Amb. Brownback the Supreme Court just wrapped up host we have briand goron and john malcolm here. Thank you for being in this morning. Brianne andt with ask you what is your take on the decisions that came down in the recent term . Guest i think this was a deeply different disappointing decision from the court because the chief justice threw up their hands and acknowledged that extreme partisan gerrymanders are inconsistent with what quit to do anything about them. Justice kagan got it right in her decision when she recognized , when do the courts can do things when can the courts do things . Otherwhat was the decision last week you thought was important . Case, it the sentence challenged the Trump Administrations decision to add a Citizenship Question to the 2020 census. The chief justice got right on this one. I agree with some of his legal reasoning, but he was right to reject the effort to add this question to the census. As he said, the secretary of was contextualon and this would undermine the accuracy of the census count. This is an important count that we take every 10 years to determine how represented are dust representatives are allocated in congress and how funding is allocates is allocated. Thisthe census recognizes would undermines the accuracy of the count. Host john malcolm, your take on the recently completed term . Guest as is the case with all terms, there were some opinions that pleased and disappointed me. In the last week, the agency case, the kaiser case, where i thought it was a step in the right direction of raining in the deference courts are supposed to give agencies interpreting their own regulations, but it didnt go as far as i would have as far as i would have liked. I will comment on those two cases. With respect to the part of his and desh partisan gerrymandering case, the court partisan gerrymandering case, the court said gerrymandering has been around for our entire history. Around in the late 1900s and they drew a district that looked like salamander. Thats where gerrymandering came from. The majority in the router case case didnt rucho say they like gerrymandering. They said the framers in the constitution didnt give judges a role. They said this was checked by congress in order to do anything if they wanted to do anything about partisan gerrymandering. Any constitutional challenge speaks to the need for proportional representation. Theres nothing in the constitution about proportional representation. And there is no measurable, ro liable criteria that one can come up with to measure how much reliable criteria that one can come up to measure how much gerrymandering there is. With respect to the senses, we had a Citizenship Question on our senses, in one form or the sus, we had a Citizenship Question on the census, and one form or the other. There were all kinds of questions about race, gender, and all preferences on the census. The court said this wasnt a violation of the constitution. The enumerations clause says theres supposed to be a census conducted every 10 years. It doesnt say congress how. It doesnt Tell Congress how. t think the court got they got a fractured opinion. Before the liberal justices reasonsecretary rosss for joining this, intentional. He kicked the case back to the lower courts and gave commerce an opportunity to come forward with a more fulsome explanation. Whether they have time to get it done, host we will focus on more than just the census and gerrymandering, but watching these last courts, the market cases and final decisions, both of those felt like unfinished work. Citizenship in the case, it is still an active case. Guest thats right. Maryland,ct court in a number of courts around the country, and one of those cases was the maryland. The District Court judge there was considering the addition of this question was motivated by discriminatory purposes. That could well proceed if the administration indicates it would continue to try to put this question on the census. The question is timing. They needed to have the census questionnaire finalized by june 20. Theres a serious question about whether there is time to go back to the bureau and try to come up with another reason to put this question on the census. Host are there other potential gerrymandering cases that could come for the next term . Guest rachel gerrymandering cases, the start has died of those. They have another one of those this term, too. Unless there is change in the composition of the court, the issue of political gerrymandering is decided. Undecidedother issues, but i dont think that is one of them. Host i want to get our washington journal viewers and listeners in on the conversation. 202 7488000 free democrats. 202 7488001 for republicans. Independents and others, 202 7488002. , an the conversation and couple of the key decisions came down in announcements from the court as the term concluded. They temporarily blocked the 2020 census Citizenship Question. They ruled federal judges have no authority to correct artisan gerrymandering. They allowed for the jailing of certain immigrants eligible for deportation. They allowed a person to be charged and tried for the state offense same offense in state and federal courts. They also decided on the case of the peace cross, allowing the cross in maryland to stand. Brianne, your take on that decision in terms of what it means for potential of religious freedom cases to come before the case . Guest it was interesting, the way that the justice who wrote for the majority in that case wrote the opinion. It was not as broad an opinion as you might have expected from the conservative court. What he said was that this is a memorial that has been out for a long time and was not put up to promote christianity. He distinguished this cross and the question of keeping the cross up from putting up a new cross in the future. Justice breyer also suggested Courts Holding in this case was pretty narrow. I dont think it tells us that much about other similar cases in the future. Host john, where do you does that open the door for potential