Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Elizabeth Wydra and Carrie Severino Discuss Supreme...  CSPAN  March 20, 2017 8:35am-9:31am EDT

8:35 am
don't want to comment on cases i may have to vote for someday. politicong min kim of joining us. she is an assistant editor. you can see how judge gorsuch is planning for his senate showdown, available on the website. thank you for your time today. conversation continues on today's confirmation hearings featuring neil gorsuch. joining us. elizabeth wydra is with the constitutional accountability center. also joining as is carrie severino of the judicial crisis network. good morning to both of you. can you give us your insht, your level of support for neil gorsuch? for judge am alln judgeh -- i am all-in for gorsuch at he is so clearly in the line of justice scalia's
8:36 am
jurisprudence. he will be a fitting replacement for him. and he has such broad bipartisan support. at a time with all of the political tension, you have people like obama's solicitor general and many other fromrats, david frederick the american constitution society, a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that say this is someone who is a fair judge and evenhanded. i think he's a great person. not know about lots of people on both sides of the iop my organization does not take a position, generally, until after the hearing it's a we are not officially supporting or opposing judge gorsuch, but we do have serious questions. a lot of questions are raised about this nominee just from the fact that donald trump's nominating him and the process by which donald trump said he would choose a nominee when he was campaigning. now president trump has articulated several litmus
8:37 am
tests, that he would automatically roll over roe v. wade, a certain view of gun cases. you should not really have litmus tests when you have a candidate because it suggests they wilnook at a case as it com, looking at precedent and the fts, but instead guaranteeing a vote to have their name put forward according to these litmus tests. so we have questions about that and specific questions about his record. host: has judge gorsuch ruled on any of those litmus tests or anything specific to those topics? roe versus wade, he is not explicitly ruled on the phenomenal read for a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion. involvinged in cases planned parenthood, defunding planned parenthood. with the religious liberty test, he has ruled broadly and
8:38 am
vigorously for religious a woman's right to access contraception under the affordable care act, giving women that right to broad access to contraception. host: ultimately, this goes to this idea of how judge gorsuch views the constitution and how you define that. ms. severino, how would you define the approach he would take? guest: i think he has been very clear that he appreciates a constitution as it is written and, like justice scalia, will look to the actual words of the constitution, look to the intent when it was ratified as an amendment, and you should not let your politics and your political leanings of how you think something should come out. that should not interfere with how you interpret the constitution. you take the text, the amendments, and you take them on their own merit, not trying to read in your own views.
8:39 am
is that the approach? guest: he calls himself an originalist. clever way ofa saying i will not have my politics invade my jurisprudence. . am a progressive i am a liberal originally. i think it is great that someone claims they are an originalist. but it has to be the whole constitution, not just those that match political preferences. for his record, and the constitutional accountability center has done a report on it, i do not see him to,ng that same fidelity for example, the 14th amendment, which was a crucial change in our constitution a filter -- after the civil war that wrote equal protection for all persons. intended toere
8:40 am
really make sure that our financial rights that were guaranteed against all government intrusion in the 18th wood then, after the civil war and jim crow, that they would be protected, the fundamental rights would be protected against state infringement, as well. that is an area in judge gorsuch's record that we find troubling. it is not seen he has fully devoted himself in that change in the constitution as he has to the constitution of 1789. host: if you have questions about judge gorsuch's legal philosophy. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. you can make your comments on twitter, as well. i do not think -- i would
8:41 am
love to hear a specific case where he said the 14th amendment does not apply here. is very clear on all sorts of constitutional amendments are the fourth amendment, the right against search and seizure, is something he is protective of. it is not something that falls into a traditional conservative category. criminalttractive of defendant's rights, for example. that is not because he wants to have a conservative view. it is something that is a constitutionalist view. i think that goes throughout his entire jurisprudence. host: thank you for joining us. the first call is from ann, new york, democrat. go ahead. from the factside that his values are way too -- citizens for me
