatives, they often have many factual problems.

that is one of the challenges of having courts rather than legislators make these decisions. i wrote a book about the second amendment and the ruins by the courts on the second amendment and its meaning. the history, as was understood is just absolutely laughable. how much they got wrong. the idea of bear arms, which is part of the phrasing of the second amendment, people like justice scalia said it means carry a weapon. i have a dictionary from the 1700s and it means carry. the phrase refers to serving in the military. that is what it meant. basic, factual mistakes by the court happened to frequent a. but what the justice did there was a small error in characterizing those statistics.

but the study was not bogus by any means. host: you served on the presidential commission on the supreme court. could you remind viewers not what the commission was but what they do when it comes to looking at the court? guest: it was a commission to look at the supreme court and possible reforms. i was appointed -- it was the strongest consensus about the issue of term limits. there was bipartisan consensus on the value of an 18 year term limit for supreme court justices. should also be coupled with a

regular appointment, a president gets to make an appointment, a nomination every two years. that would bring a lot of the partisan poison out of the confirmation process i'll -- i believe. support for term limits stretches across ideological lines. john roberts has supported them. it is the basic idea that nobody should have too much power for too long. the idea that george washington expressed when he steps down himself from being president after two terms, you could do term limits by constitutional amendment, but there could also be dashed by having senior justices after 18 years, they stay on as judges but they have a role that changes and their power changes. we have heard from dozens of

witnesses in this commission, they disagreed about so many different things. but over and over, they said i am for term limits. the idea has come and it has the chance to move the country forward and the court forward. host: does the commission, with the conclusions about the idea of expanding the number on the supreme court? guest: again, we were told not to reach any conclusion so we did not reach them. but it is important for people to understand congress has the power to expand or contract the size of the court. it has done so before. nine justices is not in the supreme court. for a lot of people looking at the merrick garland nomination, a few of these seats were illegitimately tilted in one direction. i have been skeptical about expanding the court as i write in my book. it is entirely legal to do it, but there is a risk of a

retaliatory spiral where democrats put in five justices to bring balance and were publicans comeback with five more. -- where republicans come back with five more. it is important to feel that these will not undermine judicial independence. at the center of the organization where i lead, we're focusing on term limits, something being discussed and voting on in the judiciary committee this week. probably many of the viewers know the supreme court is the only court in the country without a binding ethics code. no judge is so wise they should be the judge in their own case, and ethics code like that makes sense. federal judges for example have to follow it. that could be done also by congress as this legislation does. but it could be done by the supreme court as well. this is an area this morning,

where john roberts for his professed concern over the credibility of the court, he has to know the endless series of stories and scandals about his colleagues undermines that credibility. this would be a step they should take, congress should take it now. host: most people know about the stories that were published about clarence thomas. find out online, recent stories from dave of the associate -- associated press, about sonia sotomayor trying to push her book. can congress actually impose this? do they have the power? guest: yes they do. they've already voted on the earlier rules governing the supreme court, it is just be -- been toothless. you want separation of powers and because this is governing the ethics of the executive

branch, the court certainly makes room for members of congress and can't say it is a congressional issue. we are not going to be governed by corruption laws or anything like that. it is something of a phony argument. i entirely disagree with the argument that congress lacks this power. it is clear they have the power. anyone who is worried about congress and its power has an answer, the supreme court should do it. host: the senate judiciary committee work for the supreme court this week, you are on with our guest michael waldman. mike, in tennessee, democrat line. thanks for waiting. caller: hello. i am wondering, seeing as the trump administration declared war on the so-called administrative state, if they were to get back in and put even more judges from the federalist society on the court, do you

think they could -- of the 10th amendment? guest: i don't think it would be on the basis of the tenement. i think the dust 10th amendment. i think the argument expressing a lot of these rulings with gusto and vigor by the conservatives is that congress cannot give a lot of authority to executive branch agencies to work on complex matters of public policy but really need expert regulation. in the 1930's when social security was first passed, the conservatives said congress cannot delegate this kind of power to the agencies. the supreme court at that time, this was a big fight with fdr

over the court expansion at that time, the supreme court back down and said when it comes to regulation of the economy, if regulations are reasonable and you want to build a modern country in a modern government, these agencies need to be able to act.what a lot of conservatives call this a mistake. they call it the constitution in exile. the idea that there was a big mistake made in 1937 when the courts allow these agencies and the federal government to start protecting people and the economy in that way. in the last year, use saw the emergence for the first time of something called the major questions doctrine. the court said, in this case, the environmental protection agency, the statute passed by congress really gives the agency the power to do the think they wanted to do and in this case was about climate change.

really, the topic was so major that congress couldn't really amend that. only congress can pass a law like that. the supreme court has now taken the case that deals with something called the chevron doctrine which is a long-standing rule that gives agencies the ability to interpret ambiguous laws passed by congress in a reasonable way. it's pretty likely we think that they will step in and block the agencies from doing that. that gives more and more power to congress? not really but to the judges. if they don't like a law, they say it's a major question and it cannot be implemented that way. the caller mentioned the federalist society. it's important whatever your views are that you understand the significance of the federalist society. it's like nothing we have had in our country's history before. the supreme court with all his power and lack of public accountability has been captured by affection of a faction.

the federalist society started out as a student club of conservative law students. it has grown into a very effective political machine with many different affiliated organizations pushing to get these judges on the bench, not just on the supreme court but throughout the federal system, tens of millions of dollars of ads for these judges. through all of these affiliated organizations, i will tell you that i used to look at the federalist society and say they are pretty effective considering they don't seem to actually have that much money. it turns out that a few years ago, somebody gave leonard leo, the leader of the federal society, $1.6 billion for his organizations to fund this incredible political machine. that is, again, something -- we cannot pretend politics does not soprano -- surround the supreme court, it always has but this is something we've never had

before, this kind of political machine, this tammany hall operation and people moving in lockstep in how they act. host: marcus in new jersey, republican line, you are next. caller: hi there, i'm a recent columbia graduate myself. you said you rented a poor no movie -- host: we will go to mark in michigan, independent line. caller: hello. good day. when i listen to you talk and i checked out your background, it sounds to me like your book is not just mostly focused on you don't like the conservative courts direction right now. for instance, the dobbs decision, you have to read samuel alito's reasoning very closely in reaching that decision. there is not a right to

