host: elizabeth wydra?uest: i think part of the problem is when you have decisions like benefit -- the majority was making its ruling but it was essentially a law free zone, but i think that what the caller is getting at is the supreme court is in many ways intended to be a counter majority institution, and the hope is that that would operate to ensure that the rights of marginalized people who don't have political power, people who do not have the means to influence the political process, people who are vulnerable would be protected by the court. it hasn't really worked out that way unfortunately in a lot of moments in history that is certainly the hope. the problem with the counter majority institution is when the people start to lose faith in it and that is why it is not just political pressure or whatever on the court. the issue of the credibly of the court as a public -- and the public's faith in israel because when you have a large counter majority unelected body, it relies on being seen as a legitima

host: elizabeth wydra? guest: i think part of the problem is when you have decisions like benefit -- the majority was making its ruling but it was essentially a law free zone, but i think that what the caller is getting at is the supreme court is in many ways intended to be a counter majority institution, and the hope is that that would operate to ensure that the rights of marginalized people who don't have political power, people who do not have the means to influence the political process, people who are vulnerable would be protected by the court. it hasn't really worked out that way unfortunately in a lot of moments in history that is certainly the hope. the problem with the counter majority institution is when the people start to lose faith in it and that is why it is not just political pressure or whatever on the court. the issue of the credibly of the court as a public -- and the public's faith in israel because when you have a large counter majority unelected body, it relies on being seen as a legiti

host: elizabeth wydra?: i think part of the problem is when you have decisions like benefit -- the majority was making its ruling but it was essentially a law free zone, but i think that what the caller is getting at is the supreme court is in many ways intended to be a counter majority institution, and the hope is that that would operate to ensure that the rights of marginalized people who don't have political power, people who do not have the means to influence the political process, people who are vulnerable would be protected by the court. it hasn't really worked out that way unfortunately in a lot of moments in history that is certainly the hope. the problem with the counter majority institution is when the people start to lose faith in it and that is why it is not just political pressure or whatever on the court. the issue of the credibly of the court as a public -- and the public's faith in israel because when you have a large counter majority unelected body, it relies on being seen as a legitimate c

john malcolm and elizabeth wydra on the supreme court term that begins today and david lim on covid-19ting. washington journal is next. ♪ host: this is "the washington journal," october 4, key democrats involved in the debate of the biden budget package say the initial topline figure will have to be cut as joe manchin expresses a figure as low as 1.5 million. other democrats won't go that low. what do you think of that price tag? 3.5 trillion dollars? when it comes to the presidents budget to proposal, is it too

here to break down for us what it all means is elizabeth wydra from the constitutional accountabilityuse he says his white house records and indeed is part conversations with steve bannon are protected by executive privilege. are they? well, certainly not under any type of president or legal understanding that we've had before this suit. you know, executive privilege normally is something that applies to the sitting president. here we have a situation whether sitting president, presidentjoe biden has agreed to release the records that then president trump amassed during his time in the white house related to the january six insurrection. but former president trump is going against the current sitting presidents understanding of what executive privilege means and wants to block the release of those documents. so we've never before had a situation where a former president is asserting executive privilege in conflict with the current sitting presidents understanding of executive privilege. this is an entirely new argument that former president trump is putting forth to try to block the i