shaped america. will feature narrative of the life of frederick douglass, written in 1845. it was the first of three autobay owegraphys by frederick douglass. deeply personal and sometimes graphic language he describes his childhood years on the eastern shore of maryland. his time as a slave in baltimore. and his escape north in 1838. the book was widely sold and is said to have highly influenced the allow pwaeugs. historian and author will be on the program it discuss the book. watch books that shaped america. featuringaireivity life of frederick douglass, monday, live, at 9 p.m. eastern. on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. scan the q.r. code to listen to our companion podcast, where you can learn more about the authors of the books feature.

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers. we are just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. comes a new term fore supreme court. here to set the stage with what to expect is greg stohr . good morning. if you had to break this down to big issues to expect, how what you do that? guest: we do not have any

blockbuster cases like the abortion case but there are a lot of hot button social issues that are at the core are likely to be there, including a gun case, potential abortion case, there may be a transgendered right case and then there are cases about structure government perhaps more wonky but very important for the power of administrative agencies in washington. host: with the cases to be considered, do you write a lot of these cases come from the fifth circuit court of appeals. can you explain what the court is and why some of these cases appear? guest: this is a federal appeals court that oversees texas, louisiana, and mississippi. it is the most conservative appeals court in country. conservative like this bio case there there any fifth circuit issued a number of rulings that go beyond our more conservative

than the supreme court has yet allowed. that includes the gun case i am sure will be talking about. one of the questions of this term is does this conservative supreme court want to go as far as the fifth circuit. host: our guest with us for the half hour if you want to ask about these cases we heard. you can do that at (202) 748-8001 four republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you brought up guns and if domestic abusers can on them. guest: go back a couple terms, the supreme court upholds says there's a constitutional right to carry a weapon in public. the court in the case set up a tough new test for gun regulation saying you have to have historical analog. look at history and tradition and if we cannot find something in 1789 or around the end of expect regulation were looking

at today, it is unconstitutional. with that as the backdrop, the fifth circuit took up this case involving the federal law that says if you are subject to domestic violence restraining order, you can lose your gun rights and a man was prevented from owning a firearm. he subsequently was involved in of this allegedly several shootings, the and his girlfriend -- threatened his girlfriend, physically abuse her and to suffer an ink a number of women and the question is whether he retains his second amendment right is -- threatening to abuse another woman and the question is whether he retains his second amendment right. host: what is the biden of case in the matter? guest: the history and tradition test does not require to define the exact thing that when you

go back and look at the history. in 1789 we were talking about the messick abuser and it does not have to be detest here. they say it is a case where we have individual lies finding. a judge found this person was dangerous and in that context second amendment does not let him go out and get a weapon and potentially use it to get someone else. host: go back to 2022 record took action on second amendment standalone -- the court took action on second amendment standalone. guest: if they are going to state no this man does not have second amendment right, will have to do with the test they set up in 2022. they're going to have to explain why finding an exact historical analog is not always the test. they're going to have to provide more flexibility for governments and setting up gun restrictions. if not, it is hard to see how any gun restriction, of any

significance, is going to survive second amendment reviewed with this court. host: that is why the case is to be considered. one of the other cases came from the result of the obama administration, consumer financial protection bureau. being consider on is on with operation, particularly its funding. guest: this was a case argued just yesterday. the question -- a case of the fifth circuit and fifth circuit said the way the cfp gets its funding is unconstitutional. draws the money from federal reserve and not subject to year-to-year aggression appropriation so it would have been subject to the government shutdown had that happen. the cfpb is an agency set up after 2008 financial crisis regulates mortgages, home loans, consumer products and conservatives have long set is unaccountable. has too much power. the question is whether the

supreme court will try to grow back cfpb in this way. the argument yesterday suggests they were skeptical of the argument that funding mechanism is unconstitutional. host: there is reporting justices had questions coming from the lawyer representing challengers. guest: even justice thomas, justice kavanaugh, some of the conservative justices were questioning whether this agency -- whether it be cfpb was any different from other agencies, including the customs service, set up at the time of the founding, how they get their funding. secondly, justice thomas had asked the question he said you may be right this is something new and different, but even so, what is the constitutional problem? you give us a constitutional argument. the argument that misappropriation clause somehow limits congress discussion setting up an agency did not