8:42 am
united, roe v. wade, after what mitch mcconnell and the republicans did to obama and merrick garland, there is no way i want any single democrat to vote for him, in favor of him. host: carrie severino? wait was about waiting for the american people to have a voice. it is an unusual circumstance to have a vacancy come up during an election year. senator schumer and others said we should not move forward if a vacancy comes open this late in the president's term. both parties have advocating doing it, and i think the american people did end of having a voice. more than 1/5 of the american people said this was their number one issue at the pole. most of those people voted for donald trump. if it had gone the other way, this would be a different
8:43 am
discussion. but the real issue is about letting people have a voice. i think after the elections, if hillary clinton would have won, we would have moved forward on garland are someone she chose. it is important to say let's not let this president have a single nominee. president -- if president -- president obama chose a nominee early in his term, and republicans did not try to block it. it is a very different thing earlier in the term to say no more nominees from this president. guest: i read the constitutional the time. i have not read the part that says you do not get a nominee in the last year of your term. the people elected barack obama for a second term. under the constitution, he is president until the last of his term. press -- justice scalia passed away with nearly a year left of his term. he put forth a nominee. a think the arguments of judge
8:44 am
garland, who did have broad a partisan support -- i think what was done by mitch mcconnell and senate republicans was shameful , and those words of arguments put the supreme orrt in a political contest chief justice roberts has said this, as well, that the supreme court should not be a political football like that, and i find it shameful. host: do you think that issue should override the issue of judge gorsuch's confirmation hearings? guest: it is hard to take it out of the context. a lot of damage was done by the senate republicans to the integrity of the process, which i find deeply unfortunate. i have been a supreme court lawyer my entire professional career, someone who reveres the court as an institution. politicals, i think they should do what they
8:45 am
should have done last year, which was give this nominee hearing and then vote him up or down, whether you find problems in his records. that is what should have happened with judge garland. that is what is happening with judge gorsuch. the senate should do their duty to advise and consent on this nominee, and i expect them to do that. they are giving him consideration that is due. host: fair to say it will color the issue or at least the debate? guest: sure. it is not say they have to wait in an election year, but it does not say they have to give hearings at any one particular point. concern toeasons of let people have a voice and have that time waiting. done many times. senator schumer person or biden have both done it.
8:46 am
it is the same constitutional allse that applies to excited on nominees around the news, as well as judicial nominees. advice and consent of the senate. that can be exercised in many different ways. in this case, they chose to let the people have a voice. aest: i think that that is respected norm that we have seen over decades. host: indiana, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comments are really for ms. severino. she referred several times to a scalia seat. there is nothing that says we need to have a scalia seat on the supreme court. nobody mentions felix frankfurter's seat, taft's seat, a kennedy seat. mr. hoping they will ask gorsuch about the citizens
8:47 am
decision. i would like to remind ms. severino that the majority of the american people do not foot for donald trump, which means they did not vote for his nominee. if they go for four more years with eight justices on the supreme court, i think we will get along just fine. is news to everyone on the democrat side that was claiming we need nine ad nauseam last year. not a scalia seat. thanks for pointing that out. but we're talking about the fact that the person that will be replaced is justice scalia. the fact is that president trump did campaign on this idea of replacing scalia with someone in the same intellectual mode, and it is important to note that this will not change the balance of the court. i do think that is significant in the way this plays out. justice scalia was one of the
8:48 am
