Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  October 7, 2013 7:00am-10:01am EDT

7:00 am
supreme court with former clerks. we will talk about the role of the court. ♪ good morning, everyone thomas supreme court has begun 2013-2014- 2014 -- term today. across the street, the house and the senate are back and seven, it is day number seven of the partial government shutdown. now another countdown has begun and there are 10 days to go until the country runs up against the debt ceiling. we will get your thoughts on all
7:01 am
of that this morning. republicans, (202) 737-0002. .emocrats, (202) 737-0001 independence and all others, (202) 628-0205. send us your thoughts via toast -- social media,, and e-mail us, first i want to begin with david drucker joining us on the phone this morning. let's begin with what we heard on the sunday talk shows yesterday from house speaker john boehner. what did he have to say? well, friday afternoon, evening, he said he did not expect a clean debt ceiling bill to be brought, that there were not enough republican votes to get through.
7:02 am
senate republicans are not going to provide the votes that will be necessary for a 60 vote bill to get the clean debt ceiling through the senate, that is what they are telling me. given all the speculation over the last week that this was something he would do, it is possible he felt that he needed that he will do something on the debt and the deficit. whatt's show our viewers he had to say when he was on "abc this week." president that there is no way that they're going to pass. the president is risking default by not having a conversation with us.
7:03 am
>> we are not going down that path. time to deal with america's problems. how can you do nothing about the underlying problem? governmenthe federal had more revenue than any year in the history of our country and yet we are still going to have a nearly 700 ilya and dollar budget deficit. we are stronger in the future for not dealing with these problems? david drucker, joining us on the phone from "the washington examiner." what are republicans saying that they want in exchange for raising the debt ceiling? caller: a good question. we are not sure yet. spending, economic growth and other things, putting together some sort of legislative vehicle. very similar to the
7:04 am
bill that republicans intended a few weeks ago. they are probably going to look for something regarding the , repeal, orare act something else. alongave been clear all that they expected to do something with the debt ceiling a debt ceiling increase. there were many republicans that did not want to go this route, tactically, with the government shutdown and spending. they wanted to pass a clean continuing resolution. they did not have the same level of support at all for the clean
7:05 am
cr. i think that over the next few days by the end of the week we will know sort of what they are wrangling to negotiate as a part of this. so, what did we hear from the administration yesterday? caller: they are not going to increase the federal borrowing limit. democrats are trying to break the precedent set in 2011. senate democrats and the administration are freaking out about this. >> what does this mean for the government shutdown? it means that the government to shut down until the debt ceiling is resolved. both sides are pretty dug in around the shutdown and if you ask them why, they will say that if they give here, imagine what the other side will do on the debt ceiling.
7:06 am
i think that both of these wind up getting wrapped up together. the closer that we get to that, the harder that it is to solve the issue of the government shutdown without one side or the other worrying that they will lose negotiating leverage. i think it will all be wrapped up in one big decision negotiation. if they can solve them both, they will solve them together. why are people calling this a partial government shutdown the echo caller: well, not everything has gone dark. even when it started, immediately there were some agencies and other things that did not shut down. congress passed a bill making sure that members of the military get paid.
7:07 am
it is not a 100% government shutdown, the impact will be severe but it is not 100%. do you expect the house and the senate are working on today echo -- today? nothing important.: unless something has changed over the weekend that we are not aware of, i expect the house to continue to work on some of these piecemeal bills, as we have been calling them. today the senate will pass the bill making sure that furlough employees get paid back pay once but others shut down, than that i would not expect much. host: thank you for your time, sir. caller: you are welcome, thank you.
7:08 am
of theay number seven partial government shutdown, 10 days ago before the country isault on its debt, eric first. what do you think, eric? caller: this is basically what i know, greta, do not hit me too quick. just like under clinton and whether you hear impeachment talk next, what is going on is the democrats have been in a budget that will put the government in the bathtub, taking gdp down to four percent. grover norquist came out last week and this was part two of his land.
7:09 am
once the taxes got raised under clinton, you can see the republicans did everything they could to fund the government. put all of these right wing policies in place. president obama, saying he was not transformed. planok the grover norquist and now the government is in the bathtub. [indiscernible] i got your point. we will move on to grace. caller: it is a shame. it is all for power. the uranian's tried to shut us down, everyone tried to shut us down, we even have a canadian shutting us down. what a shame. host: sylvan, canyon lake,
7:10 am
texas. caller: this is the obama democrat plan, it has been since , thest all the money businesses and the stock market, this is the democrat plan to destroy america and obama tries to destroy it every day, like obamacare. you do not see people saying that it is bad to enslave people under obamacare, but they have to cry over getting a voter id? democrats is too stupid and lazy to get voter id. republicans and conservatives in the tea party have to bring it to them, take it to their house for them. it is ridiculous. just like the first caller, it is hilarious. listen to the media, every time there is some black hearse and,
7:11 am
male or female, does something in america, including shoot people or drive through barricades, they never say they are black people. just cover it up, you know? host: what does that have to do with our topic? is obama.cause that the media covers up all his lies and cowardice. host: all right. from twitter -- host: on the partial government shutdown, here is a piece from the drudge report this morning. inere is the sense of crisis the 17% government shutdown"? this was his answer --
7:12 am
host: courtesy of the news em, eum, "housenews speaker, no vote, president obama, no give, treasury secretary, no cash." and then, also from the newseum, ledger"r -- "star- ."wspaper, "sunday talk shows from "the boston globe," boehner
7:13 am
wants to deal on the debt." the treasury secretary "warns of "thel risk your coke from atlanta journal-constitution," "both sides dig in as the budget fight goes on." show you what the treasury secretary had to say on the sunday talk shows, he made the rounds on the sunday talk shows. here he is on "face the nation." >> congress just needs to do its job. for anythingking from congress. let's remember how we got here. over the summer some extreme members of the republican party said that whether you are defaulting on the debt or not, going back to we argue the affordable care act, that was a , bad for the country, but they ended up
7:14 am
having the debate where the government was shutdown down. in 2011 we saw the same group saying that we would rather default then have the kind of honorable compromise where there is real give-and-take. that is no way for the united states to do business. that was the treasury secretary talking about the financial risk of not paying the nation's debt. on the front page of "the washington post," "boehner is defiant, a clean debt limit bill will not pass the house." shortly after he said that on chuck"this week," schumer, democrat from new york, was asked to respond to that. here is what he had to say. [video clip] speaker said that there were only the votes on the floor to reopen the government. that me issue a friendly
7:15 am
challenge. put it on the floor. i would bet that there are the votes to pass it. we have just about every democrat, 21 republicans said that they would, many more privately said that they would. just vote,hner, let's see if you are right. host: those are -- are right. judy, independent caller, what do you think? caller: democrats are taking the correct response. i do not think they should have a piecemeal government. let thethat they should , let the budget pass. albert, louisiana, what do
7:16 am
you think? caller: i think the president needs to stick to his guns. the root -- the president needs to get harder. country.dent runs this do like george bush and roosevelt did, if i cannot do what i will not, i will veto it. he needs to step over congress, he is trying to do it the right way. he will not show the weak side of himself. everything that republicans put .n front of you host: david, republican caller. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: good, what are your thoughts? days,: for the last few the 27th amendment, the gop is saying that we still get paid, and i am now sorry that you do not, but everyone has made their
7:17 am
payments, when it gets to the point where the money is not there, the government shutdown goes to the economic shutdown, which it could well be. until the election, republicans will have intervened. amendmentive the 27th is to protect the salaries of the federal registration from taking effect until the intervening elections of the members of the house. the amendment is the expression of the concerns of the members of congress, to their oldest device, this is what kills me, they choose to act in their own interest rather than the public's interest. that is part of it, right there. nowhere in the 27th amendment
7:18 am
doesn't say that when the government shuts down we get to choose whether we get paid or not. the 27th amendment, it does not say that. i am sure that the supreme court will back me up on this, it is clear and precise and means only one thing, the governors -- not the governors, the senators in the house cannot raise their pay while they are in. it does not say anything else. host: this from twitter -- responding to the news that the house and the senate will be voting on back pay for the furloughed federal employees. the supreme court beginning its ,tern today over the weekend the traditional red massacred in washington, the mass that takes the first monday in
7:19 am
october before their term begins . their purpose is to invoke the blessing of god on those responsible for the administration of justice as well as on all public officials and among the standing room only apostle oruts the the chief justice of the united states, john roberts and associates justices. showing justice kagan shaking hands and greeting red masshomas at the that took place. the cathedral has celebrated it every year since 1953. it gets its name from the red vestments worn by the clergy to symbolize the fire of the holy spirit that loves people of different languages and allows them to understand each other. that is from "the washington times," this morning on the red mass.
7:20 am
jared, michigan, independent caller. hello, jerry the. caller: i wanted to comment that the health care law consumed two years of the first term of obama. the talk of the country was how health care could sustain in cost, theing delivery being atrocious. the republicans have somehow stuck it in at the midnight hour, i find it amazing that they were able to sneak that by on the midnight hour. the president in his first day on the job had a lot to do. aig was ready to go under, wall street was ready to go under, gm ready to go under, chrysler ready to go under, the stock market was just below 7000. the president put on a wet suit, going down to cap the bp oil spill, he has been a real busy
7:21 am
president. back to truman presidents have tried to talk about fixing the health care system in this country and no one could get it on because they talked the talk and could not walk the walk, the president got it done, he did not sneak it through, it is pretty clear to me than the republicans -- i do not know much but the base of the republican party are christians and it is pretty clear that jesus was about helping the poor and healing the sick. obama is dealing with 30 years of republican rule. you do the math, from reagan to linton had six years of newt gingrich and company in congress, and then you have got eight years of george w. bush. mentionedright, you the bp oil spill. this is from "the washington post," this morning.
7:22 am
data from the oil gauge the pressure provided scientists with crucial data -- taking place in new orleans. in other news over the weekend, you heard about two separate by this security events administration. here is a front page story from "the new york times here, --."