abortion. it is a medical option. it's a lot of things but is not a right. if you look at his reasoning and read it closely, it's very well-established in terms of legal history, the general cultural history of the united states and it is something whose time has come. roe v. wade has had its day in the sun and that sun is setting. i think it's just illegal reality that you need to face and i don't think you are facing it squarely. guest: alas, i did read alito's opinion. if it's a reasoning whose time is come, the time appears to be around eight -- 1787. justice alito argued that the protection of reproductive rights which was accepted and a major force in the lives of tens of millions of american women throughout half a century, that

that was egregiously wrong, wrong from the start. that opinion cites as the basis for understanding what we in 2023 what to do as a country, it cites for example a guy named matthew hale six times. he was an english judge who sentenced women to death for witchcraft. he created the doctrine of marital rape which says a husband cannot be charged with raping his wife because she has consented to it because they are married. it is a set of social muses that is frankly reactionary and the idea -- this goes to the claim that these justices have, they are they are merely governing by history and tradition, by looking at originalism by which they say the only legitimate way to understand the meaning of the constitution is to ask what it meant to those who ratified at the time. what that literally means is that the social views, most of

the time, of property owning white men in the 1700s, a time when women could not vote or own property, when black people were slaves or maybe in the mid-1800s when women did not vote. that those social views have to govern us today. it is a turning back of the clock and i think it's important that we not get used to this. this is a really new way for the supreme court of the united states to make these rulings and claim they are making these rulings. there has only been for really major originalist rulings of that kind in the country's history. you had dobbs, you had the brewen case the day before which that in effect that you could not consider contemporary and current public safety needs when looking at the gun law, only history and tradition, meaning did they have these specific laws in the colonial era. before that, it was the heller

case in 2008 which was the very first time the supreme court said the second amendment protected the individual right for gun ownership. before that, believe it or not, it was the dred scott ruling which so discredited originalism and basically it was the first time in 50 years. courts have understood that it was important to look at the whole history of the country including recent decades. it was important to understand the impact of rulings on people's lives and the need to build a country and the constitution that reflect the country as it is today. that i think is the best way for courts to rule. i disagree with justice alito approach in the dobbs case. host: let's hear from ann ine caller: am 100% in favor of packing the court. i feel that mitch mcconnell and the republicans stole seats that

should have been appointed by democratic president and this right wing political, religious, bigoted court that we are now stuck with, we could be stuck with for 25 years unless even ethics rules would not change the bigotry on this court. granted, there should be ethics rules. they obviously need them. alito and thomas should resign. this is my number one issue is to pack the court and i think biden is 100% wrong to leave us with this atrocious court. guest: the passion you hear from that call reflects what a lot of democrats and progressives feel. you are right, biden doesn't support that but neither does a majority of the senate even with democrats. i think there are things that have a better chance like term

limits for ethics rules. there are many other things we can do is a country to push back against an overreaching, extreme and often radical court. congress could pass the john lewis voting rights advancement act and the freedom to vote act which had a majority of the senate last congress. it guided a lot of the misguided supreme court rulings. these are rulings that can be undone by congress if they have the will. there can be constitutional amendments passed. it always looks impossible to do it. it looks pretty hard right now to pass constitutional amendments but it always does. if things get bad enough and they come in a burst about every 50 years. i certainly think there should be constitutional amendments to allow for reasonable regulation of money and politics. i think the e.r.a., the equal rights amendment, should be ratified and more. i think the biggest thing we can do is to demand of politicians

when they run for office that they tell us what they will do about the supreme court. the supreme court is noteworthy for a long time. liberals had this hazy afterglow of an earlier, long ago europe -- long ago era when they thought they would get rights protected. whether that was true or not or it was a good idea or not, it's many decades in the rearview mirror. i think liberals have to diss enthrall themselves and fall out of love with the court and understand it is a government institution with all kinds of problems that has been captured. if people vote about this kind of stuff, that and yell about it and debated and make it a central public issue, it will have the biggest impact of all. host: one thing we have looked at for years at c-span is the possibility of possibly getting cameras in the supreme court. what you think about that idea? guest: i have had hesitation

because for a while, people thought the lawyers will show vote for the cameras. -- show vote for the cameras. showboat for the cameras. it's a big institution and people need to see it in action. we now have tapes released the same day of the rulings. i thought it was striking and really bad last year -- i don't know people realized this -- the court shut down a lot during covid like so many institutions did. but they heard the arguments in public. when it came time last term to make the rulings, dobbs, the bruin case, these explosive political rulings, they didn't do it in public. they just put a pdf file on the website. now maybe there is some reason but i have a feeling it was really just so there would not be an audiotape of justice alito

saying roe v. wade is overturned or of the dissenters saying what a terrible decision they thought it was. i think it's entirely appropriate for the public, the country, to see this institution in action. host: our guess is the president and ceo of the brennan center for justice at the new york university school of justice. you can gto brennan center dot organize the author of the" super majority." thanks for the conversation. coming up at 9:15 a.m., a discussion about parental rights in public education with moms for liberty. that discussion is in about half an hour and until then, open forum and if you want to participate and talk about topics, (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans and independents (202) 748-8002. those calls will continue when "washington journal" comes

back. >> order your copy of the wonder to congressional directory now available at c-spanshop.org. it's your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member and important information on congressional committees. the presidents cap, federal agencies and state governors. scan the code at the right to order your copy today or go t c-spanshop.org. it's 29 dollars $.95 plus shipping and handling in every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of four proceedings, hearing from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all your fingertips. you can also stay current with the later at -- latest episodes

of washington journal and find scheduling information for the c-span tv network and c-span radio app plus a variety of podcasts. c-span i was available at the apple store and google play, downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the afterwords podcasts and on q&a here wide ranging conversations. footnotes plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book of wishing industry with insider interviews come industry updates and bestseller lists. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now

at or wherever you get your podcasts and our our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: if you want to participate in open forum, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. can also text as your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. danny on a republican line on this open forum, go ahead. caller: i just had a question concerning this hunter biden investigation. i cannot figure out why the secret service is protecting a crack addict. it baffles me. he is the president's son, does he work for the government? is he an informant for the government? if someone can figure out why the secret service are protecting him, could you all

televise that on c-span? i will leave it at that, thank you. host: ron in missouri, democrats line, you're next. caller: hello, good morning. host: if you are on, go ahead. caller: i just wanted to -- third-party thing, i remember ross perot. a lot of people probably blame him for bill clinton but i still believe that if not for fdr, bill clinton would still be president. i want to go to donald trump. this individual, what he's done to our country is just ridiculous. i hope and pray that finally we