four conservative votes in the court, and judge gorsuch am a we expect, would be someone who would follow in that pattern. it is reasonable to assume that this is someone who would follow in his footsteps, particularly because that was one of trump's campaign promises spirit he talked about this regularly, and it was a major motivator of the people who went to the polls to vote for president trump. this is him fulfilling one of his most important campaign promises. of gorsuchdea following in scilly a possessed of's, how much do you think that will happen? guest: justice scalia was someone who was vehemently opposed to lgbtq equality in important rulings, one which recognize that there is a constitutional right to marry the person of your choosing, even if you are in a same-sex relationship. he was supportive of citizens
8:49 am
united, opening the floodgates to campaignash. i think americans think there are a lot of problems with our campaign system and having big business money. on votings united, rights, even be on the campaign cash situation in our democratic system, the idea that the voting rights act does not support some of these important protections that were put in place to that voting,st which was gutted. someone who is not supportive of racial justice and equality it we saw that in affirmative action cases in other cases likeving other programs, the civil rights laws. i think a lot of people, rather than being heartened by the fact that he is in the mold of justice scalia, they are
8:50 am
concerned or even more concerned . to say he is going to be like scalia is positive for some people, but for many others a causes great concern. host: let's go to tennessee, democrats line. larry, you are next. caller: i am really concerned speed that these major hearings are coming in for the beforen public -- coming the american publiand we have a hearing on the supreme court, a hearing on the russian influence on the last election. we have the secretary of state saying that we are stopping with north korea. these are major concerns facing this presidency. this presidency and the american
8:51 am
people. these are issues that need to be vetted deep and long. to have these concerns coming on , and congress putting these on the same day, how can the american public focus on all these things and work at the same time? host: ms. wydra, you go first. guest: there is a lot of news. the caller is right that there is a lot going on. i think that is why we are very appreciative of our media trying to make sure the american public can keep up with all of these developments that are happening. there are a lot of important things going on. it is the beginning of a new administration. many of us have been troubled of the actions of this new administration. some of the disregard for the
8:52 am
law, the context with which we are considering this supreme court nominee. i think it is a challenge, but i think that we're up to the challenge. on i totally hear the caller the fact that it is hard to keep up with the news and go about with our daily lives, putting food on the table for your family. it is a lot to keep up with. host: ms. severino? guest: definitely a busy day at if you have to pick one hearing, the gorsuch hearing will be mostly open statements from the senator, and at the end of the day, we will hear from judge gorsuch. i think it will be more exciting tomorrow and the next day as we get the back-and-forth of the senators and gorsuch. this hearing is progressing at a pretty typical pace for a supreme court hearing process. there is always a lot of things going on in the world. host: 11:00 today, you can watch it live on c-span. the first hearing for judge
8:53 am
gorsuch, watch it on c-span2, c-span.org, and our radio app. at the end of the day, what do we really learn? what do we get from the hearings? guest: unfortunately, we would love to hear a lot of the issues in detail, but it will not be spoken about today at the hearing. justice ginsburg, when she was questioned at her hearings, it's set a line that will be followed by all substantive judges. for a sitting judge, ethical rules require you cannot comment on cases likely to come up before the court. if you did, you would be liable to have someone recuse themselves in a case. you cannot make promises or commitments. every judge needs to take the case, the facts as they come to them, the legal briefing. even if they know an issue, there is a lot of stuff that gets brought up in the process. file thatll have to
8:54 am
-- follow that world, as well. there will be issues everyone is listening for, whether it is roe v. wade, citizens united, gun case, religious freedom. he cannot comment on what he would do. you know, what would you do if this case came before you? so many issues, whether it is president obama's immigration orders, president trump's immigration orders. a lot of this stuff will be off the table. what we will be able to learn about is talking about his record, because he can talk about cases he has already decided and explain his reasoning. it is a window into how he approaches cases. that could be more important anyway. from the outside, we may think we know the issue inside out, but until you understand all the legal issues, we are prejudging, as well. so knowing how he will be approaching these cases will help us. host: ms. wydra? guest: she is right.