7:23 am
story, "libyathat condemns the u.s. for seizing a terror suspect." there is that, and then yahoo! news sent out this picture, former islamist military leader has a strong reaction over u.s. raids in libya. this is from yahoo! news
7:24 am
on twitter. a numberlking about seven, we have just begun it with only 10 days to go before we reach the debt ceiling. larry, ohio, democratic caller. your thoughts on this yet cap host -- thoughts on this? caller: that i think the tea party is going to have to straighten their act up. leftare destroying what is of our country. when therstand it, republicans took over in 2010, everything started happening. in 2001 and bush took over there was a surplus and a balanced budget and instead of doing the money on the debt or doing , we decided tol pass it out to everyone so that they could assume a little it
7:25 am
for a little while. and then we decided to go to war and yet another tax cut. we decided to go into another war and get another tax cut. another medicare part d without paying for it. a financial crisis that seems worse than mine. i think they are allowing too much power to that cruise character, he gets way too much face time. i am really embarrassed for the state of ohio because of mr. boehner. thank you. [indiscernible] host: -- larry, what do you larry, what do you think happens in the 2014 election cycle landscape? caller: i think, or at least i hope, that the democrat party, and it is not the democrat party, it is the democratic
7:26 am
party, that they will go to the polls and get these people out of office. they will have to do it at the state level two. in 1961 there is no such thing as health insurance. i was seven years old. there was no medicare, medicaid, nothing like that. the only thing i remember is a sick woman in bed. everyone in my family, all five of us, we had major health problems because we had no care. andonally i had insurance the retiree from the postal service. not as great as these people try to make it out to be. government owns these 66 and two thirds percent.
7:27 am
i can get the same insurance that they get. host: as larry was talking we , thed you a pool -- a poll liberal leaning public policy polling compiled surveys commissioned and paid for by, political action from around the country. others have said that the 2014 tilts strongly for republicans before the shutdown began. we will see how it all unfolds as we are in day number seven and here is the world section of the wall street journal.
7:28 am
-- "the wall street journal." phyllis inll go to new jersey, republican caller. hello. my question is, when i see people acting crazy, i wonder what is going on with the money.
7:29 am
i believe we should follow the money. i wish that someone could explain to me what special interest are at work. is it the drug companies? china? why are people act against such an irresponsible manner? i am very disappointed as a republican. this is not my kind of way that i would want to have the government operate. host: >> first of all, thank you for taking my call. what i would like to say is, i am very disappointed in our government. is a korean veteran. he is on disability.
7:30 am
and he was to go in for cancer surgery this next wednesday. it has been canceled. it was very important that he have that done. i think it is a terrible thing of what our congress people are doing to us, the american people , who want us to stand up and vote for them. our country is too good to have these people that are in there right now. as a toy at the top, the spring started new term. you can see the public lining up to get into today's session and today security is passing out tickets for the coveted seats. there's a limited amount to get inside the supreme court. that will be our focus for today's "washington journal" throughout the show. first we will talk to some court.s of the supreme
7:31 am
after that we will talk to to former clerks of the supreme court to get an idea of what it is like to work inside the supreme court and the workload for the justices and then later we will take phone calls about the supreme court opening session. we will get an idea of the major cases they will be taking up for the new term heard back to your phone calls about the shutdown. a lease, worn, ohio. good morning. i believe that the republicans have done us a service and a disservice at the same time area did as you look at where the conversation started, at first it started with the defunding of obamacare. now they have pretty much backed away from that and now they're talking about other concessions that the democrats, that they want from them so that the country doesn't go into default. obamacare started out to be the problem but now look at where they are going.
7:32 am
i think it is all couple key theater. allkabuki it is theater. talked about making all kinds of cuts to the deficit and now the only thing they can get their hands on his entitlement programs. , medicare,rity medicaid. we need to look at maybe the republicans have done us a service by saying no to everything that president obama and the democrats have come up to. also, it is a disservice because republicanby the saying no to everything, the democrats are on the defensive and saying that you hate the president because he is black, you hate him because he is a liberal, which is not renewed if you look at president obama's agenda and everything he has come out for, all he talks about his reducing the debt and taking chained cpi.
7:33 am
a lot of republican ideas. health bill came from the heritage foundation. we need to stop being so emotional about this and start looking at it from a logical point of view. our president is a moderate republican, he is not a democrat turkey is not a true liberal. none of his agendas have really helped the middle-class and the poor. sohave to stop being emotional about this is democrats and start looking at it from what they want. he is a corporate democrat who wants to get his hands on social security so that they can take it over. they do not want us to have control over something that we pay into every single time we get our paycheck. host: can i get you to respond to a tweet that was sent out by senator rand paul yesterday? host: we are not a broke
7:34 am
country. we have so many millionaires, we have a lot of resources in this country. the moment that people like rand paul and president obama get us to believe that we are a poor country, we are doomed. we have to stop believing in these people and start looking at the facts. rich people are getting richer and they are not getting poorer. wages are-class stagnated and poor people are getting poorer. that is the fact. ok lisa i'm going to move onto a republican voice. high, michael. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think we do have to take the partisanship out of this. if americans look at this as just mathematics problem, they will see that is only a natural collision that should have been anticipated, that annual budget discussions would morph towards having an impact on our debt
7:35 am
discussion. when president obama and the democrats market is healthcare to the country, the affordable , a.k.a.are act obamacare, they did so at a cost of $900 billion over 10 years. or approximately $90 billion a year. this country has just had a massive political fight at the beginning of 2013 about the sequester. a $5 billion of budget cuts to a $3.7 trillion budget that most people think is bloated anyway. when you look at the actual cost that the cbo is now forecasting, they now four estimated that the real cost of obamacare is between 2.6 trillion and three trillion dollars. thus, americans should be republicansat challenged obamacare because the fact that if you let it go as is and will take the lower score number for cbo to be fair, $2.6
7:36 am
trillion, it means they were off by 170 billion or twice the number of the sequester. thus, if we don't address this issue, we can all be assured as americans that the actual deficit will increase as it has come down to about 760 billion dollars from 1.4 trillion, it will likely now go back out to $1 trillion a year. the republicans and the democrats have a lot to gain, particularly president obama if they can meet in the middle and do the work on behalf of the american people. it is only right to open a government up. the negotiations must begin in earnest and i would question democrats, particularly in the senate and president obama and his administration of not acting in good faith. past, now itacare is time to look at the details. int: so michael, you are favor of the strategy of not putting a clean cr on the house floor. i am not.tually,
7:37 am
it is a great question. i think they should pass the clean cr and the reason being because i think it is a trap for republicans. the democrats and president obama own the economy. the only government. as such, the economy is weak and it is incredibly fragile right now. people who don't follow the capital markets don't realize this, but we are in the 55th month of a very weak bull market. all markets typically last about 3.8 years when you look at the last 90 years of data. that means that as earnings start to come down, the market is very vulnerable to a correction. i think what the president and his administration are doing is politically astute, but it is very dangerous. to threaten a debt default is to share the blame with the republican party or his weak and ineffective and i think incoherent economic policies. the$85 billion tapering --
7:38 am
$85 billion of the u.s. government buying bonds is inflationary and we will all feel the impact of that. we are following members of congress on twitter and bringing the messages to all of you. here's what sandy levin tweeted in response to what the speaker had to say on abc this week. i, d. what are your thoughts as morning? caller: i am kind of like the other ones. the government are trying to put a crunch on our pay. if they would start putting a crunch on their own pay instead of these people making six figures and they wonder why our debt ceiling is such a bad way. we are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to these governments that are just
7:39 am
steadily putting us under and it was supposed to be we the people . it is no longer we the people, it is we the congress and the presidenterneath the and the white house. it is no longer the people that have the voice anymore. living on the edge of the fund for our leaders, but for us with healthy spending habits, we are shocked and in all and not in a good way. you can send us your thoughts on twitter. in politics news, here is the "new york times" on the senate special election races. --says
7:40 am
so that in the "new york times" this morning. and then the federal page of the "washington post" looks to california voting on immigration laws. it says that governor brown signed eight bills on saturday.
7:41 am
so california moving ahead on immigration legislation that has stalled here in congress. in the "los angeles times" this morning, recalling a landmark vote after governor gray davis was removed from office, california has changed in unexpected ways. -- the "loses times angeles times" reporting on that.
7:42 am
herald." the "miami also the "arizona republic." i wanted to show you this marketplace piece in the wall street -- in the "wall street journal" this morning.
7:43 am
will in sheffield lake, ohio. caller: good morning.
7:44 am
is ii would like to say recently switched from republican to democrat. the reason i did is because these new republicans, these tea party people who now control the republican party, are like spoiled little kids. what they're doing right now would be similar to a child in the family saying i want more candy. youparents go i'm sorry but can't have more candy. so the child says ok i'm going to start making life miserable for everyone. i'm going to start kicking holes in the wall breaking windows and everything i can do if you don't give me what i want. and that is exactly what the republicans are doing. they are saying if you don't give me what we want, i'm going to shut down the government, i'm going to put people out of work and ruin your economy. i'm been to do everything i can if you don't give me what i want terry at should president obama given to the spoiled little kids? and give them what they want? or should he negotiate with them
7:45 am
and give them a little bit of candy to keep them quiet. what should a president obama do? should he negotiate with the little kids? that is my point very it host: there is linda on the republican line. caller: i was just wondering with everything that was going on with the senate and the house, i was thinking that i agree with the guy you just had on in ohio. they are acting like a bunch of little kids up there. i may be a republican, but there are a lot of things at the republicans are doing that i aret agree with, but there a lot of things the democrats are doing that i agree with. i don't agree with either of them completely. host: all right linda. from the front page of the "wall street journal" this morning.
7:46 am
so that does it for our conversation about day seven of the government shutdown. 10 days ago before the default, the house and senate will be back in session today. the house in at noon for legislative business votes later today. as we heard earlier from david drucker of the "washington examiner" they will continue their approach of opening the government piecemeal. the senate expected to take up a provision that would pay federal employees who have been furloughed their back pay. that happening up on capitol hill today. watch coverage on c-span and the senate on c-span two. we will turn our attention to the supreme court. we will have a roundtable discussion with two veteran supreme court reporters on their agenda over the next term.
7:47 am
later we will talk with two former supreme court clerks about their job in the supreme court and the role they play in supreme court cases. we will be right back. >> she was a teacher living in a dormitory here and he was a tenant in a boarding house on the property. bedroom in the dormitory building. this one here is where grace would have looked out and seeing calvin across a courtyard in the next building. she would have put a candle in this window here to signify to calvin that the polymer room below them was available for them to meet up in.
7:48 am
in this room was where calvin and grace on their recording would meet up and be able to sit and talk and have some time together. andite him being in his 30s she in her 20s, they still had to abide by the rules of the meetl and needed to somewhere where they were supervised and chaperoned while they were on campus. meet first lady grace coolidge tonight live at nine eastern on c-span and c-span three. also on c-span radio and c- >> we need some fundamental overhaul of how this government works. we vote on tuesday because sunday is church day and monday is market day and you ride your horse and buggy into town to vote on tuesday. that is just ludicrous. we have 435 seats in the house of representatives. basically that is how my seats fit in the building despite the fact that the size of the average district has quadrupled over the last 40 years.