sound that there was a whole lot of support for that argument. host: on the topic of regulatory power, give us a legal one on one, a case taking a look at the topic known as chevron deference, implications there. what is it? how does it apply to at the justices will hear? guest: chevron deference is this doctrine established in 1984 by the supreme court. it goes to the question of who gets to interpret -- the primary role in interpreting statutes. in the chevron case, the court says if an agency's interpret ambiguous term in the statue, if it is reasonable, we the court will defer to the agency. when it happened conservatives like that were building because they liked what agencies were doing and liberals did not like it. now things have flipped. conservatives aren't unhappy with the chevron doctrine.

liberals want to defend it. the court is considering abolishing that doctrine, returning that. is a case that arises out of rules in new jersey, this may be that the conservatives who have been after the chevron doctrine may say to themselves, it not doing work here. we have limited it so we do not need to overturn it. but certainly this is the court that is skeptical of the power of the administrative agencies, so one would expect they narrow the chevron doctrine even more. host: will in ohio on the line for independents. you're on with greg stohr talking about the upcoming supreme court term. caller: thank you, mr. stohr. on the cfpb case, are there other government agencies funded

like the cfpb? if that funding mechanism is overturned, what will happen to the cfpb? also, when can we expect and decision? -- a decision? guest: much of the argument was about whether the cfpb is like any other agencies. a lot of the liberal and conservative justices were saying you cannot distinguish the cfpb from the federal reserve. it is basically the same. the federal reserve also is not subject to year-by-year congressional appropriations. to get this money from federal reserve banks -- it gets its money from federal reserve banks. join that line -- challengers to the cfpb urged the court to do that make it an only rolling but it is not seem like the court

sees a way to do that. by the administration has argued that the ruling by the fifth circuit has passed a legal cloud over everything the cfpb has done since its inception. the case is nearly just about payday lending rule that has not been enforced because the fifth circuit said the cfpb operating illegally this whole time, other defendants have raised this issue in pending cases. there are questions about how it might apply to pass cases and pass roles. from the argument did not seem like the supreme court was interested in going there at all so we would not see that disruption. host: again, greg stohr is our guests. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you probably seen the polling

and clarity trust in the supreme court. how does it factor into the perception of the court, how justices viewed their work. guest: the perception of the court is not good right now. whether that matters to the justices is a bit harder to say, it probably matters to some of them rather than others. that said, the efforts, controversies the past year do weight on the court. they are very cognizant of that. there are some suggestions they might be changing how they operate in public a little bit. maybe there is less willingness to do some things they might have done otherwise. it is certainly in the back of the minds all the time. host: justice thomas coming into the low light because of the pro-publica pieces.

as far as someone who watches the court, what do you think about the way they do things to get they talk about these things? do you get a sense they care? guest: my sense is they cannot avoid talking about it, at least a little bit. there certainly -- justice kavanaugh has said clearly they are working on some sort of code of conduct or something along those lines. justice kavanaugh suggested he is hopefully -- to come up with something soon. they're talking about it at least on that level. some of these stories, it is hard to say how much they talk about the stories of justice thomas. the interviews justice alito has given to the wall street journal. there are very aware of those. no doubt some of those topics are awkward for them to talk about. it is a bit of a challenge for them to just focus on their work

without letting all that be a distraction. host: it was justice kagan recently in an interview talks about the potential for that code of ethics. going to play on little bit about what she had to say. [video clip] >> we are in a situation where we have committed to following certain kinds of ethical rules, respecting judges, but have said you only be guided by others. we have committed to following the gift roles the other judges follow -- rules that other judges follow an outside income that other judges follow but other judges haven't extensive code of ethics that governs everything they do and there has been concern and i think is a legitimate concern that the supreme court is an unusual kind of court in certain respects and some of the rules do not fit as well at the supreme court level