get this pariah in leavenworth where he belongs. host: when it comes to the presidents legal issues concerning the documents case, upi reporting that it is today that the trump team will face their first pretrial hearing in the mishandling of the classified documents case and it could give some indication on how it impacts the 2020 for presidential race. the u.s. district judge told government prosecutors and former -- and the former president's team to be prepared to discuss the timing of the case. lawyers for the former president asked the court last week to delay the case until after the presidential election, stating that the beginning of the case within six months of indictment is unreasonable and would result in a miscarriage of justice. that pretrial decision takes

place in florida and that will play out today. rick in, selena texas,. caller: i was calling to talk to your previous guest. i will just do the question i had. i was going to ask him about the assault weapons ban. bush let it expire and then obama chose not to put it in. i was curious why the democrats chose to put the assault weapons back on the street. the other question is on roe v. wade, democrats had congress the majority of the time and i'm wondering why they chose never to make it law. anyway, that's it, thank you. host: vincent in brooklyn, new york, independent line. caller: good morning. host: it's you. caller: i just want to bring to the world's attention yesterday in new york city a group of

undocumented immigrants from venezuela attacked a black american citizen in midtown. the police were called and nothing happened. in my opinion, as a lifelong democrat, they are going to change because the democrats allowed them to comment and they are coming to replace black people. host: there were a couple of things to watch out for on the network today. you can watch them on the various platforms. at 1:00 this afternoon, lawmakers will discuss russia and potential sanctions through the use of banks in switzerland when it comes to money laundering. that will be live from the commission on security and cooperation in europe at one :00 p.m. eastern on c-span3 and you can see it on error c-span now abend c-span.org.

israeli president will address a joint meeting of congress tomorrow. we will watch that 11:00 a.m. and our main channel and the app. also later on tomorrow at 1:00 p.m., two irs whistleblowers will testify on the ongoing investigation into the biden family. that house oversight committee will be at 1:00 p.m. on c-span3. let's hear from pam in michigan, independent line. caller: good morning, i have a couple of questions. my first one is why doesn't c-span have anybody on their that is associated with the world economic forum. [indiscernible] also, don't let me forget -- the w.h.o., why don't you have

anybody on there to talk about our medical sovereignty. it has been signed over to the w.h.o.. they should make the call for when a pandemic is there. they can shut down countries and stuff. why don't you talk about stuff like that? the things that are going on behind the scenes. you have people calling in and arguing about trivial things like politicians and stuff. you don't never talk about what's going on. host: such as what? caller: as far as our sovereignty being taken. host: how so? caller: taking over our medical, letting the w.h.o. make the call or our country on what to do when they say there is a pandemic. host: exactly how is that being done? caller: the guys at the top make

the call and the countries sign up, they have to follow or they have to pay fine. i read that on their website. when they had their meeting, in switzerland? all those leaders of countries got together and they signed this paper. host: ok, danny and west virginia, democrats line. hello? caller: yes, sir. i'm just calling and people keep talking about hunter biden. i was watching yesterday the guy that brought all this stuff and have it looked at and he is on the run. host: from robert, savannah, georgia, independent line.

caller: hi, i wanted to make a final comment about the third-party thing. i'm currently reading a biography. of winston churchill he was an historical figure who changed parties several times. he was vilified for it by his critics who thought he was only doing it for his own well-being, his own personal power. but he was on the right track when everybody else is on the wrong track. i think we need to forgive people in our system to want to change parties and have a good reason and want to step up. the no labels thing, fine, but if they give a good reason, if it is a mansion or whatever, let them. let them move on. that's it. guest: the washington post -- host: washington post looks at

money americans have in the bank in part because of stimulus and other economic measures done during the pandemic. this is from abari batari, writing they have more spending then during the pandemic. hustles have about 28 days worth of extra cash in the decades before the pandemic. now they have 43 days in 2021. since then, only 35 according to jpmorgan chase of data through march 2023. it is a similar trend across the economy, lowest income houses howdy -- had a smaller bumper, 13 days for the pandemic, 32 at the height of his to me less, 16 days now. -- of the stimulus, 16 days now. we will hear from tricia in new castle, delaware. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have been trying to get through the state issues. it was flooded out by

floridians. i do feel for them. they are not the only ones affected. people from other states were affected that came to help them. people spend their money and their workers time and stuff like that, now the upc insurance company went belly up is not paying anybody. they go there up seat to get their money back. it is a real shame because their governor that they reelected, all of the policies done is driving insurance companies out and i feel for floridians paying the big policies. think about companies, small companies that went down to help the floridians, they had to stay miles away because all of the motels will -- were full. they fed their employees, paid the bills of the employees, and now they cannot recoup from upc.

it is unbelievable, but think about floridians, keep putting desantis in there, already losing insurance companies, you will lose out-of-state helpers to come in and help clean up the mess. i just do not get it. host: ok. we will hear from a floridian on the republican line. this is marsha. caller: hi there. just what that lady was saying about losing insurance companies, so is california. they lost a couple two, so it is not just florida. but i wanted to stay about the w.h.o., you acted like you were not sure what the lady was talking about and it is very true that biden signed away our sovereignty as far as medical issues go whenever the pandemic is possibly heading. he gave over united states sovereignty to the w.h.o.. that is a huge issue. i personally chose not to get the shot and i'm thankful i did

but a lot of people were forced into it. the ho -- the w.h.o. lied about everything and i have joe biden signing over our sovereignty to them. it is wrong. host: ok. that is marsha in apollo beach. to show you the associated press, from february under the claim sections, legally binding world health organization treaty will give them authority to control u.s. policies during the pandemic including those on vaccines, lockdowns, school closures, and more. the ap assessment, falls, the treaty in draft form is still far away from ratification and does not overrule any nation's ability to pass individual panic -- pandemic related policy multiple experts including one involved in the draft process from the associated press, broad recommendations related to international cooperation on the preparedness and response but nowhere in the 30 page document are locked on of specific

citizens mentioned. this is from february this year. that is the associated press take on it. if you want to read more about it there. arnett in alabama, hi. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: i'm fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i want to thank c-span for the form it provided to the american people so we can all have an ability to speak with our voices. just in the last two callers speculated about, the organization treaty, -- the world health organization treaty, instead of americans going to the sites where these documents are at, they are listening to other people dictating with those documents are stating. we even have the same thing with our presidents now, ex-president, with the documents case. if we look at the actual laws out there pertaining to these types of documents, we will see for ourselves whether he broke

the laws were not. i don't understand why we are taking pungent advice when facts are written in documents and black and white and all we have to do is read for ourselves and determine. host: documents such as what? caller: let's say the espionage act for one, that was written almost a century ago that governs the documents president trump has. then we go to he refers to the president -- presidential records act, which if you read the presidential records act, it is not give any president the right to hold any national defense information. and we can go to other things that are being out there, the trusted organizations are putting out there, that has been researched, that pond and stick apart and no one goes and reads the documents that they are

taking apart. -- pun didn't's taking apart and no one goes and reads the documents that they are taking apart. caller: on gun control, i don't understand the second amendment. you have -- it says you will not inhibit the buying of guns but the first part says a well regulated militia. what does a row -- well regulated militia look like? that is my comment. host: the new york times highlights recent comments made by representati -- a representative toward israel and the reaction from the democratic party on those fronts. they write saying the rift burst in the public view over the weekend when the representative, a washington democrat who leads the aggressive caucus, said in a conference of the liberal network nation that in real -- israel "is a racist state."