7:49 am
the mechanisms of our government are due for a germanic overhaul. congress will not be able to navigate out of the current cul- de-sac they have got themselves into unless they understand and embrace the changing nature of our society, of our world and reimagine what government might look like in a digital age. >> reshaping power and politics and society on the communicators, tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. coverage of this year's national book festival, biographer david nassau spoke about joseph kennedy. >> finally, kennedy couldn't figure out church shows playing this mind game with him whether he was teasing him or was so drunk that he forgot from the day before that kennedy did not drink. they dislike one another intensely, but the war was over,
7:50 am
there had been intense suffering. churchill said to kennedy, he held out his hand and he said .'m so sorry for your loss joe junior had died during the war. sincere. he said to churchill, what good was it .ll churchill looked at him unbelieving. world war ii had destroyed, in churchill's mind, hitler and muscling in the dictators, he had saved democracy. it had saved western civilization, so churchill thought. blazed hatred at him. >> booktv is the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books every weekend. this fall we are marking more than 50 years of booktv on c- span2.
7:51 am
"washington journal" continues. oft: the first monday october which means it is opening day for the supreme court. we have some veteran reporters. braven of with jeff the "wall street journal." it follows contentious citizens united rulings. also with us at the table is adam [of the "new york times." is peace in the front page of the newspaper says that supreme court has deep docket in its new term and precedence facing risk. me begin with you. you write, the court's new term will feature an extraordinary series of cases on consequential constitutional issues, including campaign contributions, abortion
7:52 am
-- are we headed for another newsmaking term from the court? is a pretty good term. but the last two terms as well this. with voting rights, same-sex marriage and the health-care law, that a term that the court is grappling with might get a little bit lost by comparison. by the standards that of the last two terms could of history, this is a very rich term. host: why do you say that guest:? guest:the ordinary term can have in it one or two cases of the public imagination. here we have a half-dozen easily. host: do you agree? these are cases it can be decided narrowly, they can be decided more broadly. this is a court that is not shied away from broad decisions when it feels it is necessary. that is where the suspense comes very host: a lot of focus has been paid to what you get
7:53 am
working for the wall street journal. what will they be hearing when it comes to this case? the case will be heard on tuesday and involves a cap that political donors can make. right now there is a federal , butce campaign scheme there is also an aggregate cap of about 120,000 dollars that they can give to all candidates and committees combined. the case specifically challenges whether that cap is constitutional or whether it is a limit of the donors free- speech rights. if you have more than 120 or $30,000 to give to political forces that you favor -- if you have more than $120,000 or 130 or 130,000 to give to political forces that you avor. guest: i want to give to the
7:54 am
18th and 19th and 20th and i don't understand why there is an overall aggregate cap on what i can give if i'm going to buy buy the basic limits, candidate by candidate terry host: who is arguing the other side? guest: the federal government who says these caps are an important way to avoid corruption and 40 people using interlocking committees and so on to circumvent campaign finance limits. you can really think about it as a sequel to the big citizens united case which looked at one side of the campaign-finance system trade it said corporations, unions, individuals can spend independently as much as they want. they can take out tbs on their own behalf. now we are looking at the other basic leg of campaign finance regulation. how much can you give directly to the candidate and to the party. this could be the beginning of the unraveling of that second leg of the campaign-finance system. watching on are you the courts? which justices in which one or
7:55 am
two or three will lay a pivotal role in this decision? justice think the key to look at is the chief justice, john roberts. the chief justice generally stepsd more incremental toward constitutional goals that he believes are important. he has in general prefer to avoid very controversial sweeping decisions. not all members of the court agreed. in his case involving contribution limits, three members of the court have said there should not be any limits on contributions. they don't believe that limits on political contributions are constitutional. we don't know exactly where the chief justice or the other relatively new judges stand on it, but it is quite possible that they may wish to avoid shaking up the system the way that citizens united decision did in 2010. host: why do you say that? why would they avoid that?
7:56 am
in general, they don't like to make a shattering announcements. as an institution, they are supposed to reflect solemnity, steadiness, security. there supposed to embody ability in society. if there are lots of decisions that changed court whenever there is an urge to change it, makes it look more political and less judicial. for the public sense of what they do and the fact that many people rely on this decisions and make planning based on that, the courts seem to not want to shake things up the way an elected official might want to campaign on a particular issue. john roberts faces and other constitutional watershed is what they say. encouraging him to get rid of these limits on donations. it says that assuming the
7:57 am
liberals go the other way, that makes chief justice roberts a swing vote. the left is already warning him in the media, much as he did so successfully last year in advance of his salvaging of obamacare. they will denounce a ruling they don't like as activist heard it would merely restore the first amendment central role in protecting free political speech. guest: you obviously have to take the journal seriously. the journal will never forgive in theberts for his vote healthcare case. that was a deep disappointment to the political right and they are hoping that he takes a bolder step in this campaign- finance area.
7:58 am
as jess was saying, and correctly so, the chief justice's impulses are to be an incrementalist. to the project of deregulating campaign-finance, but he is only 58 years old and he is willing to play a long game and take it step-by-step very he shown that in the past -- withlier comments earlier campaign-finance decisions. justice scalia called it faux -- host: so what lays before the court? what other options on the case? what can they do? the way to rule narrowly in this case, assuming the chief justice agrees with the general direction of proving these kinds of limits on clinical spending, is to say that the cap, the orregate cap of 100 $30,000
7:59 am
so is unconstitutional because it does not serve any purpose beyond the purpose served by what adam called the base level. that would be to remove the cap but leave intact the individual amounts, saying that the anticorruption goal of government which is the only goal that the court has recognized is constitutional in limiting contributions, that would serve that purpose. three to go more broadly and already we have three justices who have indicated that is a preference, is to remove the limits on contributions altogether because this buckley case that you reference the 1970t ago, that case from six distinguish between campaign expenditures, which the court said could not be constitutionally limited and and campaign contributions. several justices don't believe that that distinction makes sense. one retired justices that doesn't make sense. limited, but the
8:00 am
three justices on the court now who hold of you think that neither can constitutionally be limited. it big decision gets rid of all contribution limits. in one ofink i read the papers that mitch mcconnell's lawyer will be arguing on this case. why? guest: sometimes gives a divided argument and allows others to take the case. i suspect it is because he has been a central figure and he's name was on one of the important decisions. some respects through another branch of host: government they hear his perspective. host:moving on -- branch of government they hear his perspective. host: moving onto another case. what is this about? guest: normally the senate has to approve high government officials, but when the senate is in recess the president can make an appointment without such approval. the question in the case is what
8:01 am
happens if the senate is on a short rate. is that good enough? looking at that question, we decided to leapfrog the little question of a short break and ask what the recess means at all and they came to the conclusion that the only recess that counts is the one between the sessions of congress, if the court upholds that interpretation of the clause, it would dramatically visit the power that presidents of all parties have used routinely. host: how did this case get before the court? guest: it was a stalemate between the senate republicans and the rest of the senate. this board makes decisions involving the national labor relations act with organizers and employers. the court had previously held that they could not act without a quorum.
8:02 am
the court only had two confirmed members and, in effect, could not do anything, essentially they were neutralized. the president, being frustrated by this, appointed a majority of the members of the nlrb, who started making decisions and beforers lost the case they filed suit to say they could not make decisions because those members are not legitimately in office. they won at the lower court. is it unprecedented that it got to the court as quickly as it did? guest: not really. through the normal procedures. it went directly to a federal appeals court, not to a trial court. and then the government appealed that decision to the supreme court and they took it. others have reached different conclusions on the same question . as adam said, what is at stake
8:03 am
is a century or more of practices in washington by both parties where the main authority that the government has operated on is the continuance from the department of justice rather from the court, so they explain in some ways you can look at it definite article versus the indefinite article, what does the word the mean man can't -- in contrast -- what does the word the mean in contrast to a. are two cases that court watchers like yourself will be viewing. "the new york times," starting on monday, notable for the major precedents overruled or reversed , how many cases is the court going to be taking up in this new term? how many will get media attention? guest: the court decides about
8:04 am
70 to 75 cases per year and i would say maybe eight to 10 are candidates for the front page, focusing public attention. so far they have not decided on all the cases they are going to take. but of those there are already six or seven pretty ones. >> in your opinion, what should we talk about next? >> tomorrow we will have the case that we started talking about and one week later we will have another angle. last week the court ducked the courton as to whether the allowed public university to take account of race and now we have flipped the question, the question now is if michigan voters, could they say that they did not want such racial preferences? and whether they are entitled to do that. in a sense whether the constitution requires it.