then they do at the level of lower courts. but, of course, what we could do is adapt the code of conduct that the other court systems have to reflect those slight or certain differences. i think it will be a good thing for the court to do that. it would help in our own compliance with the rules. it would i think go far as persuading other people we were adhering to the highest standards of conduct. host: does chief justice has interest of playing that kind of template other justice have to start under to the supreme court? guest: he has an interest in it. he is not a said that much. he has put out when they declined to testify before the

senate judiciary committee, he put out the statement of symbols and practices that all -- principles and practices all justices sign it. he has made brief comments talking about the importance of ethics. he is somebody who has always cared deeply about the institutional standards of the court. that is something not everybody agrees with in terms of how he thinks about it is important for the court, but the court's reputation, the respect the court gets around the country, the -- that is always been high on the list of priorities and cannot be lost on him coming out with some code of conduct that seems like the court get there are legitimate issues here about gifts and disclosures and things like that. will go a long way to at least being first step towards regaining some of that confidence. host: joe in virginia.

republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. thank you for your guest. i have a legal question concerning former president donald trump. this is question i think a lot of americans have come especially trump supporters. my legal question is this. with all the misinformation and all the slander, i will give you four examples. dirty dossier that turned out to be paid for by democrat and holy clint -- hillary clinton. the mueller report were he was cleared to create the new charges that seem to be ridiculous, over property values. what is donald trump's legal recourse is the actually filing personal lawsuits against these people, government and a former

government officials, who have lied in public to smear him? i want to know if he has a legal recourse to sue people for slander or defamation because if he does, why do you think he has not done so yet? guest: that is probably a little outside area of coverage. i covered the supreme court. the caller made allegations there. people would disagree with, certainly donald trump has said he will file a lot of lawsuits and then not file them. my own observation of the president had a strong legal case on any of those things, he is not afraid to file a lawsuit. none of what i heard there has made it up to the supreme court in any way shape or form. when cases involving donald trump, not as president, but as an individual, have made it up

to the supreme court, he has not fared very well. the court has ejected his arguments. not exact arguments the caller is bringing up, but at least for the supreme court standpoint, a lot of the times donald trump's arguments do not hold a lot of water. host: back to an january 6. we saw justice thomas recuse himself concerning a case about that. is there a the initial report came back of what he did it? guest: justice thomas did not give an extra nation. -- explanation. the case was an appeal filed for somebody who was a lawyer to president trump during the time a january 6. has been indicted in the georgia case. he's also former law clerk to clarence thomas. this case did not have any particle sticks but stemmed from the house committee looking to

january 6 and their efforts to get his emails which they already gotten. the emails according to political report a year ago referred to justice thomas in efforts to use him to appeal to him to try to overturn the election results. there are some factors in there including the fact that his former clerk and potential reference there that might explain why justice thomas recuse in this case it is not recuse in other cases stemming from the election in january 6. host: joe in maryland. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to comment from a citizen's perspective and try to be as honest as possible. people call in and defending donald trump and everything he has done. he asked the gentleman a question. the question was how this he have a recourse.

he has a recourse but everything he was accused of has been proven. it is factual. people calling in defending trying to turn it around, i do not know where they get their news source from. host: you are on with our guest. we are talking to the supreme court -- about the supreme court. caller: the supreme court done what they need to do. they do the right thing by the constitution, as far as honesty is concerned, this summit and the supreme court has no problem -- gentleman and the supreme court has no problem. host: we saw history made with supreme court overturning roe v. wade but when it comes to matters of abortion, to see any other cases on that front? guest: there is an uphill the the biden administration has failed which the court will probably take up having to do with mifepristone, the abortion

pill. that came up to the supreme court on emergency basis a few months ago and the court said that pill remain fully available, while litigation goes forward. legal fight is basically and abortion advocates arguing that the fda gave short scientific evidence of dangerousness when it approved the drug and when expanded access. at this point the fight is about the expanded access. the fifth circuit said the fda, it blocked the rules that allowed the pill to be mailed so people do not have to go in person visit to a doctor and that allowed use beyond up until the 10th week of pregnancy. the biden administration has appealed that the supreme court. we have find out whether the court will take that case. for now it remains available at