8:55 am
we have kind of developed a fear of the judicial confirmation hearing where everyone asks these questions that we really want to and no -- want to know. and nominees give their best to not give us a substantive answer. that has been the future of the last several confirmation hearings. i think we will see that with gorsuch. one thing that i think is incredibly important for the senators to discuss with gorsuch is his commitment to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. --have seen his personal tax attacks by president trump on judges he has -- that have wor against him, calling them so-called judges should he does issues in the decision but personal attacks that undermanned -- undermine a branch of government that is seen as being impartial and independent. i things -- i think judge
8:56 am
gorsuch will have two talk about personal attacks on judges and those who serve the judiciary as deeply problematic. we have had sitting federal judges do that already. one of the cases where the courts were considering president trump's travel and saw ae ban, we republican conservative sitting federal judge in the ninth circuit, someone who would have gone against with the majority did in blocking that ban, he called out the personal attacks and said they were inappropriate hear it i think we can ask for the same thing from judge gorsuch. from michigan, republican line. go ahead. caller: hello. ms. wydra, i would like to speak to you. first, we have to deal with fake news. now we have to deal with your fake outrage.
8:57 am
i mean,, on now. the democrats probably would have done the same thing the republicans did to merrick garland. they said it to schumer or joe biden said he would have done the same thing. and you sit there and act all upset about the republicans. it is ridiculous. guest: first of all, i am legitimately outraged. need and last year we nine, and i still think we need nine. we need a full complement of justices on the supreme court to do the important work of the supreme court. that does not mean that any person can get on the supreme court. we have to make sure that the nominee is someone who belongs in the supreme court, will follow the law and the constitution. they will not be there to pursue a political agenda. that is why we have the hearings. i am glad we are the hearings. my respect for the supreme court is genuine, what i have devoted my life too. and what the political process
8:58 am
would have been if it would have been reversed, i don't know. but that is something that each person has to take on the themselves, what each senator has to take responsibility for. i do not think the republican senators take orders from senator shoote -- senator schumer. guest: it was the caller who said we don't need nine, we will stick with eight. i think a lot of people do make that claim. i agree that the independence of the judiciary is very important, but i think it is another issue judge gorsuch will have to because us about how he approaches. he has said in meetings with senators that they find personal attacks on judges as demoralizing. that is probably as far as he can go on it, unfortunately. some of these issues are involved in cases that are coming before the supreme court. they are in the courts right now, so it is likely they will go to the supreme court. he cannot be perceived as
8:59 am
prejudging the cases or the parties they are in. so i do not think he will be up to comment specifically on what he thinks about something that president trump tweeted on such and such a date. i do not think any president should have their political judicial there appointments that have to defend. you have justice ginsburg called to account for scandals in the clinton presidency. you did not have justice kagan have to answer why the president was calling the supre court out. the case got raided later mostly false bipolar the fact -- by politifact. when they pointed it out is a strange route, it is something we can debate about in the political procedure. i think it should not continue
9:00 am
this year. guest: those were not personal attacks on judges. it was not the way in which the judiciary lives or dies. it is different. i agree you should not try to hold judds gorsuch responsible for the substance of some of trump's policies. asking him to state that the independence of student of been a the federalist paper. where hamilton argues the best way to have the appointment is with a union of the president.the
9:01 am
he talks abt e, the recess appointments, he says hat there can be no appointments unless the in ress, the senate is with n, so i read this as the anguages and with advice and consent of the appoints. shall host: thanks, caller. caller: that is right. fad rallist paper lays out the dual process. their own personal andidate, nepotism, they can hold them in check, the president has a final role the upthe president gets or down vote there, that is a function of the process, we are that role, i'm excited to see it. i hope as elizabeth wydra said, up or down vote and
9:02 am