8:05 am
here the argument is if in passing that kind of amendment the michigan voters restructure the political process in a way that disadvantaged. the state of michigan attorney general are defending this referendum that the voters passed, so that is one side, the other side is civil rights groups and fro affirmative action groups contending that the measure, that affirmative action itself is not the direct action for the court, the way that it was framed is have michigan voters taken steps to disenfranchise voters from the opportunities for admissions preferences that other groups .ave other sorts of groups are
8:06 am
allowed to seek preferences from the admissions office. but minorities have to amend the constitution again to seek preference. minorities being kicked out of the process and the restructuring mentioned as opposed to the requirement. that is the argument. those are three of the major cases that the court will take up. they will be considering the rules for religious invocations before legislative bodies. in december the court will examine the proof needed to show discrimination under the fair housing act. awaiting scheduling is the so- called abortion bill under -- 400oduced under the name ru 86. we will get your thoughts, questions, and comments on them
8:07 am
getting now. lauren, minneapolis. go ahead. caller: unfortunately, my question is in regards to the current quick -- not to the cases you talked about, but potentially an upcoming case that could come into affect. the ncaa said that they would fight this through the supreme court. the gentleman may be more familiar with that case, whether or not people get -- college sport athletes can get stuff like that or if they can use their rate and stuff. i believe that the gaming company electronic arts just out like $40 million to buy and they are going forward to
8:08 am
fight it to the supreme court. adam liptak, do you know the case? guest: fighting to the supreme court is something that is said a lot. talkingwhat we are about is the so-called right of publicity, whether video game manufacturers can use the likenesses of college athletes without paying them. there is a significant first amendment issue in the case of both of the court of appeals in philadelphia and san francisco, who ruled against the companies, and as the caller said, at least one of the cases was settled for $40 million. host: this from twitter -- the case coming up in the story comes from upstate new york, a town called greece, it has to do with the prayers the
8:09 am
begin the meeting of the town board. some, in some senses, contradictions within the constitutional dirt -- constitutional tradition. one has to do with prayers. thomas jefferson used the phrase wall of separation between church and state and yes, the continental congress and until this day they have begun their bytings with prayers brought a minister, rabbi, or other religious figure. the question is -- how much prayer is too much prayer? how much becomes a constitutional problem when it is seen by the courts to be advocating one religion over all others or denigrating religions or excluding people, these are the concepts that the courts look at when they decide the level of ray or before a public meeting. case does not really challenge the concept of prayer
8:10 am
is altogether before a public official meeting. it would be extraordinary if the court so found that they could not have these prayers. would findn they that some form of prayer is acceptable, but the rules that this town used in selecting the people that came before it to pray meets a constitutional standard, there is some indication that the supreme court will feel that the town of greece was ok, the lower court, which found they favored christianity, applied to a strict level of review to the way the town selected efficiency, but we will have to see them to be sure. to comeat was expected up next month. florida, lonnie. caller: i wanted to comment on the lemonheads. the amount of money that private donors can donate to political
8:11 am
parties. i believe that the real problem there is that quite often these are notl parties associated with the ad, but they really are. ads, theree in these are no controls. if the candidate that is being and about comes back defends himself against the ad, then the problem is you give validity to the ad. defend -- so, they don't themselves and you have unlimited money going into a lie. host: all right, adam liptak,
8:12 am
"the new york times." guest: the basic thought is that the speech of first amendment politics is about heart of it and they said at least that when the spending is uncoordinated for a candidate it is ok people, corporations, and unions to say what they like, but the caller is quite correct, it could lead to a real mess. that kind of rough and tumble is nothing new with the political system. in the early part of the public -- the republic, they were very rough. host: one argument is that if you do away with limits from it helpsonors, challengers and hurts incumbents. that the whole point was to keep
8:13 am
a hold of their seats. is a very nice point, greta. the people that they put in place are the people they may protect. incumbent protection may be an underlying goal of finance writer laois and and what the first amendment does is be skeptical of the government saying who can speak and who cannot. there is a line of thinking that is quite consistent with that. bill, independent caller. caller: the case in greece, i think the suit was brought about because someone felt that only christianity or christian prayer was being used rather than other ones, but that is not what i called for. i called because i have also heard about this case about
8:14 am
campaign contributions, that they wanted to be able to just dump money into the coffers of the politicians. just unlimited. they do not want to declare who is giving the money and they want to be able to just put it in the bank anonymously. aret: there are people who critics of the whole campaign finance system, particularly since watergate, who want that privilege, who argue that the identity of donors infringes their first amendment rights because they might be more reluctant to give money if everyone were able to see who they were giving it to. that is not an issue in this case as the court has framed it. it has to do with limits on contributions, particularly the aggregate cap. in citizens united we saw the case began as a narrow question
8:15 am
and the supreme court found that they needed to reach a much broader question regarding political spending in order to resolve it and there is always a chance that the court could choose to seek new argument or do more things to open the scope . right now i would say that the aggregate cap constitutionality altogether is enough for the just -- justices at the moment. iowa, jodi, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you all? host: caller: doing well, go ahead. i have three real quick questions. host: ok. caller: gentlemen, i am assuming that both of you have read the constitution. guest: is that a question? the answer is yes. caller: ok. the first thing i am confused about, the supreme court under the obama law had to rewrite the tax code in order to make it a
8:16 am
law, correct? guest: that is not how they have put it erie of the chief justice said that the key provision was susceptible to to readings and he was going to read it as constitutional. guest: based on what? part of the constitution? guest: the spending clause -- caller: based on what? part of the constitution? guest: the spending clause. question ismy next i thought only the house of representatives could make taxes , not the supreme court. that is why i am confused about that. guest: that is exactly what the chief justice said, the house and the senate had passed a law that did impose this kind of structure. host: get your questions answered? caller: that was one, the next is you are talking about individual contributions. you just read this morning mayor
8:17 am
going to give cory walker $1 million. is he legally allowed to do that? guest: he can spend money independently to support. he is athe truth is state candidate, so it depends on state law. i take it back. $2600 pere can give election cycle. host: it is an independent ad campaign he is doing. guest: that is a question that often gets lost, citizens united says that so long as you spend independently, uncoordinated, you can spend what you like, but if you want to give directly there are strict limits. and that would not affect mayor bloomberg's ability to spend his own money.
8:18 am
an individual spending it independently, he could have done it before citizens united. you are up next. independent caller. good morning. caller: the things i wanted to mention, the rights and the , if every third-party reached every other position in the supreme court, they should what is neutral to support republicans or democrats. obama should do his job and do it wiser, and i am afraid he is not doing his job exactly as we
8:19 am
want them to. alabama.a, of the constitution says that the free exercise thereof shall be left to the citizens on the practice of religion. host: who are you referring to? this is a question -- sure -- well, the free exercise clause in the constitution does not come into play here because we are talking about a government meeting. practicenothing in the of the town of greece, new york, that interferes with anyone's practice of going to church or anything like that, the only question is whether the town government itself, when it sponsors a prayer, when it invites people to come and pray, it provides a forum.
8:20 am
sometimes these clauses overlap. the free exercise of religion this is really a question of if the state is going to far for the establishment of religion. it is not infringing anybody's power or right to go and pray within the town of greece. we are speaking to jess bravin and adam liptak. republicans have been lining up outside to get the limited seating they have inside the court, and supporters will be going up there as well. what happens on opening day? special.thing the courts get down to business and here a couple of cases, one
8:21 am
involving age discrimination, the other involving securities cases like most of their they are relatively technical and routine. and then what happens? they work every day until when? guest: june is when they usually issue their biggest cases. they hear arguments to the month of april. people coming to view washington, it is an essential part of government, so they are open and they typically here arguments three days a week, two days a month, through april, and then they essentially disappear from public view for a couple months until the last bastion of opinions come out in june and they take a recess from july until they come back in the first monday of october. host: justice kennedy has been
8:22 am
called the man to watch before. who's court with a he this time? in five-fourularly cases, he is the guy to watch. he swung right 10 times, swung left six times, that is sort of typical. he is the key in many, but not all cases. the other key to watch is the chief justice who holds the key in some cases. to an extent, justice alito, who when he replaced o'connor 2006 took a moderate position and move the court to the right. host: a lot of people are saying that it will be justice alito's court. because he was the first person in many years to change, according to some, the alignment of the court. regarding from evident -- affirmative action, justice
8:23 am
o'connor used to split the she sawce, religion, herself coming up with solutions. she had a very pragmatic cowgirl kind of approach. justice alito comes out of a different judicial tradition. lawyer duringa the reagan administration and has a fairly clear, definite, conservative philosophical approaches to questions, so on many of these matters that were decided 5 -- four with justice -- a 5- in the majority 4 with justice o'connor in the they may change if it is believed they aired in their past up to -- past approach. host: what is the chance that we will see another retirement at the end of this term? for the longest time
8:24 am
everyone thought it was justice ginsburg, who is 80, but she has in whichfew interviews she has said she enjoys her position as a senior member of the liberal wing of the court and all the indications are that she may hang on into the next term. she told bob barnes and a nice profile over the weekend that she believes the next will be a democrat, meaning there is no strategic reason for her to step down. we were showing our viewers the cover from that interview. some color from these justices and their time off as they begin their new term today, bob barnes writes --
8:25 am
is what struck me, 80 something years old and she is staying up till 2:30 in the morning. guest: she has always been a night owl, but she has a lot of energy, is sharp as a whip. if you take her at her word, she may not be going anywhere. if you take justice ginsburg out of the equation, it is not clear that anyone else will go voluntarily. guest: they could be seen as
8:26 am
volunteering their work, in sense they are working for free, saving us the cost of hiring another justice. host: explain that. guest: if you served for so many years, you can retire at full salary depending on how long you have been on the bench. by continuing to work rather than retiring, she is collecting her. array but there is no new justice to replace her, so in fact she is working for free. justice scalia has commented several times that he is essentially a volunteer at the court erie people who want to dollars should hope that the rest of them keep working for free as long as possible. host: is the court impacted by that gecko guest: they have announced in the short-term release that they have the funds to continue and have deemed themselves essential.
8:27 am
to the calls. richard, ohio, republican caller, thanks for waiting. go ahead. -- the my question is president of the united states has a constitutional right to change or alter an existing law without the house of representatives or the senate passing a comparable legislation? guest: can you be more specific? caller: specifically concerning extending the employer mandate. guest: a lot of statutes give a lot of discretion to the executive branch and the agencies that have to carry about because congress cannot anticipate everything that has to happen when designing air traffic control systems, what have you. differ to the function of carrying them out. they do not consider that
8:28 am
changing the law, they consider that implementing the law. there is likely to be another affordable care act challenge. whetherthe question of employers have to provide contraception coverage to their coverage, insurance there are lower courts to have split on the question in a way that is equal to citizens united because the question is whether secular for-profit corporations have free exercise of those rights as we learned they have free speech rights. in that case the solicitor general of the united states said they have a 99% chance to 100% chance in this term. it has religion, sex, it is a journalistic dream. [laughter] host: laura, next caller. i wanted to ask, because
8:29 am
it really baffles my mind, everyone fighting over the affordable care act, when we have the coke brothers and all of these special interest groups dollars toions of senators and all to go fight why for the pharmaceuticals can they not put a cap on that gecko if i had $1 billion to donate and wanted to open gecko guest: -- something? guest: when we talked about political campaign engineering, they first said that congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech. that is supposed to be the core part of the first amendment.
8:30 am
some members of the court in the minority and test the minority say that money is property, not speech. other members of the court these days believe that that money is essentially speech because you and no one can hear you. all of those things cost money. really one of the conceptual divides of the supreme court right now. host: this case before the court, they will hear arguments on tuesday. guest: it is one thing to say that you can spend your own money on coordinated with the
8:31 am
candidate and say what you like, it is another thing for the coke others to give $1 billion to senator. they can give a limited amount directly to the candidate and the question in this case is whether the debt limit is in the constitution. host: the court will hear those arguments on tuesday. thank you both, appreciate your time. we will continue taking a look at the supreme court on this opening day. next week will have a roundtable of former clerks on how it works. first a news update from c-span radio. >> secretary of state, john kerry, speaking at the asia- pacific economic summit in president obama's place says that nothing will shake the american commitment to the region and that the current government shutdown in washington will soon be over and forgotten. speaking to executives, the
8:32 am
secretary went on to say that the shutdown is simply a moment in politics and he guaranteed that america would move beyond it quickly and would come back more resilient than ever. meanwhile, vladimir putin says todecisionbama skip a regional summit in indonesia is, in his words, justified as he tries to end the government shutdown. speaking to the conference on the sidelines, the russians send -- russian president said "if i were him i would not have come as well, any leader of state would have done the same." over the weekend, chuck hagel says that the operation sent a strong message to the world that they will spend an no effort to hold terrorists accountable. this from george little, who tweeted earlier that seeing some
8:33 am
suggestions that one of our military ops were not successful -- "we knocked on their short -- on their front door, they should not sleep easy." those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> during the booktv coverage of the book festival, this on joseph kennedy. >> he could not figure out if churchill was teasing him or was so drunk that he forgot from the day before that kennedy did not drink. each othere intensely, but the war was over. he said to kennedy, holding out his hand, "i am so sorry for your loss." joe junior had died during the war. churchill was sincere. he said to churchill -- what good was it all?