she was prompt it to walk back the comment. it was on capitol hill and white house yesterday, reaction to the statements from the representative. first on capitol hill at the cows -- with the house speaker, kevin mccarthy, referring to the comments. announcer: >> this is not the firtash [video clip] >> this is not the first person in the democratic caucus that made anti-semitic comments. we watched what they do. there are number of them over there. i think if the democrats want to believe they do not have a conflict -- conference that makes anti-semitic remarks then they'd need to do something about it. they defend these individuals time and time again. only time action has been taken is when we have to take the action. i think this is a role for the leader, hakeem, to prove they are not anti-semitic and they cannot allow their members to continue to say what they have said in the past. think about what we talk about, you read the one issue of what she called israel, on a week

when we have the president of israel coming to give a joint session. on the 75th anniversary of the creation of israel. the closest ally, within minutes of israel becoming a country, america recognized it. but now we have leaders in the democratic party, not just an elected as a democrat and conference, she is a leader of their caucus. and she is making these comments. host: israel's president is excited to visit with president biden while he is in town and npr reporting present biden in a conversation with the prime minister of israel expected to meet with him as well in the next coming months. at the white house, it was the strategic communications director, john kirby, also responding to questions about the representatives comments. >> the congress moon -- congress woman said israel is a terrorist

a. she walked that back with comments and i wondered if the white house had response to those comments. >> we saw she apologized and we are glad she did. we think an apology was the right thing to do for those comments and as you saw from my readout from the call with prime minister nine yahoo!, and you will see this tomorrow when the president gets a chance to meet with another president, our commitment to israel is ironclad. we will make that clear and consistent every chance we get. host: this is christine in rhode island, democrats line, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for your service. i would like to thank all of our military and families. i know this must be very hard on them. what i see is everybody is making money. follow the money. don't take your eye off the

prize, because this is so corrupt. i am a democrat, but i try to stay neutral because i should have bought the book, politics for dummies, but i try to stay neutral and watch it. i have been following this for years and years now. i feel like there are such liars and i'm so disgusted with all of this. i just feel bad for the people that they take advantage of. in appalachia, they call hunter biden being a crackhead. they are trying to fight to help people. look at our children. they have mental illness now because parents and adults acting like fools and making judgments. people need to calm down, focus.

pandemic, i lost for family members in my family. my sister-in-law lost her husband. this is no joke. they lied on fox news the whole time. the republican party lied to the american people. host: that is christine in rhode island. let's hear from eileen in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: hi, pedro. just a comment on your previous guests statements that justice jackson was actually right when she wrote in her dissent that black babies have a greater chance of survival with a black doctor. that is a toxic accusation and it is not true. the studies showed 98.12 versus 98.2 something like that that

was statistically insignificant. there is no difference in survival rates with a black doctor versus a white to dr. for black babies. that accusation should not be allowed to stand. she should be corrected. host: eileen in pennsylvania the des moines register reports a polk judges temporarily blocking i was heartbeat law is a court challenge plays out. making abortion again legal and i will up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. governor kim reynolds signed the law at 245 time in the afternoon friday at the family leadership summits. it took effect immediately, banning nearly all abortions after doctors detect cardiac activity which can occur about six weeks into a pregnancy before many women know they are pregnant. there are narrowly defined exemptions for rape, incest, fetal i'm the morality's -- fetal abnormalities, and

registry. monty is next on the independent line. caller: i would like to thank c-span and everyone involved giving a platform for truth. you are the last bastion of truism i believe in america where social media has taken hold and cognitive this needs -- dissonance is the word of the day. it seems people don't understand things like the vaccine was produce under trump's -- under trump administration. trump his vaccinated, his family is vaccinated, yet the ultra conservatives are embroiled old -- embroiled in vaccine conspiracy. this does not penetrate through the amount of cognitive dissonance these people have obtained. i would like for anyone who has studied media now a day to go

back through c-span and find out how many times the c-span hosts have been accused of bias and whether this is on the conservative side or liberal side. i guarantee you will find conservatives embroiled in conspiracy theories, there are those out there in the left, but not nearly as intense since going back to the obama birth certificate fiasco which was never resolved. uranium one, never resolved. the goalpost of a long con job, always moves. that is what i'm saying. host: got your point, monty. tom in illinois, democrats line, go ahead. caller: yeah, well, first of all , i totally disagree with the caller that just spoke. i think you guys -- can you take your hand off of the button. the whole thing with the who, why would they sign a treaty? why would they sign it? host: you tell me.

caller: they signed it because hyden and everybody is making money off of the international money. i don't think there is anything wrong with being america first. and everybody ask like it is some conspiracy theory. chinese are breaking us down and when you quote the ap that it is just a choice they made, we made that choice. it is not like something that is not there. it is like we are talking about something that exists and you say it does not exist and you ask republicans all the time, where did you get that information? you are a journalist. all your people to do your position are journalists. you guys should be on top of where you get this. or chinese representative writing papers in the united states because they know about censorship and oppression. on censorship and oppression, i disagree with the caller. host: you had your chance to

express your views on that openly. our next caller in new york, ahead. caller: i just want to say, i just turned on the tv and i don't know what you guys are talking about but i'm totally disappointed with the democratic party. i would like to switch. biden is a humiliation and i've never seen a president like this before in my life. that makes me want to switch parties, that speaks herself. host: ok. that is our last caller in new york finishing up the open call. our last guest of the morning his mom for liberty, talking about parental rights and public education and related issues as well. she will join us next when "washington journal" continues. announcer: c-span shop.org is c-span's online store.

browse through our products, apparel, books, home to car, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit organization. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases,'s -- plus bestseller books and interviews. you can find that on c-span now, our mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ announcer: if you are enjoying oak tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on your screen. to receive the schedule of upcoming programs, author discussions, book festivals, and more. book tv every sunday on c-span2

or anytime online at book tv.org -- booktv.org. television for serious readers. ♪ announcer: c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is your front-row seat to the presidential election aired watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches, and events. to make up your own mind, campaign 2024 on the c-span network, c-span now, our free mobile video app or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. announcer: if you ever miss any of c-span coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org, videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.