don't have someone trying to block that vote. advice and consent the senate is going to perform and court is ance of the part of learning about the udges' opinions and the opinions on independence, as well, he has a lot of opinion on that area. he's well known for be nothing favor of judicial independence, constitutional, particularly the xecutive branch, i think he is the perfect person for this time when people are concerned about the idea. i think it is great carrie severino brought up the that neil gorsuch's supporters have put forward he will be willing to step up and checking on overreach, and here we're concerned about him up and check p against president trump's and eaching many of us see potential for corruption. so this area of law that has to, his rulings that say
9:03 am
that the longstanding deference, the chevron doctrine, it is idea that because some statuts are broad, maybe president, thehe executive branch in taking care he laws are faithfully executed, executive agency if iserpretation of the statute reasonable, courts will defer to their expertise as to example, air act. judge neil gorsuch would not even e that deference, justice scalia would have given to agencies. he will y that means step up against, for example, something that president trump executive authority would put forth, that is not really thing.e it is not a surprise nti-regulation conservatives might be opposed to differing agencies to do things like civil rights, protect
9:04 am
clean air and clean water and the e workplace safety. fact a conservative, someone who doesn't like regulation doesn't me how to act when you see something for example, with the administration, executive use of authority over the war onmo bay and teor. host: this point he said about fact that e, the huge amount rexit of power and concentrate power difficult to square with constitution of the framer come.n maybe the time has guest: another great example of here i would disagree with him as originalist and scalia would disagree. founding era, founders understood need carry out the law. justice scalia recognized that aying he didn't see actions like we see today, go back to
9:05 am
founding of the republican. war between the judiciary and the congress in chevron? guest: the way he's checking xecutive is not saying executive cannot carry out the law, but the executive doesn't get to interpret the law. the court can argue for their interpretation, but the system standing now, justice scalia was critical of the fact many thought he would have overturned the deference the courts had, is saying courts are the ones to make the final decision, that is something in our law already, administrative rocedure act that creates administration says that already. this is bringing it back into laws and remind people concern body things trump administration and trump agency do, this means he won't scott pruitt or with the epa, not just their egulations, but actually chevron applies to deregulation,
9:06 am
as well, he's not going to give administrionng regulation and they a loosening regulation. think the ething democrats should get on board with. protective of this because of the constitutional limits of ower, the limits apply to executive orders, as well. he is protecting and understanding of the division of power in the of constitution and i think that is the right thing of priorities we court. the two guests, you just heard from policy director judicial network.com, is the ebsite and elizabeth wydra, onstitutional accountability center, u.s.constitution.org. o see what they wrote about neil gorsuch, go to texas, in houston. robin, thank you, go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. want to make note, the
9:07 am
republicans like to say, he was already approved by both sides should go through smoothly, but that was like 10 years ago. a lot of history in 10 years and such s not letting cases go to court. so -- host: you want to start? guest: sure. last 10 year shoulds reinforce that, that is bar association in 2006 just gave him well well, a rating, as group whose identified as gold standard, chuck schumer called it that for judicial vetting. that tends to lean gainst conservatism nominations. he is decidedly in the mainstream on court where the democrat. in fact 98% of cases did not, he did not decent. most cases he decided, he is in
9:08 am
colleagues, th his that should speak to many cases, some ones he is getting from, unanimous cases, they were clinton or obama appointees on the cases, as well, who agreed with him. is approach toward the law something his colleagues in the tenth circuit on both sides of appointed by both sides of the aisle can agree with. great the caller makes a point, different enterprise to confirm someone for a seat on the supreme court than the of appeal.rt first, as the caller said, you have a record, you have record of what he did on the court. that needs to be closely scrutinized. also, the role of supreme court justice is different from role justice.late court on court of appeals, you're supposed to follow the precedent set, you don'trt name theuch liberty to