8:34 am
churchill looked at him on believing. world war ii roman to had destroyed. in his mind, it had saved democracy. andad saved wister civilization, so churchill saw it. kennedy blazed hatred on him. is the only national television network dedicated exclusively to nonfiction books, and this fall celebrating 15 years of booktv on c-span two. >> "washington journal," continues -- "the new york times," saying that the court has a deep docket with reversals possible inside the building, where the work is taking place preparing for this term.
8:35 am
we have two former clerks with us here, a former clerk for justice breyer, thank you both for being here, we appreciate your time this morning. let me begin with you, william jay. what does a law clerk do? guest: whatever the justices need. the justices and use the law clerks in different ways. in small chambers it is like having an enterprise with a few employees. sifting through complicated cases with a lot of fact and transcat's. for example, i know the justice breyer tells the world that he has had his law clerks read every case ever written about a subject.
8:36 am
using them for very short bench memos, to do the first draft of the opinion, and as he said many times, he rewrites them heavily. host: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] on thispratik shah opening day, what have the law clerks done to get ready echo -- ready echo guest: whatever -- ready? have described before, whatever it takes to get them ready. the clerks will have written bench memos, typically. they take us for a shot at analyzing the case, giving the clerks best perspective after having done research and reading the briefs, digging beyond, giving the justice a real sense of where the pivot points lie.
8:37 am
sometimes it will be the case that the justice has preliminary thoughts and here are a few somes that there are extensive research is on. it will essentially be a written memorandum with dialogue, at least in the breyer chambers, before the justice and the clerks, using them as a sounding board. this is the free or -- pre-oral argument stage. how many cases do the law clerks have to sift through? are they essentially the gate he purrs to these cases? justices are definitely the gatekeepers. they have set some criteria and petition is the
8:38 am
request to review the lower court petition. there are thousands. many?how guest: i believe -- host: i saw something over 8000? aret: but over half prepared in a less formal fashion often by people who either cannot afford a lawyer or in criminal cases have lawyers appointed for them. they run the gamut. some of them are just as sophisticated and meritorious as any fancy printed petition, and some of them are hand written. host: in the case of the ,etition for a case to be heard
8:39 am
what does the law clerk duly -- clerk duly? -- do? guest: in there they see a potential worthy issue, an issue worthy of warranting review. one of the main criteria in determining whether they should take the case is whether there is a conflict below. one of the principal jobs of the , often they will look to see if there really is a conflict here. host: has that happened?
8:40 am
a lawyer list petition making it to the court? petition made it to the court gecko guest: there were 2 -- court? term, there were two last so it does happen. it does not happen often, but it does happen regularly. guest: even if the issues are not presented in as sophisticated of a way, if it really is the kind of question that the court should be taking up, that will be brought to the attention of the justices. the case mentioned makes it clear, once a case is taken up you get the full benefit of the presentation. in the case mentioned they were appointed as friends to the court.
8:41 am
the court had top-notch advocacy on both sides. the case started coming out of guam. guest: exactly. this is one of the few times where the clerks are not necessarily working for their particular justice, but are working for eight of the nine justices. it.s the inside lingo for screening all 8000 cases on their own, ensuring the second pair, this is a bit of a different function where you are pinpointing your arguments.
8:42 am
here it is broader, eight out of nine, providing an objective analysis on whether it meets certain pride -- certain materia. -- certain criteria. host: to better understand the role of the law clerk, we want to show you a compilation as part of our 2010 supreme court documentary, talking about their role. [video clip] >> something different goes on here than what goes on in the capitol building or the white house and you need to appreciate how important it is to our system of government. >> this is the highest court in the land and the framers created it after studying the great lawmakers of history. >> the government can see that the destruction of documents or seeds history. do not sit here deciding
8:43 am
who should win, we decide under the law that the people adopted who wins. >> you will be surprised by the high level of collegiality. >> if fo you are -- if four out of nine want to hear the cases, we will hear them. >> this court decides important , which means you have to do your best to get it right. havey is it that we elegant, astonishingly beautiful it is tos imposed echo remind us that they have an important unction and remind the public when they see the building of the importance and centrality of the law. >> it always gives me faith in how muchry to know people trust the courts.
8:44 am
>> the danger is that sometimes you could come into a building like this and think it is all about you. that is something that i do not think works well with this job. is from the c-span 2010 supreme court documentary, a look inside the with comments from current and former justices as we mark the opening day in the supreme court. with us to former clerks to tell us about the job at the court. , what did you hear from the current and former justices? that they take the job theedibly seriously, that court is often portrayed as part of an institution where if you read the tones and the opinions,
8:45 am
sometimes it seems as if it becomes personal, but i do not think that at all, as you heard from the justices, they are trying to get these incredibly difficult issues that make it to the supreme court where lower courts have come down on both sides of the issue and are doing their best to get it right. i think that that is kind of the take away from that piece and as much as it may seem personal and partisan, this is their best answer to get to the right place. f -- if four of them want to hear the case, they will hear it. why not five gecko guest: the shortest -- five? a fifth justice may decide later that the lower court may got something wrong, for example, but if four of them think it is important enough to hear, that should be enough.
8:46 am
is just a preliminary decision as to whether this will be one of those petitions they pick out of a big pile p. host:, you are on the air. -- dan, you are on the air. i am not from ohio and maryland, so thank you for allowing another state to participate this morning. the case coming up where the obama administration has been overly aggressive in using statistical analysis to see what they are making mayor -- major mortgage lenders and insurers, treating racial groups fairly, they are not even considering credit histories and that sort of thing, but they all should have a similar outcome. i do not know if these law
8:47 am
clerks could speak to what they think would happen? that they would uphold these attacks on these companies? you guys are following these cases, go ahead. is referring to comes from new jersey and it involves the fair housing act. as the caller said, the question could establish that someone has violated the fair theirg act based not on intent to treat people from different racial troops differently, but based on the impact, usually of a practice from different racial groups, for example. disparate impact is something that is well-established in employment discrimination law, but whether that can be applied to other statutes in the past. guest: one interesting issue
8:48 am
before we get to the merits is whether the court will wind up deciding this issue at the end of the day. the government made fairly aggressive efforts to settle partiese and the eventually ended up settling the case and it went away. the issue has come back before the court in this case and there was a report in the newspaper that the parties were making some effort to settle this case. it remains to be seen whether they had oral argument around for the court to decide this issue, which is clearly interested in deciding. this is an issue that the court does want to weigh in on. host: you wanted to weigh in quickly? guest: on the fair housing case,
8:49 am
it is also about the balance of power because in this case they are going to the process of putting out a federal regulation that says that they are right. if you have questions or comments about the court, you can dial in now. republicans, (202) 737-0002, democrats, (202) 737-0001, independents and all others, (202) 628-0205. jeff, independent caller. other than committing a crime or getting caught in some , is of unethical scandal there anything, anyway a supreme judge can be removed? thank you. the bar will have to be pretty high. there will need to be proceedings.
8:50 am
it will have to be something that rises to the level the caller alluded to. guest: the constitution sets out a clear standard, good behavior. alternately that is whatever one third plus one of the senate decides it is. since the impeachment of samuel chase in the 1990s. that work fors the justices, which both of you are -- they were talking about the justices, but i was going to ask you guys how you are hired. the process can be a mystery and it is a fairly competitive process. there are not many slots.
8:51 am
i think that some justices employ a screening committee to take a first crack at sorting through. justices first tackle the applications themselves. the person has had a prior clerkship, which most of done before. once you get beyond those cutoffs, there is a group of asges known inside baseball a group of court of appeals judges, 10 -- 20, who regularly send their clerks to the supreme court, either they have relationships or have come to trust their process. and then i think there is a personal fit. the justices interview a certain number of candidates. that point i think the candidates are quite qualified.
8:52 am
>> is it political? do they hire along political lines? >> i would not describe the process is political. if you look at the justices they often tend to hire the judges who have similar judicial philosophies as they do. but i think that there are certainly examples where you could point to any justice that comes from a different pedigree than you might otherwise expect. i know that justice breyer has hired from judges on both stripes. often there is a correlation but it is not natural. host: how long is the job of a law clerk e guest: one year -- clerk? guest: one year and it is over before you know it. once they start deciding cases, i imagine
8:53 am
that it seems fresh and new, but the court sits 472 week periods over the year and there is a frantic opinion at the end of andyear to get them edited released to the public before they break for their summer at the end of june. before that happens you're one year at the court is over and i can tell you that it did not seem to go by amazingly quickly. what is a day like? guest: at this time the day might start very early because in addition to helping your justice get ready for the cases that he or she will be hearing you have these decisions you have to write about that does not stop no matter how busy you are. once the sitting ends there will also be the question of opinions to help the draft.
8:54 am
working on the opinions from the previous settings, those are some of the things that keep you going. and then there are the justices who asked on the even of an and grant a step in stay, there are some very late lawts not just for the clerks, but the justices who are waiting for last-minute filings and for their colleagues to decide who votes. by the numbers, according to the court itself, the total number of employees at the court, 400 85. law clerks make up third in nine of those employees. 150 for the police. each justice, by the way, gets for clerks, and the three get onejustices each clerk. joe, fair hills, new jersey. hello. good morning.
8:55 am
my question is about the so-called neutrality of the court. i do not think that the public perceives it as a body that simply interprets the law. i think they do see it as partisan and political. i think that the decisions reflect that. about jefferson's fear the supreme court that you see so clearly today. host: ok. --tik shah, any shots thoughts? to be the one thing careful of is the difference between partisan decisions and ones that come from different judicial philosophies or ideologies. when you think about partisan, you think that i might vote as any republican or democrat might do, but there are a lot of cases
8:56 am
at the supreme court that do not follow that traditional breakdown based upon party lines . a good example may be coming this term about the canning case. affecting however the sitting president is, currently a democrat, in a future election it may be the decision that the court announces that will be a rule about the power to make these recess appointments regardless of the presidency. i think that what you will see in that is the court grappling with judicial philosophy and ideology, original intent. isis about how this implemented and practiced over time. in public they have written about different modes that lead
8:57 am
to the partisan results. there are many cases at a broader level where the justices who you would not think would be susceptible to the defendants, damages,le, seeking would be voting for those people. rights,p constitutional vigorously enforcing the ones in the bill of rights. defendants under another topic. cameras are outside the court today, we have people ofding them up and as both you know, c-span has written numerous letters to the court asking for cameras to be put in their. if our viewers are interested and they go to our website, they can follow the timeline of the
8:58 am
requests and responses from the courts. what are your thoughts on the cameras and the courts. guest: the one that seems the most persuasive is the danger that advocates might start tailoring themselves to a broader audience rather than the court itself. rather than the career advocates, there may be some that they may not tailor the presentation to the court.
