government, with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. and important information on congressional committees. the president's cabinet. federal agencies. and state governors. scan the code at the right to c-spanshop.org. today or go to it's $29.95 plus shippingnd handling and every purchase helps support our nonprit operations. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democrat say the work. when citizens are truly informed. a republic thrives. get 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. washi.

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 supreme court. this was the 11th of july, 2023as more tempered than the incendiary year that came before. surely the justices have notice how in is the only source of power. the colleagues can't continue to ndert. 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,