9:09 am
law according to how you see fit. to probe ly important a lot of questions we've been talking about how you view the and think about separation of power and how you think about fundamental rights constitution, ur you will be on the court pinnacle of the judicial system for entire ions country and that will be followed by the courts of appeal judges. is a lot to go through in judge gorsuch record, he's been for so long. one thing we haven't talked about this morning, concern a have that he bends over backward to accommodate the rate interest at expense of everyday working americans. tot is something, it is fine follow supreme court precedence and rule for businesses, you see on the supreme court, the justices ruling between 44 and 52% of the time for businesses. problem is when you read the that is unsupported
9:10 am
by text of the statute. am see this in the trans case, people see it good for him, i find it troubling, he applied workplace safety law to protect this man ho was out in freezing conditions and basically unhitched the trailer of a truck the cab to safer conditions and the majority of the statute says you will protect people who efuse to operate a vehicle accoing to discretion of their gorsu wouldudge ave read a law in robertson , isus burwell, read the plan hink judge gorsuch did by saying he didn't fail to operate the vehicle, he did operate it, thereally, when you look at purpose of the statute, the oint was to protect people who refuse to operate the vehicle in
9:11 am
the manner their employer wanted or operate it contrary to worker safety. example, crab interpretation of the law for business interest and make sure judge gorsuch can put forth his theory why he fall into that category. response.ck guest: sure. ot refuse to operate does not mean operate. we understand the difficult position this man was put in, something that reflects, refuses to operate their vehicle that statute who operates the vehicle is simply not within the law. cases, law in many goodness, we know the egislature does not always get it right. congress does not make laws right, state law is not perfect well, that doesn't put it in the court to rewrite them in ways they would prefer. you look, for
9:12 am
example, in taking one example, labor rights 56 cases he's dealt with, none had written. the ones he's now that says something. vast majority of the cases he's is no evidence he's trying to look at who is the favor tion let's rule in of them or have a pattern like that, it is matter of cherry to find cases that have sympathetic fact, when you look at the law, those cases out to be -- host: let's go to florida, line, charles, hello. caller: thank you for having me and letting me call in my question to the panel is, understanding that very few matters have to be reviewed by the supreme court, but one of penalty case ath and has the judge ever tried a been on alty case or panel that reviewed it or how can you be qualified for that he has not?
9:13 am
the supreme court, one issue that would come up regularly is death penalty because everyone who is on death row will before they executed, certainly file emergency appeal, the court deals with this on regular basis. 1% of cases that come before the court generally make the the top of the road, justices will take a closer look at those issues because of the appeals. nature of the e has dealt with cases in the past with the death penalty type of appeals we see. this. experience in and as do all i think federal appellate judges, maybe not the same, fall in the stage where you might for the country, it has certainly some before him. uest: he has been on death penalty cases and i think his record, there has been great naacp of his record by
9:14 am
lds, they talk about his capital record and their finding is that it is very hard o win a death penalty claim in front of judge gorsuch, he applies strict standards to asking for that kind of relief, even when it seems their are meritoruoious. of his books was about in of life," sanctity and he talks about being opposed suicide.ted but i don't think that we have concern same sort of in the death penalty context. gues the factf the matter, cases are hard to win. one law school professor said if they taught that class [indiscernible] -- federal -- es have a record
9:15 am
host: don't forget to watch the on c-span today. judge gorsuch. the cases about brought forward by senators, basil from cleveland, ohio, you are next.e, good morning, go ahead. caller: thank you. like to pull back the shroud of reality. filled nursing homes with seniors waiting to die, people e people there, with different illnesses n. view abortion t that the law has allowed between 55 and up to ion abortions partial birth, why not pass a law to euthanize these people, save on medical expenses. the law reached point of beyond my comprehension, what happened to morality in law. does not mean anything about morality. we have to wake up to what is happening. killing our own people in
9:16 am