these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen and you hit play on select videos. as timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: returning to our program, tina descovrich of the group moms for liberty, their cofounder, joining us from florida. thank you for giving us your time. guest: thanks for having me this morning. host: could you remind viewers about the goal or what i see is your goal for moms for liberty? guest: moms for liberty is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, parents working to unify educate and empower each other to defend parental rights at all levels of government. my cofounder and i are both former school board members from florida, we work to help parents navigate to the public education system. host: what was the driving impulse for the group? guest: tiffany and i served from

2016 to 2020 on different school boards. we did not even know each other but what we found was we had kind of the same experience of witnessing parents coming forward, concerned about public education, and school districts not addressing them. we feel all of america got to see that front and center in 2020. january 1, 2021, we launched moms for liberty to help communities and parents organize vocally in their own chapters to work to better public education and defend their parental rights. host: from launching in 2021, how any members and chapters of the organization are there and how are you funded? guest: that's the exciting news, we launched january 1, 2021 with two chapters in florida, my and tiffany county -- mine and tiffany's county. we are two and a half years out and now at 300 chapters in 45 states with 120,000 active moms on the ground. host: as far as the funding, where does it primarily come from? guest: for our first year, the

990 is out and publicly assessable. we reached about $500,000 in revenue, 150,000 of it was t-shirt sales. small donors made up most of that. one little larger donor the first year. the second year which our 990 is worked on now, we will put out soon, you will find bigger donors have come forward to help support us. host: are the donors republicans, democrats, conservative groups? how would you define it? guest: they are individuals, not organizations. i do not know what they are registered at. they believe in our mission and believe parents have the right to direct the upbringing of the education, medical care, and religious upbringing. host: you came into news recently because you were included in news of extremist groups. this is what they wrote about your group. they wrote "moms for liberty activities make it clear the group primary goal is fuel right wing hysteria and make school --

a tennessee chapter moms for liberty claims the states second grade curriculum which includes a book martin luther king and another by ruby bridges was antiwhite a other chapters attacked gender queer and memoir adolescence by a non-binary author and others export sexuality and gender identity. the group has showed up alongside proud boys at multiple protests including florida and texas. that is the claim from the southern poverty law center. what do you think about your addition to the group to the list? guest: we reject being put on the list. what they labeled us as is and antigovernment extremist group which is remarkably untrue. last year our chapter endorsed 500's go board races across the country and we won 275 of the seats and we are actively working with in our system. the way it was set up to get people to share their ideas and get elected. there is nothing antigovernment about it. we are bracing our true form of

government. as far as other accusations, we reject all of those axes i -- those accusations. i'm happy to address some of them. some of those books, all boys in blue was found in elementary school in pennsylvania by one of our moms. her daughters all metro school library. the author said the book was written for adults. these books do not belong in elementary schools. the ones our parents are concerned about. all of the accusations the southern poverty law center has thrown our way are just untrue. host: perceptions that you go after books about martin luther king, about ruby bridges. what you think the perception is and is it correct? guest: it is not correct. that specific instance they keep pointing to in williamson county, tennessee, a mother of a biracial child came forward because her son was in the back of a car, second-grade son, and he was upset because he wanted the white part of him out, he wanted to wash the white part of them off of his skin. the mother went to our chapter

chair and said i don't understand where he is learning this and where this is coming from. they went in and found out it was a six week curriculum called wit and wisdom that was a social justice curriculum for second graders. it had no place in second grade. the book ruby bridges is a wonderful book. no one has tried to get the book removed. our chapter had a complaint that the teacher's manual that went along with the book pointed out things to the young second graders. they taught them the n-word in that class. they taught them about racism. this child who was a biracial child was so confused by that. he hated half of him and was embarrassed of one of his parents. these are issues in america that need to be discussed. these are not things that should be squashed by calling people racists because you don't want to discuss the heart issues. have biracial children in this country and they are beautiful, they are perfect the way they are and we need to address these issues so they don't have to feel that way when they are in the class. host: the local chapter decides

to look after the books and raise concerns and how much is driven by local chapters and how much is driven by the top, people in leadership? guest: i appreciate that question because we are a grassroots organization through and through. we do not pick issues nationally and push them into our chapters. each chapter meet on a monthly chapter meetings and look at what is going on in the school district and discuss the issues and bring them to their local school board. often times those will elevate to state board of education or state representatives and escalate to that level when they are not addressed at their school board. at the national level, we do not pick issues for our chapters to fight. host: our guest is with us to the end of the program. if you and ask about questions about their organization and what they do, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 -- four democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republicans, and (202) 748-8002 for independence. you can text us your questions at (202) 748-8003.

your organization also came into news recently because of a local chapter. in a newsletter including a quote from hitler's. can we explain exact what happened? guest: people need to understand our moms are not political people. many moms have never voted before, never voted in a primary absolutely. they are organizing around issues concerning them, organizing around the fact they feel like their right to raise their child is being infringed upon. that mom put a quote from hitler on her newsletter as a warning to a government can do, what government can potentially do if they are not kept in check. unfortunately local media picked it up and national media picked it up. they clipped it in a way that it looked like she was promoting hiller. that is nonsense. this mother does not appreciate -- this mother does not look toward hitler for doing anything other than the horrible, atrocious atrocities he put on the jewish people and those in the countries around him through

the holocaust and world war ii. there is not a member of moms for liberty that encourages or supports anything that has to do with that ideology. host: how much came directly from you and your co-founder? guest: say that again. host: how much reprimand for the local chapter leader who did this came from you and your co-founder directly? guest: there was no reprimanding . she did it in earnest to try to warn people. we had a discussion with her about how things can be twisted and perceived. she apologized because she felt horrible for the way it represented moms for liberty and what it is doing in the media and she still feels terrible but there is no reprimanding a mom who is trying to stand up to a country where parental rights are being attacked. host: was the statement released by moms for liberty leadership about the incident? what did the statement say? guest: she released a statement immediately apologizing for putting it on the newsletter. tiffany and i came out and put

out a statement again just saying this is not who we are, this is not how it was meant to be taken. people make mistakes and she does not -- she did not really understand the implications of sending out a newsletter to her local people in her community with a warning and how nasty people can be to twist and the media to pick that up and run with it in a way that was never meant to be. host: our guest is tina descovrich of moms for liberty joining us for this conversation. you talked about your growth, what do you attribute that considering recent start, where you attribute the growth? guest: it's remarkable because we have not invested any money in promoting or trying to recruit or grow in that fashion. it has been authentic grassroots growth. it is exactly -- i will tell you exactly what it is, the media and national news comes out and says this is not happening in public schools, that is not happening in public schools. then he mom opens the backpack of her child and sees the curriculum, see the problems.