least until the supreme court deal with the appeal. host: marcus arndt was it could -- one concern was a kid go to the fda and regulatory power and impact. is that still a concern? guest: it is a concern for supporters among the fda. this unusual case where the federal court essentially second-guess scientific judgment of the fda. said it did not give enough treatise of the arguments -- credence to the arguments that the drug was dangerous. concern is if a court can do that, it can do that with all manner of drugs the fda has approved. host: one of the topics debated on capitol hill frequently is social media and it looks like the justice may have to take a look at a couple cases concerning that. from texas and florida. guest: there is that bucket and

another bucket. texas and florida laws both conservatives run states would restrict the discretion of social media companies when they say take down misinformation. the texas law requires them to be -- social media companies have to be -- cannot engage in viewpoint termination. they cannot take down the ideas. the idea they have taken down to many conservative post. florida law has not the provision, one requiring a detail extra nation for every time they take down a post--- explanation for every time they take down a post-. supreme court has agreed to take of both cases. federal appeal court split. another potential case with you here about having to do with the biden administration's contact with social media companies. the fifth circuit with the by

the administration can do in the case stemming of covid misinformation. we could have several social media cases this term. host: claire. independent line. caller: hello. soon as possible, -- it is truly political. host: do you have a question about the supreme court? caller: do i have a question about the supreme court? host: yes, our guest deals with the supreme court. caller: i think they're doing just fine the way we are. host: all right. one of the papers highlights of the headline -- a headline

dealing with the americans with disability acts. what is the impact? guest: it is a case being argued today and it has to do with so-called tester standing. the question is whether somebody who probably is not going to go to a hotel, can go to their website and say -- hotels website and say they may not have complied with the ada to provide certain information about access to make sure suitable access for people to use the hotel. the question is whether it somewhat like that can file a lawsuit. the advocates being able to sue saying if they cannot come admix it tougher -- it makes it tou ghter for -- tougher for us to force -- enforce it. host: mike the democrat line.

caller: do we have anything on the docket regarding elections and how they are conducted, politically since we have had so much controversy with whether the election was stolen, whether the electronic machines can be programmed to deceive? do we have anything on the docket concerning how we go about our elections? anything there to try to resolve the controversies? because it seems that it has been a lot of energy wasted on this issue. we did not have these problems back in the 1960's and 1970's. we have anything to look forward to with the supreme court? any case or controversy that is on the docket for that? guest: so, there is nothing yet

with regards to how we come to vote, the questions of machines and the like. it is early and we have an election next year so would not be surprised if something crops up. there is one election case that is a bit different, very important. another edition case out of socket -- redrisrictng case at south carolina. whether they needed to create a second majority black district in alabama. the supreme court essentially said yes, and that had to do with the voting rights act. this is the case having to do with equal protection clause and the argument is that south carolina republicans when they drew their districts, took race into account too much. they intentionally cap particular district at a number of african-americans voters and

even though the supreme court has even though the supreme court has said that lawmakers have a free hand to gerrymander for political reasons, they still cannot do it for racial reasons. that is the south carolina case the court will be considering next week. host: our guest's work can be found up bird.com. greg stohr reports on the supreme court for bloomberg. one of those people voting against kevin mccarthy yesterday, representative burchett of tennessee. one of the reasons he did so is a supposedly marked by kevin mccarthy, a condescending remark on his faith. he elaborated on that on cnn yesterday. >> you said you were deciding on how to vote, whether it is to side with your friend or your

