host: we have ill calling in -- bill colligan. -- calling in. caller: i think part of the vote was because of loss of sovereignty. people thought that they were spending their money in a way that they did not necessarily agree. i think we face the same thing in this country. obama'shink barack interference in the decision but to the negative vote? guest: thank you for the point. that is important. sovereignty, i'm not sure if we used that word. i think that is the most legitimate argument you can make for removing britain from the european union. the sense that this country that have had some form of democracy thecenturies, maybe back to 1200s, has topped the world so much and has seen that sovereignty eroded. that is the feeling that i understand and can sympathize with. the economic effects, we have been talking about that. it is hard to argue that there is some trade-off. aery treaty that countrysides, every international organization that a country belongs to, you giving up some sovereignty, but, like a someact, you are giving up freedom of

bancanext up, we have colligan from new orleans. well, my family did. one was my son, for years. then, my brother. i see, i have the papers here for my brother. he died already. $350 and onerrow months he had to pay $405. $50 for one month. i went there and take them, don't give them your money, he is very sick, doing drugs, he doesn't need the money. live because he would buy drugs. host: let's give nick rourke a chance to respond to that. an example of where new federal regulations can help. somebody in that situation where they are sick, have problems, need money for medication, and so on, the new ability to repay standards can catch that kind of thing. there is a bit of relief coming. for most people who use loans who need help with mortgage or car payments, they are still going to be exposed to a lot -- 400% or higher -- interest. that is why they could do a better job of protecting folks by putting clear product safety standards on. oft: dick york, director washington journal. live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. saturday -- sunday morning, a roundtab

host: up next, we have robert colligan from the method, georgia. you are on with adam liptak. caller: i suggest you use the word ideological as opposed to political in describing the court. as you pointed out before, these are very difficult issues. i am an attorney. i have been trained, as we have, to look at both sides of an issue. not everyone concludes equally on things like search and seizure, privacy, so on, and so forth. that is reflected in this election cycle. there are people who have, i hope, honest, but different views on these issues. it is no surprise that on these very difficult issues, nine people appointed by president of different philosophical ideologies, and yes, political, will have different ideas. when you use the word political, it suggests that there is something wrong full of foot. i believe we had nine very thoughtful, bright people, and i respect the analysis that they go through. that is what is missing when people call the court decisions political. guest: i do not think there is a lot of daylight between ideological or political. it is true, i do

host: we have ill calling in -- bill colligan. -- calling in.r: i think part of the vote was because of loss of sovereignty. people thought that they were spending their money in a way that they did not necessarily agree. i think we face the same thing in this country. obama'shink barack interference in the decision but to the negative vote? guest: thank you for the point. that is important. sovereignty, i'm not sure if we used that word. i think that is the most legitimate argument you can make for removing britain from the european union. the sense that this country that have had some form of democracy thecenturies, maybe back to 1200s, has topped the world so much and has seen that sovereignty eroded. that is the feeling that i understand and can sympathize with. the economic effects, we have been talking about that. it is hard to argue that there is some trade-off. aery treaty that countrysides, every international organization that a country belongs to, you giving up some sovereignty, but, like a someact, you are giving up freedom of moveme

bancanext up, we have colligan from new orleans. well, my family did. one was my son, for years.hen, my brother. i see, i have the papers here for my brother. he died already. $350 and onerrow months he had to pay $405. $50 for one month. i went there and take them, don't give them your money, he is very sick, doing drugs, he doesn't need the money. live because he would buy drugs. host: let's give nick rourke a chance to respond to that. an example of where new federal regulations can help. somebody in that situation where they are sick, have problems, need money for medication, and so on, the new ability to repay standards can catch that kind of thing. there is a bit of relief coming. for most people who use loans who need help with mortgage or car payments, they are still going to be exposed to a lot -- 400% or higher -- interest. that is why they could do a better job of protecting folks by putting clear product safety standards on. of theick york, director project. thank you for joining us this morning. coming up next, parkinson's over one million americans. we will discuss

host: up next, we have robert colligan from the method, georgia. you are on with adam liptak. caller: i suggest you use the word ideological as opposed to political in describing the court. as you pointed out before, these are very difficult issues. i am an attorney. i have been trained, as we have, to look at both sides of an issue. not everyone concludes equally on things like search and seizure, privacy, so on, and so forth. that is reflected in this election cycle. there are people who have, i hope, honest, but different views on these issues. it is no surprise that on these very difficult issues, nine people appointed by president of different philosophical ideologies, and yes, political, will have different ideas. when you use the word political, it suggests that there is something wrong full of foot. i believe we had nine very thoughtful, bright people, and i respect the analysis that they go through. that is what is missing when people call the court decisions political. guest: i do not think there is a lot of daylight between ideological or political. it is true, i do