so she googles who can she go to for help and it turns out it is moms for liberty is the only organization i will stand with parents. parents are really starting to see the educational failure in america. let's lay out what happened. we have the lowest map scores in recorded history of the united states, the lowest reading scores it's the 1980's. two thirds of american fourth-graders are not reading on grade level. parents are starting to wake up to the sand question who has been in charge for public education, who is making these decisions, and wire my children not learning? host: if local chapters are involved in these things, what exact lay are they asking school ivories to do with books they have questions about? guest: it varies like we just discussed, from chapter to chapter. often times they are moved from an elementary school to middle school or middle school to a high school. it is interesting because a lot of national stories will say the book has been banned but the heritage foundation when in to the less pan-american put out that everybody ran with last

year and they went into each of the school district spend america identified a book's band and what they found was a majority of books were sitting on the shelves. maybe they had been moved to a restricted area or moved to middle school or high school from elementary school but they were still sitting on the shelves. in my definition of banned, it is not about sitting on a shelf still accessible in public schools. host: we have cause lined up. our first call is from david, democrat. you are on with our guest, go ahead. caller: good morning, tina. earlier you claimed -- i've a few questions. earlier you claimed you were nonpartisan but all three of your founders are republican. that is kind of weird. also you so you are grounded in conservative values, that sounds right wing. you often are seen at events with proud boys, 3% or's, christian nationalists, that is right wing. i'm just confused why you -- you

also don't know who any of your donors are? how do not know where your money is coming from? that seems disingenuous. i think you guys are a bunch of nazis and afraid to say it. host: go ahead and comment on what you wish. guest: i will try to address a couple issues. i do not know a proud boy, never known a proud boy, i don't affiliate with that organization, neither does my co-founder. we do not know anybody in that organization. i'm not sure where that came from, where the accusation comes from. i would love someone to point to a time where i've had a conversation or talk to anyone from that organization i don't know what a 3%er is. he would have took play that to me. these accusations hurled at us are complete nonsense. yes i'm a registered republican but our members are not always registered republicans. 63% of our members are republicans. that means the rest of our members are democrats or independents. we are a nonpartisan

organization. we do not pick sides. as many school board races are nonpartisan. do we lean conservative? yes. we have traditional values and support those? absolutely. that does not make as a right-wing anything. host: from our republican line in columbus, ohio. john. caller: hey, pedro. love c-span. could be questionable about what is going on here. as a longtime republican and veteran of the marine corps, this is completely antithetical to what is going on. this seems just wrong to any type of democracy. this lady is refusing to say where she is getting these big donations and is pushing her own agenda on other people. the fact instead of saying your group and organization has been meeting with proud boys, your organization has been quoting hitler.

don't just turn it to you, you are a spokesperson for people who are engaged -- host: john from ohio, are you there? caller: students are allowed to do and that is not ok. host: ok, john from ohio. go ahead. guest: i'm sorry about that. he cut out a little bit. i'm not deflecting responsibility. i would like someone to point to anyone in our organization that is meeting with the proud boys. these accusations that come our way -- i cannot refute something you can't even .2. so we did not refute the quote from hitler on a newsletter, we said it was a mom sounding an alarm to america. i will take responsibility for my organization every day, all day. our members sign a document that says they will fight as joyful warriors. when they don't, we remove them from the organization. i cannot argue with lies and false information all day long because i need you to point to

facts and truth. host: when you say they don't you will remove them, have any been removed? what is the standard for removal? guest: we have had to remove a few people from our organization. it is usually handled at the cap at her level. each chapter has a chair, vice chair, treasurer, secretary, and additional executive board members. when there is a concern brought forward by its members or executive board, they discuss it and vote for removal and they have done that on a few occasions. and honestly it is up to the chapter. if they feel like the person is harming their reputation or made bad decisions or is not fighting in a joyful way, but we are moms. we understand what the media is doing t us. we are upsetting the balance of power in america and public education so we are being slandered, being lied about, being added to the hate map. we have to work extra hard to be joyful. if someone is fighting in a

negative way and that is what they plan on continuing to do, we remove them from our organization. host: for the efforts you are making as far as school boards and elections, how do you gauge success in what you are doing? guest: we gauge success in a lot of ways. obvious the last years when up 275 seats as a win. school board turn out is three times higher than it has been. our goal is to get all eyes on the education system. it is a failing system. republicans traditionally either point at always to school choice and get rid of public education. so many republicans said public education is a failure and we need to abandon it. this is why we are more nonpartisan than anything. that is not what we believe. tiffany and i served four years on a public school board because we love public education. all five of my children have gone to public education, tiffany's children are public education -- in public

education. we want to say public education but you cannot do that by sweeping everything under the rug. guest: our next caller in florida, independent line, cynthia, hi. caller: good morning. tina, first of all, do you know the civil rights leaders henrietta moore? they were schoolteachers here in brevard county. they were civil rights leaders. they were killed, do you know why? guest: yes i'm very familiar with the entire story that happened there in my county in brevard. caller: ok, do you know why they were fired as schoolteachers? guest: yes, ma'am, but you might have to remind me. caller: ok. they were fired from brevard county schools district because

they were registering black people to register to vote. [indiscernible] i did not realize that they have a place you can go visit where the home was blown up and so forth. i'm a former teacher and i wish i would've known during seventh grade. i could have at least taken my students on a trip, school trip there. even though it was rule culture -- rural culture. you know how any children today to talk to weick is about feeling bad about being taught black history where they are made to feel bad? host: that is cynthia in florida. guest: i missed the last part of

her question but i would like to address the moore's in brevard county. that was the county i was raised in and i love. it is horrible. i do not understand why anyone thinks moms for liberty would be opposed to teaching the true history of what is happened -- has happened to african-americans and the black community in the united states. horrible atrocities happened from slavery through the civil rights movement but we have made a lot of progress and we also want to focus on celebrating the progress that has been made. host: as far as the issue of slavery, how should it be taught? what is the ideal age it should be taught at? guest: the truth should be taught, absolutely, but there are things appropriate for second graders that are not appropriate -- things appropriate for high schoolers that are not appropriate for second graders. i think that discussion needs to be had. our moms like to bring the discussions to the table. a gentleman earlier on the call

accuse me of trying to put what my beliefs are on others and that is not the case, nor is that the case for our organization. we want all voices in the discussion at the table about what children in each community will be taught. the beautiful thing about the american public education system is it was designed to do that. in other countries, it is top-down to the bottom ranks, all across the country. in the united states, it is communities, the voters, the sit incidents, parents, teachers, that come together -- citizens, parents, teachers, that come together. it is put out in the open and you have to present it at a public meeting and ask if anybody wants to comment on it. it is set up that way so parents will get involved. historically, parents have not. when i served on the school board, no one showed up to the meetings or reviewed the book. now everyone is either on people having concerns and discussions are had. there is nothing wrong with that. host: in hollywood, florida, richard, democrats line. caller: how are you doing?