conscience, but that he called you and said something that in your view belittled your faith, because you were praying on how to vote. could you explain how the conversation went? >> he basically said something i thought belittled me and my belief system. that pretty much sealed it with me right there. i thought that show the character of the man. i wanted to listen to him. i wanted to do it a long time ago. i was wanting to do it the six weeks we were on break, from august to the first two weeks of september. i said to him during a conversation, i wish you had not waited until right now to call me. >> i find this shocking. what exactly did he say to mock your faith? >> it really doesn't matter. he was just the fact that i publicly stated on your station, i think this morning, that i was

praying about it and i had two paths to go, go with my friend or my conscience, and i was praying to god to tell me what to do, which he does. my daddy talked about prayer a lot. i asked god to show me what is the right thing to do. i'm not trying to save your soul, but that is the path i go down on a lot of bills. i pray for my wife, i pray for my daughter, i pray for my enemies, i pray for this president. i pray for his son. as a christian that is what i'm supposed to do. but when someone marks me like that and mocks my religion -- and honestly the bible is pretty clear about god being marked. that is what sealed it right there for me. i sent, this is not the quality or the character you're of person i want as speaker of the united date. host: one of the eight -- of the united states. host: one of the eight

republicans forcing the ouster of speaker. you can comment on those events. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . and text us at (202) 748-8003. jay sherman of punch bowl news this morning said, already hearing rumblings from some longtime mccarthy allies they will try to prevent steve scalise from becoming speaker. the path to to a is rocky for all candidates. you can follow -- the path to 218 is rocky for all candidates. you can follow along at punch bowl news. good morning. caller: i was curious how when a vote comes like this to oust the speaker it seems more like a political move for this matt fellow because he likes to be in the spotlight, but seems a bit

skewed when all of the democrats vote one way. there is no more bipartisan. what do you think about that? host: one of the people commenting on that, as well as you for the remaining time, is former president trump. posted on his truth social site, why is it always that republicans are fighting amongst themselves? are they not fighting the radical left democrats destroying our country? the former president making his comments on truth social. ed in ohio, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: well, this is a brain fart. i have issues. host: what did you think about the events of yesterday concerning speaker mccarthy? caller: i think mccarthy should have known from geico that they

were going to take him out. you know, once they got whatever they wanted for one slip of the tongue is not speaker of the house. he was being controlled. no, i hate to give nancy pelosi any props, but she does a better job than mccarthy was permitted to do. no, she stood her ground, whereas mccarthy did not. host: right. this is rich in new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning morning. two things. one, i think it would be there

helpful to voters if you guys could maybe get some of the ink on to talk at greater lengths. am i being heard? host: you are on. keep going, we hear you. caller: and i also -- the reason i say that is because i heard a brief comment by nancy mace and some of her reasons for voting against mccarthy were totally one-off from what we think in terms of the others who voted against him. i think it would be helpful if you guys could get some of the other eight. host: when you say one-off, what do you mean? caller: what she said was, that she voted against mccarthy primarily based on promises that he made with regard to

protecting women that he did not follow up on. that is somewhat different than what we are hearing during the debates yesterday as it relates to the budget, etc. and then i heard richard -- burchett from tennessee say that mccarthy had sort of insulted his religion, or his belief system in a, that was made. and that sort of caused him to pull the trigger. i think we all know where that is. but some of the others, it would be interesting to hear what their reasons were. host: ok. caller: as opposed to putting everybody in the same bag. i think you do a great job. host: we did play comments from representative nancy mace early on in the first hour. if you want to go to our website, our twitter feed, you can find them there. she talked about her concerns, particularly when it came to

abortion-related issues. sylvester in maryland, democrats line. caller: yeah, basically i want to understand how matt gaetz was able to play the government, to hold the government on shutdown at the same time he was able to get kevin mccarthy kicked out? isn't that against some type of ethical role? host: matt gaetz on the floor yesterday led the charge against speaker mccarthy. he was ahead of the boat that he gave some of his reasoning that brought him to the action he took was a portion of that from yesterday. >> mr. speaker, my friend from oklahoma says my colleagues and i do not support kevin mccarthy would plunge the house and country into chaos. chaos is speaker mccarthy. chaos is somebody who we cannot trust with their word. the one thing that the white house, hou [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accy