8:59 am
being born out, you see increasing access from the court at the end of the term, becoming sooner and sooner, the transcripts at the end of the day. personally i think it will be a matter of time as the supreme court is an institution that changes slowly, so i would not hold your breath. guest: we have both stood at the preparing argue, in for those arguments, speaking for myself, no one ever came to us to say that this was the pr strategy we wanted you to follow and use. i would worry that if the court started having by broadcasting that people, especially in private, would start to shape their arguments that way. i think it could interfere with the dynamic between the justices and the advocates. justices use those questions.
9:00 am
some of them are odd or seemingly off point hypotheticals, but the justices use them to sharpen their thinking on what this is about. in this day and age you see people criticized for the hypotheticals that they draw. host: and then here well, from berkeley -- guest: there is probably a bias at the court in terms of numbers with law kirks -- clerks from harvard and yale.
9:01 am
there is a sense that the law clerks, like the justices themselves, or from his mom a small and select group of law schools. that is not always the case, but the risk-numbers nature of the do, theye justices want to know that the people they hire come from people they know and often people they know are professors and judges from those law schools, so there is the personal about thing that comes from it. certain justices make more of an effort to look beyond the traditional 10 or so law schools and make hires from the other law schools. justice breyer has gone beyond. there is a concerted effort but it is the risk-averse nature that prevents that from happening more often. each term.w clerks do they get a new law clerk
9:02 am
every term? guest: they do get a new law clerk each term. some of those justices are doing the work of appellate judges. justice souter is sitting several times a year with the appeals court in boston. justice o'connor since she retired has sat with every single one of the courts of appeals. that law clerk will help the justice with his or her post- justice work. there will often be borrowed by one of the current justices as a fifth law clerk. host: on twitter in new jersey, democratic caller. thanks for hanging on the line. go ahead. caller: i want to know why they haven't investigated justice thomas's wife more for illegal activities. it is the highest court.
9:03 am
he has been lying on his income taxes for seven years. host: either one of you follow that? >guest: not with any sufficient -- host: ok. guest: certainly not in appointing clerks. the justices have a lot of criteria they apply. they're looking for collegiality, hard work. i don't think they're looking at where you go to church or whether you go to church. host: we're looking at -- talking with 2 former law clerks at the supreme court. argued before the supreme court. taking a look at the new term, what stands out to you for cases? william jay, let me begin with you. guest: one of the cases i will be watching will be argued in
9:04 am
this upcoming setting of the supreme court, first amendment challenge to a provision of the federal election campaign act. a regular it's not how much a donor can give to any one federal candidate -- and regulate not how much a donor can give to anyone federal candidate but in one election cycle to all the candidates. in other words, all of your contributions -- he wants to get givep thousand $776 -- $1776 to a series of candidates. the first one is fine, the second one is fine, the third one is fine under the law, but eventually you hit a cap and the last one would become a felony. this is the latest in a series of cases the supreme court has had. citizens united is the one best- known to the c-span audience and to people who here politicians talk about the supreme court. this is the latest in a series about the federal relation of campaigns and what limits the
9:05 am
first amendment caps on that -- puts on that. host: pretty shot --pratik s hah. guest: visit term does not have necessarily the single lock buster like the same-sex marriage case or the health care case. andincludes several issues -- including cap a finance, abortion, and the mccutcheon case implicates one of the fundamental distinctions in campaign-finance law, the distinction between expenditures come how much a person spends of their own money, an issue in citizens united, and the court struck down those sorts of limits, versus limits on campaign contributions, how much you contribute to a candidate or political committee. since 1976, the buckley v valeo decision come that is in the fundamental difference.
9:06 am
-- that has been the fundamental difference. it does not apply the strict scrutiny standard. in this case a lot of people are watching to see if the court is ready to take the next up and maybe lessen the distinction between expenditures and contributions and apply is that -- a stricter level of scrutiny to these aggregate contribution limits. we know where several of the justices stand. this may well come down to the chief justice. i don't know this is an issue where justice kennedy is the swing vote. this is where the chief justice is and how far you want to go. does he want to take a more incremental approach or a fundamental reshaping of campaign-finance? host: our guest laid out one of the cases before the court this term. "the washington post" -- the other areas on the docket, abortion, campaign finance, affirmative action also taken up
9:07 am
, legislative prayer, recess appointments, which we discussed a little bit here. stephen in north carolina, republican of bank -- republican caller. hendersonville, north carolina. i wanted to know if there is any limits on the judges to change the law versus just merely saying it is unconstitutional and send it back to the congress to be rewritten. the major example i can give us clarence -- not clarence thomas, i'm sorry -- roberts, when he ruled on the health care bill and said that the fees aren't f ees, but they are taxes. it seems to me that first he ruled it unconstitutional and then he changed the work from fee to taxes. to me that was unconstitutional. host: william jay -- caller: he should have sent it
9:08 am
back to be rewritten. see the courts exercising something of a rewriting power when it is held aloft partially unconstitutional, and the best example of that is the case where this room court struck down the federal sentencing holding that they violated the sixth amendment. because that was unconstitutional, the question was what to do. the court concluded they cannot just send it back to congress because then there would be no federal sentencing framework in place. the remedy they put in place was that judges can look at the , but that guidelines judges would essentially be free to impose the run sentencing -- impose their own sentencing. it did so because of the power to correct the constitutional violation. several justices dissented vigorously from that and said
9:09 am
exactly what stephen was just saying, that the court was rewriting the statute far beyond its powers to do so. host: lauren is up next, independent caller. caller: the gentleman already answered my question. host: ok, did you have another? caller: no, thank you very much. [laughter] host: ok, laura. pratik shah, any thoughts on the question forth by the previous caller? guest: rather than take on the difficult question the caller alluded as to whether a law is unconstitutional or not, there is a canon of law called constitutional avoidance. if it is a close call and it will advocate a significant cost additional -- constitutional question, the court can construe the statute to avoid that question. it is not coming close to the constitutional line. at that point it has not decided
9:10 am
the constitutional issue. court.l was in congress' congress is free to amend the statute and you precipitate that constitutional position -- decision or you can leave the decision in place and avoid the more fundamental constitutional ruling. they bleed into the justices opinions, and to what extent? guest: every justice on the supreme court has handed down decisions that are terribly unpopular at some point in their career. in menu ways that is -- in many ways that is part of being any judge in any country. i don't think that the justices are weathervanes.
9:11 am
.ach of them has a philosophy that guides them in deciding cases. you don't see that philosophy changing during the time they are on the court by and large. especially those who are associated with a philosophy like original is him. i don't think the public opinion would cost him to change his mind. supreme court justices have life tenure. if the issue decision that is unpopular -- if they issue a decision that is unpopular at some point, one of the safeguards, the ideas of making these justice is not subject to , is thator removal they are going to issue decisions that are not popular or consistent with public opinion at the time. i think the safeguards of life alluded to, willy
9:12 am
the longer they take to apply additional philosophy -- apply judicial philosophy makes sure that weatherman approach. host: let's listen to what justice roberts had to say about justices with different expenses and different background. [video clip] >> if you have been a president governor, senator, you have a particular way of looking at issues. if you have been a judge on the court of appeals, you have a different way of looking at it. you have to decide what type of questions you think the court should be deciding. haveey call for people who my way of looking at public -- i don'thnocrats think that is quite the right word, but a more focused way of the law -- and maybe you think it is a mismatch between what the court is to decide and the it, youl to decide can resolve attention one way or the other, but it is not simply a coincidence or happenstance have a court that
9:13 am
looks different than what it looked like in the past. host: chief justice john roberts looking at the different makeup of the justices and their expenses and backgrounds. a roundtable discussion on the opening day of the supreme court. 2 former law clerks at the table. , any thoughtshah on that? guest: i don't think it would change his job that much. the chief justice has certain powers, and they are most evident behind the scenes, other than his ceremonial functions in terms of running the court in public. running the conference, where the justices sit down to vote cases, setting the order in which justices discuss cases. i don't think those with service possibilities would be affected those types of responsible
9:14 am
it is would be affected. whenever the chief justice is in the majority, he gets to assign the opinion. presumably if it were the liberal court, you would be in the majority often. he would have less power to be assigning the case. that would be the most concrete impact of the change in the court. otherwise, it would not be much. of lawpeaking of the job clerk, william jay, when you're done with law school and able to become a clerk, how much are you making, and wendy you pay back dose lost go bills -- when you have to pay back those law school bills? guest: law schools are understanding that it is not just an educational expense but a public service. ourets -- it helps one of three branches of government do its job in a small waited while they don't make a ton of money, em is ended for the
9:15 am
money and i don't think about collectors are beating down the door during that year. it is true that law clerks are pleasingly able to ask law firms .o pay a bonus for that time the bonus is quite potential. host: one report put it at $300,000 now. a signing bonus if you clerk at the supreme court. -- theool you attended university of virginia law school, good pr campaign for them is all, since the alumni have court or are now clerking for the u.s. supreme court. this is something that a law student -- if you're like me, i never really spent any time in court. there is a certain thrill of positionind the scenes and it is a unique position. other than the folks who can become article three judges themselves and are going to be banking on that, this is your
9:16 am
one chance to have an inside glimpse into how things work and play a role. as if setting is a most interesting constitutional -- as exciting as your most important constitutional law class is, this is where it actually matters. guest: william jay, how does it prepare you for being a lawyer? .n a couple of ways one is that it is hard work. a tremendous volume of work that often has to be digested and handled, and your recommendation given to your justice in an incredibly short time. you have to exercise a degree of not the degree the justices do, but for our young lawyer this is a first expense to have to formulate and make a recommendation of your own. another thing is the exposure to the absolute pinnacle of written and oral advocacy in the legal profession. argue before who
9:17 am
the supreme court regularly are really top-notch. law clerk severs or seats in the courtroom and they get to see the arguments. when i was a law clerk i went to everything one just because even the humdrum cases could produce really still advocacy -- stellar advocacy. host: we ask our viewers to weigh in on the supreme court's new term. for this term, pratik shah, we talked about campaign finance. there are abortion cases the court will take up as well. 2 abortion-related cases to do first is out of oklahoma, and oklahoma statute are essentially restrict the off label use of certain pregnancy- ending medications. off label use essentially means uses that are not prescribed for fda approval, and yet doctors prescribed the drug to be used
9:18 am
for those purposes. the oklahoma supreme court terse a a surprisingly summary opinion striking down the law based on supreme court's decision. there was not a lot of analysis of that decision. when they granted the case, they issued an order is sending 2 questions to the oklahoma supreme court. the court wanted greater clarity about the statute, and the 2 particular questions are, one, should the statute be interpreted to essentially restrict the use of one of the pregnancy-ending medications altogether? 2, should it be interpreted to restrict another one of the pregnancy-ending medications to prohibit treatment for ectopic pregnancies? which is how one of these drugs is primarily used. it seems like the supreme court