i am a pastor and a veteran. i am amazed, not all white people, but this one i'm looking at on the television, it is amazing how, for years, white people have told us as black people we need to stop blaming people for our failures, we need to stop looking at the past, we need to stop being responsible for our actions. as a pastor, i know this woman would probably say she is a christian but she is a disgrace. because god created all of us the same. just because your skin is white does not mean that you get to decide what other races of people get to listen to or read, regardless of what you do. black folks are going to continue to teach children what happened, what some of your

people did to us. you can do whatever you want to do, you can continue to pretend like donald trump. it is everybody's fault but -- i saw on the television the other day and i think it was you that got up and defended -- you said i agree with what you said. i sawed with my own eyes on the tv. host: that is richer there. -- richard there. guest: i'm not sure what he is referencing in the end but i will address the beginning i want my children and all children to learn about the history of this country. just as you want your children to learn about the history of this country. the true, factual history. if someone is saying otherwise, that is an untrue statement. i do not want to say and take away what you teach your children and what your children should learn. i think your community should come together and have a discussion about what is age appropriate and when things should be taught.

that is it, plain and simple. anything you have heard about my organization or me is false. host: from kathy, delaware, republican line. caller: hello. there was a little animosity toward why people from the previous caller, but we will get past that. the problem i'm having this morning is that, pedro, you weren't interviewing this lady, you were interrogating her. you brought up the most negative things you could find at the very beginning of the interview. i caution you that you are setting the tone for the people that come on the show. whether they are conservatives or -- but it seems to me that you would be a little more open-minded. host: part of the reason we invited her, so she knew that going into it, but go ahead with your comment. caller: i think i've made my

point. he picked up a very negative thing, then insisted the person you are talking about needed to be reprimanded. reprimanded for what? she simply was saying -- and this lady was trying to explain how that situation came about. if you're going to start an interview with a conservative with so much negativity, it sets the tone. i think that is inappropriate. host: i will take your comments and move on to rhoda in minneapolis. you can respond to all of that if you wish, go ahead. guest: no. i just want to thank her for her comments but i'm a big girl, i represent 100 when he thousand moms across the country who are dealing with this daily from the neighbors and community. it is important i come on national television and let people say what they want to say so i have an opportunity to set the record straight. many people will not believe what i'm saying, they will believe what they have seen an

heard or what they think they have seen and heard but i'm taking this opportunity to share truth about myself, our organization, and moms. i hope there are people that will take the time to research we are. host: this is our guest appearance on this program, rhoda in minneapolis, go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you all doing? i want to say words have meaning , liberty has meeting, and wears have meeting. when you have a person who is quoting hitler, and yes she did apologize or whatever, you have people on twitter, on other places applauding that and saying she should not have apologized. so your words have meaning, number one. number two, you will need to understand that i am gay so i am not going to set the record straight with you, i'm going to say it how i want to say it. we are going to teach our kids what we need to teach our kids and you will teach them what you

need to teach them but you will not to send the true history because you have an agenda like i have an agenda. if you want to bring everyone into the conversation, you have to bring the gays, trans, socialists, everyone at the table and not just what you think should be at the table. you guys don't want people like us. you try to ban and get rid of us and try to hide us but say we have to have a conversation. let's have a conversation. bring these people to the table and let them speak. please. host: thanks, caller. guest: i appreciate your comments. i do not want to ban or get rid of anybody. i need to make that clear. our organization at the national level has members of the lgbtq community. we have chapter chairs part of the lgbtq community. we have plan members that have children that are gay or lesbians or part of the lgbtq community. this is about children and what our children are taught in public school spirit at the national summit in philadelphia,

we had the president and founder of gays against rumors speak because she supports our organization and work we are doing. she is a lesbian. she also understands small children should not be exposed to the things they are exposed to right in schools. host: thank you for bringing up your conference. you also had a lot of presidential contenders to the conference. what do you attribute that to as who showed up and what do you attribute that to? guest: there's a couple things it i want to put on the record that yes we had five presidential candidates and yes they were all republicans before your callers point out again they were all republicans. we invited all of the presidential candidates including president biden and robert f. kennedy, jr.. president biden did not respond, robert kennedy junior committed to come. they sent us his bio, his headshot, we put out the press release he would be attending anti-canceled. he said due to a family engagement a few days out. we wanted to hear from all

candidates, our summit was about our issues. we are worried about education and the future of america because of the failure of education. we are worried about parental rights and a parents right to direct the upbringing of their child -- children in america. we said that you all the candidates and that is what we wanted to hear about. most of them stop close -- stuck close to that when they came. most of them threw in the campaign speeches too but we had the opportunity to dig into the candidates. also on the main stage we had a panel with education leaders from four different states. we really dug in about education failure and what they will do in their states for education. i know c-span streams some stuff from our summit and we are thankful for that. host: it is available online at our website, c-span.org. what is the philosophy of moms for liberty when it comes to endorsements? guest: we will not endorse an presidential primary. our chapters and organization only endorse an school board races. we believe that is where we can have the most impact.