this country, wake up to what law is. the law does not supercede human race or morality of living in america, as we should. liberals and democratic party, democratic party no longer exist would accept deckament from pornography to killing babies, put back the shroud and kid you can't kid the public anymore. guest: well, i think all those would be more suited for the legislature than the judiciary. interesting it is to see what judge gorsuch's euthanasia, it was philosophy pieces when he oxford.cholar at issues, fill kof cal not issues he would likely be addressing at the supreme court, settledndrelatively doesn't seem like it is coming back. there are states that are doing legislative matter, i
9:17 am
don't see the issues being i don't think there challenges on legal ground, certainly on policy ground and a lot of debate in that area, i don't see that coming likely before the court. guest: i think challenges on le raised by issues that carrie severino mentioned and i would up particularly on the right to choose abortion, these of individual liberty are brought generally under the 14th mendment, i mentioned briefly at the top of the segment. question is whether or not there s individual right guaranteed by the constitution, for example, for a woman to choose or herself whether, how and when to have a family. and the question for the courts constitution and say whether that right exists, if it exists it is guaranteed constitution against any state infringement that means guaranteed that right, it is not subject to hims of political majority or legislator voting for whether or
9:18 am
not you get fundamental rights, enshrine them in the constitution. bortion right should get sent back to state. that is jumping ahead, you need isn't de there constitutional right guaranteed in the 14th amendment to say it back to the state. if that right is protected or constitutional right by the constitution, states don't get whether to respect it or not. seption, ic of contro the judge weighed in on hobby lobby. find the belief offensive, to know this much, religious freedom most ation -- perhaps important work protecting npopular beliefs long-held aspiration to serve as refuge of religious tolerance. does it say to approach of
9:19 am
abortion and other cases of like?ception and the guest: the question will go to hat does the 14th amendment say, i don't think even roe v. wade says the 14th amendment would have a different question if there were constitutional amendment that abortion is right to in this country, it is not that clear. i think in terms of his approach religious freedom issue, it is right, you can see in other ecisions, as well, he understands religious freedom restoration act and land use and persons act ased partner, similar law on deals particularly with prison and use, those talk about the protecting minority belief, you in the it is not simply hobby lobby case or little assumes he some agrees with the religious beliefs. don't know what his beliefs are on contro seption. lampert, thisersus was an act, felon in prison for
9:20 am
urdering his own daughter, and neededk sess to the prison sweat lodge, he was native american was key to his religion was protecting of his rights, not because he loves nuns or loves n sweat lodge compelled above issue, it is because he happeneds the terms of the law give strong religious freedom across the board, including hose you agree with and disagree with. host: religious freedom. guest: the concern raised by he perhaps is too privileging of religious belief impacted by ho are those assertion of religious belief. lobby case, in hobby about employees accessing contro employershen corporate might have a different personal employees might have
9:21 am
different beliefs or they may not have religious belief. some are troubled in the hobby lobby case, it goes beyond what supreme court did in hobby robust there was a disc of ussionnonreligious affected by the case gorsuch'slook at go piece that went through this, privileges too much religious believer, again, not just perhaps his face, but all beliefs over those who are nonbelievers or might have affected by iefs that religious liberty. i am sure that will come up in hearing.te host: david, you are next, hello. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i believe that nancy pelosi said, trying to remember her if you breathe air, if you eat food, if you take medication, then this guy is a
9:22 am
wonderful family many, gorsuch, wonderful for your family. umber of outrageous statements she made in the past, you got to patch it to find out what is in it. and other like reid, he said it importantly, re billy flynn, i hope donald trump, who is doing more job than i expected, i unlikee sticks by gorsuch flynn, i believe he wanted to he wanted ynn, like to stick by his first travel ban. too okay, you are going far, we'll stick to the topic. thanks for calling, independent hello.tewart, caller: hello. good morning. ladies.ning, guest: good morning. caller: before i make my statement, i don't know if ladies have read it, john marshall, the chief justice that saved the united of america.