9:19 am
wants greater clarity as to the scope of this law. is it so brought to effectively prohibit all uses of the medication, or is it a more limited effort to pinpoint unsafe uses of the drug? the answer we get back from the oklahoma supreme court may inform what the court does with the case. one we have to hit the pause button on until we see what the oklahoma supreme court does. the other one is in massachusetts, part of the statutes that were hooded protesters or any sort of activity within a certain distance of a clinic. this restricts access to a public sidewalk within 35 feet of the entrance to the clinic. there is a case that had a different law and the supreme court upheld a ban -- i think it
9:20 am
was and eight-foot band -- on any protesting or counseling. this massachusetts case is going to test the bounds that prior case. there are differences with the massachusetts law. eight creates an exception for employees of the clinic who are allowed access to the sidewalk. it will be interesting to see whether the court is willing to revisit that earlier case, or whether it finds narrow distinctions. and it will also be interesting -- i believe it is justice kagan and justice sotomayor's first foray into the tensions between first amendment rights and abortion rights. there are absolute first amendmentists, and there are other ways of looking at it. ay, withoute j expedition -- we touched on all the major ones on the court you guys and your
9:21 am
guests. what cases that people don't know about that you're going to be watching and listening for decision on what will surprise people about this turn? often the surprises are not in the high-profile cases but it's pure ones. one thing i'm looking for -- but the it's pure ones. one thing i'm looking for coming up that the court is not added to the doctor but is in the queue and might be on the docket for april is the question of when someone is arrested and they have a cell phone -- maybe a smartphone in a pocket -- what can the police do with smartphone? can they take it out of the pocket? can they search through the recent call history? can they look through the memory? cases in the 2 queue, one of them involving smartphone, one of them involving more additional --
9:22 am
more traditional flip cell phone. n/a scramble the usual alliances -- it may scramble the usual alliances and will be the court's for scrapple and a number of years with technology and criminal justice. host: pratik shah? guest: the surprises are often in the last high-profile cases. one of the most fundamental questions we will see the term is issee this the court going to go to the extreme on today constitutional -- the big constitutional questions, or will they decide them in a more incremental fashion that will avoid the landmark positions and avoid some of the more difficult questions? there are some sleeper cases on the docket that have constitutional law geeks -- the which goes to the heart of the treaty power. this is not an issue for the
9:23 am
court is addressed since the 1920s. the question is are there any limits, structural limits on congress' power to implement entry -- a treaty, even if it might be the audits other powers -- beyond its other powers? jay, pratik shah, william thank you, gentlemen. appreciate your time this money. we will continue our focus of the supreme court. we will open up the phone lines and get your thoughts on this opening day of the new term and the cases that are before the court as well as past cases. we will do that after the update from c-span radio. >> an update on syria this our. john kerry speaking earlier at a press conference with russian lavrov,minister sergei
9:24 am
saying that the united states and russia are "very pleased those quote with the progress made so far in destroying syrian weapons stocks. however, secretary kerry added that president bashar al-assad is not off the hook yet, and needs to continue to comply with u.s. demands. demands. to americans and the german are sharing the nobel prize for medicine. on howde a discoveries hormones and enzymes and other key substances are transported within cells. it ultimately helps researchers get a better understanding of diseases. this first monday in october, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg says she does not feel pressure to retire so that president obama can name a liberal successor. she tells "the washington post"
9:25 am
that she thinks it is when to be another democratic president after president obama, and that the democrats defined in presidential elections. they cannot get out the vote in midterm elections. is 80e ginsburg, who years old, has battled cancer twice. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> the c-span video archive is the true modern record of congress. the archives are amazing. library is amazing that you can view and share c- span programming any time. go to and go to the video library. to watch the most recent video, go to the most recent cap. you can search the video library and look for a specific topic or keyword or find a person. type in their name, hit "search ," and go to "people." you can share what you are
9:26 am
watching and make a clip kit at a title and description, and then send by e-mail, facebook, twitter, or google plus. the c-span video library -- searchable, easy, and free. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable and satellite provider. span -- we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room and congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all is a service of private industry. created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your cable and satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on this october 7 -- the first monday in october -- the
9:27 am
supreme court begins its 2013- 2014 term. you can see the media and the public on the west plaza of the supreme court this morning as they begin their session at 10 a clock a.m. eastern time. several cases before the court for this term. we want to get your thoughts on the agenda for the supreme court term as well as past cases and what are your thoughts for the justices. and we will get your thoughts and comments. from "the washington post" this "they will almost certainly revisit the health- care law, this time to rule on its requirement that insurance plans offered by private employers cover contraceptives. the court majority that he said at the landmark citizens united campaign-finance case will have an opportunity to further this and the instructions on funding political campaigns. the term will offer a chance for
9:28 am
the conservative majority that has moved the court incrementally to the right to pick up the pace. have a dozen court precedents are being challenged, including rulings regarding abortion protesters and the role of religion in public life. the supreme court's pivotal role in the national conversation is not particularly welcome i the justices come even the ones whose decision is crucial to .lmost every important ruling justice anthony kennedy said last week that it is political gridlock that is put the court in such a key role." that from "the washington post" this morning. republicans, we want to hear from you, as well as democrats. ahead of the opening day for the court, there was the traditional red mass yesterday. hear from "the washington times" this morning, "it is
9:29 am
traditionally held the sunday before the first monday in october, which marks the opening of the supreme court's annual term. its purpose is to invoke god's blessings on those responsible for administering justice as well as all public officials. the cathedral has a celebrated the red mass every year since 1953. it gets name from the red vestments worn by the clergy, which symbolize the tongues of fire of the holy spirit, which allow people of different languages to understand one another." "the washington times" reports that the chief justice of the united states, john roberts, associate justices antonin scalia, elena kagan, and stephen breyer. opening day for the 2013-2014 session. you can start dialing in now with your comments about that. joining me on the phone, the supreme court reporter with "the to talk about the
9:30 am
budget for the supreme court. we learn from the court that this year in 2013 their annual budget, 71 alien dollars. what is that used for -- a $71 million. what is that used for? their it is used for all day-to-day operations. they have a quite sizable police .orce, 150 officers processeserk's office additions and cases. i think the people don't realize institutionrt as an is like any other agency that needs appropriations from congress, just to do its business. host: given that, is impacted by the government shutdown? guest: so far, no. the court has announced that especially because this is the , theyg week of its term
9:31 am
are determined to keep everything moving is normal. no employees have been furloughed. they have all been on duty. the court is using existing operation.ay in that may change if this shutdown keeps going, but for now they are in business. the majority of this money is used for what? andt: employee salaries keeping the operations of the court going. host: does it cost a lot to keep up the supreme court building? guest: i think some of the actual costs of the building are under a different budget.
9:32 am
maintenance, and as you can tell from looking at the front of the court, there is a renovation project going on with scaffolding and there is quite a bit of work going on at the court. host: the supreme court building was authorized by chief justice william taft in 1929 and completed in 1935 with the cost of $9.7 million, $3 million domestic and foreign marble used in the building. if you watched our supreme court documentary, you learned that the building came in under budget. .hey return money many in the documentary saying it might be the only building in washington that came in under budget. a lot of this money, the $71 million in the annual budget, goes to salaries. the chief justice makes $223,000. an associate justice makes $213,000. a law clerk, $75,000. how does -- how are the salaries
9:33 am
and and is caps on the high -- and is this on the high-end? thet: i think it is on high-end of government employees, but it is set by congress. it does not very often. -- it goes up and not very often. federal judges have not gotten many races over the years, which is quite an issue with them. is as far as how high it compared to private lawyers, private practice lawyers who ,ould be doing similar work though salaries are quite low. have often commented that as soon as their law clerks go to private practice in the very first year they make more than the justices themselves in
9:34 am
salary. it is a good salary compared to forgeneral public, but highly talented lawyers it is not so high. host: tony mauro with "legal times," thank you, sir. appreciate it. guest: ok, thank you. host: here is a piece by amanda becker. it says that "a miniature versio -- a mediterranean island teaching stint and the $2 million book advance and trips around the world were among the side benefits enjoyed by the supreme court justices last year. mayore sonia soto reported more noninvestment income than any other member of the court in 2012 thanks to an advance by her publisher, on top of one point $75 million she received for the book in 2010, meaning the total income for telling her life story to more than $3 million so far.
9:35 am
justice stephen breyer served as a juror for the architecture prize last year, and it took him all over the world. he reported being reimbursed for his trip to england, china, mozambique, south africa. he judged the price again in 2013. chief justice roberts received $20,000 in air transportation, meals, lodging for a six-day course he taught on the history of the supreme court for the newington school england school of law." that reported in reuters. caller, youocratic are up first. caller: i was listening to your coverage beforehand, i would like to comment on the supreme court's rulings to amend the voting rights bill. i think it undermines their credibility in my eyes. if they were to use the same death fromt's say
9:36 am
being shot in the head is reduced significantly therefore it is against -- no need to have it on the law books anymore that it is against the law to be shot in the head. it is kind of like -- is there any recourse for the public to disagree with the judges? host: all right. on twitter earlier this year, associate justice stephen breyer testified before a house subcommittee about how the money is being used. we will show that to you in a little bit. first, we want to get more of your phone calls in.
9:37 am
. host: you can also send us a tweet. @cspanwj. you can also go to our facebook page and post comments there as well. or send us an e-mail, here in "the wall street journal," "campaign giving cops t."h court's docke it will consider the rules for religious invocation before legislative bodies such as prayer selected for town board meetings. in december, the court will examine the proof needed to show discrimination under the fair housing act. awaiting scheduling is oklahoma legislation restricting use of the so-called abortion pill introduced under the name ru- 486." those are some of the cases the
9:38 am
supreme court will be taking up as they begin their new term here, that 2013-2014 term. we money get your thoughts on that this morning. "the new york times." said to hold al qaeda suspects on navy ships. the fugitive known as abu anas al libby is considered an intelligence gold mine, possessing two decades of information about al qaeda. him andsion to hold question him for intelligence purposes without a lawyer present follows a pattern used successfully by the obama administration for other terror suspects, most nominally in the case of ahmed up who got to her
9:39 am
-- ahmed warsame. warsame was -- captured in 2011 and interrogated aboard a navy ship with out being advised of his rights or provided a lawyer. he was advised of his rights and way for them and was questioned for about a week by law enforcement agents and was then sent to manhattan for prosecution." next to that, "the new york times" reports that libya is condemning the u.s. for seizing the terror suspects calling it "a kidnapping of libyan citizen ." that is the reaction out of libya. we are getting your thoughts for the rest of today's "washington journal." we heard from tony mauro earlier about what goes into the budget for the supreme court, and a lot of that is for the place.