there are all kind of organizations with issues getting involved in presidential campaigns. we brought them to our summit to speak to also on our issues only and we are only endorsing in school board races. host: from richard in georgia, republican line, you are next up. hi. caller: i just wanted to call in -- i was sitting here watching and i was tired of you getting attacked. i want you to know that there are people out here that love what you are doing to protect the children. obviously this is a good versus evil situation where you have people on the left who are upset with the sound of freedom when it is to protect children. then we have a white house that celebrates the drag queens, etc. , naked dancing and other stuff, cocaine, whatever. we love you and thank you. i think this is god versus say 10, good versus evil, and i'm on your side. you are a beautiful woman and

thank you. host: thank you. i appreciate your support. host: you talked about your conference and i want to push forward to 2024. we saw, particularly in governor races, the issue of parental rights being an issue of that. how much do you think that will be in the next election cycle? guest: i think it will be the number one domestic issue in america and it should be. for many years i watched presidential debates on both sides and education was barely mentioned. sometimes not at all. the goal of our organization or one of the many goals is to make sure education is front and center for the 2024 election. i think we are doing a good job. recently, we did national polling and found 70% of americans do not like the direction of education right now. they think it is in the wrong direction. 70% of americans think parents that the number one say in what their children are taught in public school. we saw that in virginia and i think you will see that across america and it will impact the 22 any for presidential election for sure. host: in south carolina,

democrats on, suzanne's next up. hello. caller: thank you for this opportunity. i have four questions or statements. my understanding from a lot of reading -- and i have been following moms for liberty for a while -- is that your guest started this organization when she lost i think a school board seat. i would like to know if that is true. second, i agree with your guest about our abysmal scores in math and reading. also i've done lots of research and i do not see anywhere where moms for liberty is making recommendations on how to improve our children's math and reading skills. what i see them doing his fear mongering. and my understanding, and i wanted to correct it -- want it

corrected if i am wrong, that this is a pretty right wing republican, political organization masked under the name of moms for liberty, which sounds wonderful. i don't know a mom that is not for liberty. but i think it is sparse. -- i think it is a farce. i think it is a republican organization trying to make our parents afraid of the other. it is not bringing us together, it is othering, it is dangerous, and i will conclude by saying that, if you are an engaged parent as i am, you can go online and you can access the daily teachers plan for every subject here in south carolina anyway. for the past eight years i have looked to my children's

curriculum monthly, not daily. we all know what they are being taught. host: have to leave it there for the sake of time you made your three points. go ahead. guest: the first question was did i lose my reelection in florida? i absolutely did. that is affirmative, but to your other two comments, one, i am so think and grateful here you can access your child's curriculum. what a blessing that is. but there are parents across this country who cannot. when they do a records request or foia request, they get slapped with $10,000 bills. those are the things we are fighting. not every parent has the access to their child's curriculum or what they're being taught in books. you opened the window for me to explain that exactly. as far as what are we doing to improve reading or math scores in this country, we are doing a variety of things. if you're in south carolina, it is our second or third largest state as far as moms for liberty membership. reach out to your local chapter

and ask what they are doing. i think you will be pleasantly surprised. they are volunteering, donating books, doing a variety of things. the number one indicator of student success, and everyone agrees, is parental involvement. we are getting parents involved. our chapters are doing fundraisers and drives, supply drives for students, but not just that. at the national level, we are working with multiple organizations on getting reading -- if you would go back to our youtube channel and look at the panel on the education leaders in the four states we brought in, there was a great discussion about treating and how we have been teaching reading wrong for quite some time in america. and what needs to be done, research-based studies have been done on how reading needs to be taught. what you are about to see from moms for liberty is us to unroll a campaign on helping our chapters bring that to their local school district. host: the house comes in at 10:00 and we will hear from anna

in missouri, independent line. guest: good morning. -- caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to say thank you, tina, for your dedication. i'm a teacher, i have been a principal, vice principal, worked in curriculum constructed -- construction and assessment and i think it is interesting how people want to judge based on republican, democrat, independent, and it is sad. we are talking about children, little bitty kids. let me tell you, even though you might be able to look online at your curriculum, you don't know what is going on in the classroom until you are there. last year or two, i have been appalled by how many of our children are exposed to things that are inappropriate, sexual things, them talking about mia boy or mia girl. i think it is sad how we want to judge someone on the colors of skin or what they do or do not

do. i think we should step back and realize we are talking about children. pedro, you are biased. tina, god bless you. don't let these people -- don't let people stop you from what you are doing. host: thank you. guest: i appreciate your support and you are right, our organization is working on many things but one is protect the innocence of children. when it comes to these controversial issues of gender ideology or when to teach the details of things like the holocaust or slavery and things of that nature, they need to be taught. we 100% agree, all the truth needs to be taught, but young children need to be protected. what we have also learned through polling is 67% of americans think gender ideology should not be taught in the youngest grades yet we have whole states that have adopted

curriculum to teach four-year-olds they can be a boy or girl or neither or both. that is concerning in america to most parents today. host: from jason in florida, republican line, you are next. caller: hey, tina. good morning and thank you for what you are doing to protect our children. i would also like to ask you, can you talk a little bit about the concerns that the majority of american parents have about the standards of education and the fact that the scores, the graduation and sat scores, have dropped the last several decades and what you and your organization are doing to help improve the quality of classical education in our school systems. thanks again, tina.

guest: thank you for your question. what is going on in america is graduation rates, as far as we can tell, are not decreasing, they are increasing. we like to call that graduation inflation. someone needs to explain to us, and i thing that should be the department of education, on how that is happening when two thirds of american fourth-graders are not reading on grade level, when overall through eighth grade, the math and reading scores we already went over, are at dismal lows. how are graduates graduation rates increasing? there are a lot of things that need to happen but the number one thing i think our organization can do and anyone can do is shine light on what is going on. none of this is going to get fixed or better. we will not be competitive with our education system in america unless we shine light on the problems and address problems at the most local level. host: tina descovrich on the moms for liberty twitter feed recently there was this tweet, i want to read it and then you can set a context. it says "let's debate to randi

weingarten and says enough with the closed reply, show up with your best argument, defend your failure, we dare you." can you tell us what the tweet is about? guest: so my co-founder runs our twitter account, that is a tweet from her. she has called on randy several times and asked her to debate in public about education issues and failure and that is what that tweet it -- tweet was about. she is asking her to come out. randi terms off comments on her twitter account very often so she will not be criticized. we keep our comments on -- open and we let the attacks role. we believe people need to be able to be open and honest and share how they feel about these issues. the education issues are so important. she is a leader of the education movement in this country and i will call out now and ask her to debate on a live stage with tiffany justice, my co-founder. host: has there been a response? guest: no response yet.

but maybe now she will see this on c-span and reach out. host: our guest, the website momsforliberty.org and tina descovrich is the co-founder joining us for this conversation. thanks for coming on and taking questions. guest: thanks, pedro. appreciate the time. host: the house representatives coming in at 10:00, a lot of things going on in and around washington. later on today at 1:00 this afternoon, a look at russia invading sanctions, particularly through switzerland. you can see that as part of concerns about money laundering, at 1:00 on c-span3. you can also see it at the.org and our website. tomorrow is the rayleigh -- israeli president addressing congress at 11:00 eastern on various platforms. the house of representatives now coming in. we take you to them. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays befor