9:23 am
far as what , as trump said about these judges, upset me. that upset me a little bit, it really did. would check his words before he speaks them sometimes, being, obama has done the same thing, state of ridiculed theess, supreme court stating they have wrong. also, as far as character believe me, the left has this down pat. look at is judge pubic hair on , op of a coke can and the way they treated -- a very, very had constitution down pat. host: thank you, stewart. political process involving and how it plays out in
9:24 am
light of what he said. you want to start? i think justice thomas' hearings were a real low. having worked to him, i can amazing boss he is and my needs as a woman was. i agree with the previous caller, nancy pelosi is joining on rhetoric of gridlock we're the g unfortunately from democrats. people say, we will block everything this president does, nominates, it's a shame, i don't think that is what the country needs. move forward, about every four years someone is isappointed, we still need to move forward as country. i think gorsuch will be confirmed. the president is confident on senator mcconnell said he will be confirmed, i don't think there is any question about that. i think the matter is going through the process and making we can do it in even-handed way, way that people are being of him, as well, so i
9:25 am
hope we'll see that from this hearings. guest: i think the comment about breathe highlights the stakes of what we're talking about here. of supreme court, while most us think about the supreme court ith high-profile issue, equality or big abortion case, what the supreme court does and cases reallyboring does affect every aspect of american lives, again, from the the water you , drink, food you eat, who you can marry, the supreme court in the late '60s right to marry a person of a loving versus in virginia. same-sex y and lesbian case down to whether you can cast your ballot free from at the polls, whether you can get a mortgage free from racial discrimination, supreme court does impact pocket books, our impacts the most
9:26 am
important aspects of our lives, incredibly it is important that we give a close the iny to any nominee to supreme court, including this nominee and the american people conversation.lic i think that while i disagree views e caller about his on the constitution, i'm glad we're talking about it, it is the way we talk about that one interprets the constitution, what we think it think what other people it means and have civil discourse. thoughts on ifour should the judge make it to the supreme court, how it changes the make up. kennedy, kennedy is on the court, kennedy, that swing vote when it comes to issues, is there some influence on some level as far s having gorsuch there at same time as kennedy? guest: this is historic. time someone clerked for a justice saving at the same time with that judge. is formative experience in
9:27 am
a young lawyer's life having that clerk relationship. of people as they describe gorsuch writing style entertaining, s accessible as scalia's writing edge.t the hard someone starting out, i don't say scalia fair to himself has an edge, he had famously close relationship with ginsburg, ideological pposite on the bench, but they were close. it will be interesting to see gorsuch with clean slate and able to make slightly different case. it is a new court. the inner play will be interplay during oral argument will be dfrnlt, as well. guest: absolutely. member of the nine-justice court, every new member changes a dynamic there, is important, not just numerical vote to get to on to win, but the dynamic
9:28 am
the court. particular ways in which you other.r one side or the gorsuch would, if he were confirmed, be a change to the court. host: one more call, john from virginia, democrats line, go head, you are on with the guest. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. would like to ask the guest one question. the seat belongs to the american people or the party? number one. two, there is not judges anymore, they are politicians, the er put them in position, that is way they will vote everything. that is not a judge. the ge is one who look at situation, you can make two people happy when you judge something. you need to read the constitution and do what is right for american people. this judge what they are doing now, their action affect all of us. t doesn't matter whether you are female, gay, man, whatever ou are going to be, the judge have become politician and i hope that they should have limit that the term when they serve 20
9:29 am
that -- ould be out of host: caller, leave it there. guest: sure. absolutely, this is the american people's seat. obama's t president seat, wasn't scalia's seat. seat.land's it is justice gorsuch's seat. elected representatives who are choosing the seat, i hardly agree with should not judges act as politicians and auch they seem to be. the nt judges faithful to constitution. term limits, we would have to to constitutional amendment change. host: you get the last word. guest: i think the caller is of the e need justice supreme court who will apply the law fairly and impartially for americans, the powerless and powerful, the big guy, as well guy, someone not
9:30 am
going to pursue political agenda be beholden to the president who put his or her name forward. hat is the burden that judge gorsuch comes into the hearing with, to show he is not someone politicalrt to follow agenda, he will follow the law and constitution where it leads. elizabeth eard from wydra, president of the ccountability center, u.s. constitution.org, is the website. carrie severino, judicial crisis network, chief counsel and policy director. thank you very much. guest: thank you. hearing takes place 11:00 on c-span. go to our website for more information. in the last half-hour, talk about the hearing, what you heard from the guests, want to talkif you on that matter or want to talk about the hearing that takes of thingsussia, a lot happening this week. 202-748-8000, for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans and independents,

198 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on