9:40 am
let me show you what associate justice stephen breyer had to say when he testified before the house subcommittee about the supreme court budget. [video clip] >> we have policemen who are there for security purposes who do not just protect us but they protect the public. and we have to keep the courtroom reasonably clean. if you didn't keep it clean, it is not just us who would suffer. if somebody comes into a courtroom and they see a column and it sort of has a hole in it and insight is falling out over the insight is falling out over the floor, what do they think about justice in the united states? those things are symbols. they don't have to be grand, but they do have to be kept up. host: justice breyer testifying earlier about the supreme court budget and how the money is used. they are starting a new term today, first monday in the month of october. that kicks off the new term.
9:41 am
several cases they will take up in this session. there is about 50 right now. you heard from our guest earlier today about the different cases that are put forth before the justices. if you have thoughts on those, you can weigh in and call-in, but we will open up the phone minds to any public policy issue you would like to discuss today. host: open-source for the last 20 minutes of today's "washington journal." ronnie in new jersey, democratic caller. caller: ok, i'm going to talk about the voting rights act and how they said everything is ok down south. i am 69 years old, i'm a musician, i've done well in my business. 1960smber back in the when we had to travel to the south am a i-95 was not finished
9:42 am
, so it was not just straight -- you would have to go through towns down south, and i remember going into bars and restaurants to get a beer or to get a sandwich or whatever, and the first signs i would see were we have the right to refuse service to whomever we please, and beware where, the knights of the ku klux klan are watching you, and a cartoon of a rebel soldier hell,"e saying "forget and we were requested to play "dixie" sometime in the evening and the entire room would stand up. i don't know how these judges would think all of that has changed, ok? i think that is my comment. host: all right, ronnie. gregory, you are next in pennsylvania. hi, gregory. caller: yes. i would like to make the comment
9:43 am
concerning trying to call congress and washington. no, hegressman, tom muri has a staff answer the phone, but when i tried to contact congressman boehner or cantor or congressman paul ryan or senator mitch mcconnell, i always get automated systems -- "leave a " -- but i can never make my comment to a staff member. i wonder why is that. host: could it be the volume of calls they receive given they are in leadership? well, this has been happening since january when i wanted to make comments about tax reform or gun legislation. i mean, you only can have so many coincidences. host: stephanie in florida,
9:44 am
democratic caller. caller: hi, how are you? good morning. watching this, i've been watching the news for probably the last week solid. i am a disabled veteran. they are talking about all of this hee haw about the supreme court opening, this, that and the other. like we are seems not focusing on what is really happening here. the government has shut down. they are talking about how much money the supreme court makes, will kind of benefits they get, this, that, and the other, and i just don't get that. i don't understand why we are ehner anding on why bo
9:45 am
the republicans aren't coming to the table. host: what kind of compromise do you want to see? caller: there is no sense fighting over the affordable care act. that has been upheld by the supreme court and is the law of the land. what i want to see them working on is the budget. i want these people to get back to work. that is going to be our biggest problem. it if you don't work, you don't eat. host: so federal workers? caller: correct. host: what are your thoughts this morning, johnson? caller: thank you for allowing me to make this comment. erm just wondering why boehn and the republicans would be elected to work for us and they are fighting like children. why would they hold our country hostage.
9:46 am
they are complaining, the can't have itu both ways. and they have a go up somehow? host: david in herndon, virginia, democratic caller. caller: thank you for c-span. i appreciate this. what is happening in congress is a travesty of epic proportions. we have members of congress, the likes of ted cruz, that are not only holding this economy ,ostage, the country hostage but they are literally holding the very fabric of what it means to be an american. they are threatening to shut down government and destroy the faith and credit, the full faith and credit of the united states show 15 ore face, to
9:47 am
20 members of congress that they can do this? it is a shame, and we are becoming the laughingstock of the world. countries like china, countries like russia, they are eating our lunch. we should be attending major , displaying products and manufacturing prowess. we are here debating amongst ourselves. i'm sorry, republicans are debating amongst ourselves whether we should pay our bills or not. host: all right, caller. by the way, we are keeping this going on at twitter page, members of congress -- lists of senators and members of the house and you can track what they are saying on twitter. senate democrats have tweeted out this -- "default deniers.
9:48 am
here is the list of republicans who dismiss the impact of missing the debt deadline." they put together a list of republicans. "why do republicans keep pushing the idea there is no default?" they have a list of senators with quotes by that. you can see tweets from the other side of the aisle. we have put together senators, , and john cornyn, senator from texas, republican, -- "exchangess will raise u.s. health care costs," and said to bloomberg news story. hi, manny. caller: i always wondered, with the amount of corruption in washington, how would affect the supreme court, and after the supreme court voted to give corporations the same rights as
9:49 am
citizens, i think the supreme court has also been tainted by the corruption in washington. a lady made a comment the other day that when she walked into the chamber at 9:00 in the morning, it smelled like a bar, had the smell of alcohol. maybe that is the problem with congress, they're drinking too much. host: all right, robert, in virginia beach. caller: i wanted to make three quick points. one, i feel like the national democrat party is moving a little bit too far to the left wing, especially with the social , wildly clicking the unions and the labor wing of the party -- while neglecting the unions and the labor wing of the party. 2 employers should link hiring to credit checks because how do people get hired to improve their credit? that should be illegal. and the shutdown of the government is embarrassing.
9:50 am
i personally do not like the health-care law. i think it will lead to loss of jobs, full-time people the incentive part-time -- full-time people being sent to part-time, but it is not worth shutting down the government. thank you, have a great day. host: front page of "the wall street journal" this morning. "design defects cripple health care website." " among technical problems thwarted consumers is a system to check identities of enrollees. to create accounts, the first step before they can apply for coverage." page also's" front has a story about the website. u.s. chief technology officer said in an interview with the paper that the government gov toed health-care.
9:51 am
to 60,0000 simultaneous users. instead, it is drawn as many as 250,000 at a time since it launched last tuesday. park's explanation did not impress the bush administration official that launched part d in 2006. 'whoever thought it would draw 60,000 people wasn't reading the administration's press releases. medicare party was built for 150,000, and that was back when computing was done on abacus.'" keith, democrat caller. caller: good morning. i was just going to make a comment about the government shutdown. i really believe in my heart the pelosi, andama, ms.
9:52 am
mr. reid are good people. hner is a that boe good person. but this stuff did get cramp on us without anybody knowing what was going on. my son was supposed to get a full-time job and now this is all on hold and nobody is sure what is going on and the whole country is in a mess. obama said that if anybody has any better ideas to help the health-care law, come to the table. well am everybody's worried about it, it seems like, so let's get the table and get the job done. host: on twitter host: harry in georgia, independent caller. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: the more i hear of this,
9:53 am
the more i'm getting so frustrated. bush started a war we didn't pay for. started the senior medicare -- the medicine prescriptions, we didn't pay for. this guy we've got in there now -- does anybody know when the last time we could borrow money? i mean, are we just going to keep borrowing and borrowing? even a fifth grader knows that you can't continue tomorrow. host: ok, harry. and the clock is ticking for when the country runs up against the debt ceiling. october 17 is the day that the treasury has put for that deadline. colorado, democratic caller. caller: i was telling him because -- i was calling in because i actually feel like the
9:54 am
democrats and republicans are both responsible here. as a democrat, i also have been a single parent before, and i have not been able to enjoy some of the things that have been available to others. i think it is irresponsible on to give outic end funds to undeserving individuals -- toe time after time not even bother to help themselves. on the other hand, with jobs and the government, they need to clean house a little bit because -- in the military also. i'm in between everything going on here because i know people that need assistance, i know people that don't need it, and i know people that give because they can. in the event that people are trying to get jobs within the government, i've been there even recently where there are people that are disabling others from
9:55 am
being able to gain employment because of their own personal agendas within their they have the power. being able to work somewhere -- i have become unemployed because of that. host: we go to robert in ohio. what ted fully support cruz did i hope the john boehner continues to fight the good fight and i hope that his knees don't buckle and he doesn't end up in a corner praying somewhere. host: john in louisiana, also a republican. caller: the problem i have is with president obama. -- whyit people to get isn't he able to get negotiations done when he is the leader and commander of our country? we in louisiana, we don't want it, the public does not want that obama health care, and we can't do anything about it. host: the previous caller mentioned ted cruz.
9:56 am
the front page of "the washington times" features and. he has become the most visible opponent of obamacare, making enemies in his own party." " love him or hate him, cruz stirs up a political passion." hi, nancy. caller: i think that this money is going to run out from all of these countries that are loaning us money, and eventually we are not going to be up to borrow any more money. and yet when i call my senator, claire mccaskill, her office just shuts me off and tells me, it, thet worry about senator understands, she knows this and she knows that. i want to know when our government is going to cut. when are we going to start having some things?
9:57 am
when we going to start taking responsibility for our and the money we are spending? host: are you worried at all if we default on our dead or do you think it is worth defaulting on the debt to get spending cuts? caller: i am worried about defaulting but i'm also worried obama and hist democratic congress are not going to cut anything. they want to keep spending all the money. and college. where is it going to come from? start saying,es no more giving you money, where is it going to come from? what is the united states going to do then? host: scott in a new hampshire, independent caller. caller: i think this is a brilliant scam idea for government to scam money from the people. 50 million people, people with the irs, $200 per person -- to the math -- do the
9:58 am
math. treasury is getting a kickback to run the insurance network. this is brilliant. aca will pay for care and awareness but not the cure. they will give the bad news and keep the drug companies in business even if the government has to redistribute funding. the people will pay the higher tax. this is brilliant. the obama administration takes advantage of it and puts 25,000 more employees in government at the expense of the people. this is brilliant, this is a brilliant idea! host: we have a couple minutes left to get in more thoughts. host: front page of "the washington times."
9:59 am
" the bureau of all, all, tobacco, firearms, and explosives is bucking the main whistleblower in the festive years case -- fast and furious , claiming that his retelling of the scandal will hurt morale inside the embattled law enforcement agency. it is setting up a first amendment showdown that is poised to bring together liberal groups like the aclu and conservatives in congress who have championed mr. dodson's protection as a whistleblower." rebecca in tennessee. caller: good morning, sweetheart. host: good morning, what are your thoughts? caller: the bible tells us -- e's a generation [indiscernible] from amongthe poor the earth and the needy from among men, and i think we have a
10:00 am
generation in the white house us today i hope and pray their souls -- they find out where their souls will end up. thank you, god bless. host: thanks for watching. we will be back tomorrow morning with your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. enjoy the rest of your monday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] ♪ >> the federal government shutdown is into its second week this week. it is 10 days before they run out of money to pay it bills. both issues will be discussed on the house and senate floors today. lawmakers will vote on


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on