other religious liberty cases . Guest religious liberty cases are always on the court bar stockett. I agree and slightly disagree. I agree with that the court the court did not go as far as they could have. One thing i found very significant, in the early 1970s, this of bring court had a case in which it established a threepart test where the court was going to use for establishment because whenever it was looking at establishment establishment clause, whenever it was looking at establishment clause cases. Courts is all over the map. In that case, not a single justice has a kind thing to say about the lemon test. Even the two dissenters. They didnt even mention lemon in their dissent. I think it is possible that lemon is on life support, but also possible the pathologist has not arrived to declare it dead. I thought that was significant. We will see if lemon truly is dead. Host more cases that talk about. Here with the heritage found age on dacians institute for congressional Government Vice president , john malcolm, and Brianne Gorod, tell us about your view on the court. Publicthe center is a law firm tank dedicated to the progressive premise of the constitutions history. When you look at the constitution, when you look at the whole constitution amended over time to be made more democratic and i terrien, it is a progressive document. We make the originalist arguments, but we make arguments branded grounded in the constitution. The Heritage Foundation is a very prominent conservative think tank. The institute for Constitutional Government where we discuss all legal issues, we discuss it at the constitution on a conservative perspective and originalist perspective. We engage in robust and civil debates with organizations like sometimes find common ground, but often dont. Some otherll get to cases, but we have colors waiting period hear from bill in virginia beach. Bill, republican, go ahead. Caller real quick. Looks like we have one conservative and one progressive liberal on our show today. I wanted to ask a quick question. Understanding,l to both your guests, does a person have to be a u. S. Citizen in order to vote in a president ial election . In any state in the country . I will get off the phone and listen for your answers. Guest i think the answer to that is, yes, the states can allow noncitizens to vote in state races, but citizens cannot vote in a federal election. Caller the Court Announced host the Court Announced that they are taking up the dhaka term,ecision in the next these children that came in as young immigrants. Set the scene on that. What is the issue at stake . Guest this was a challenge set up a program set up under the obama administration. Not to grant citizenship, but to allow individuals brought here as children to have deportation deferred, be able to get work permits. It has been an incredibly successful program. The Trump Administration decided to terminated because they said it was unlawful. There were a number of challenges brought, and what we have consistently seen from the lower courts is the decision that the program is not unlawful. Towas a lawful exercise determine where to focus Immigration Reform and resources. So the order to terminated cant stand. Host they are taking this up with a decision likely from a year likely in a year from now. Guest im not surprised by it. To fill out a little bit about what she said, the deferred action for child Arrival Program was put in by president obama. He said he was going to do this by executive action, uses phone and pen, the Trump Administration, and authorize this on prosecutorial discretion. One thing a president can do with their phone and pen can undo it pen, another can undo it with their phone and pen. A number of challenges have been asserted and a number of lower courts have frustrated the administration trying to wind down dhaka saying it is arbitrary action. The court has decided to take up whether in fact the Trump Administration can unwind daca the way they have. Even if the issue has been exercised in project or prosecutorial discretion. I was not surprised to see the court taken up. Host logistically, when they announced the case this far in advance, they could take it up. Are they likely to take it up early in the term . They can certainly decide earlier than june 2020. Guest given when it was granted, it will probably be heard at the end of this year. Often the cases that are the most contentious, where there are likely to be multiple opinions, those are the ones that often being decided in june. Host lets get back to calls. Republican line, phoenix. Good morning. Caller good morning. Thank you very much. I have been watching for a little bit, maybe half an hour. I did see the previous section. It seems like everything is being kicked down the road. They can is being kicked down the road, and it seems the , Justice Roberts, is doing one of the same things, some of the same things, kicking the can down the road. There will come a time when people face and confront responsibility. That the senses question is nothing. Theres nothing that can be said about it, except it is illegal legal and very fair to ask about citizenship. This is the responsibility of govern the, to in thethat are legally continental United States, and also the other territories, of course. I will hang up and listen. Thank you and have a great day. Host thank you. I was going to go back to first principles. We talked earlier about the constitutional question in the case. Thats where i disagree with john and the chief justices opinion. The opinion mandates the count of all people in the country, no matter if their citizens were not oro no matter where theyre from. If you look at the history of the constitution, there is evidence throughout the base that this was important to the framers. Just to put a finer point on something john noted earlier, the Citizenship Question has been asked in some form, but not asked in the short form of all respondents for decades. Int is important Context Understanding what a significant change the Trump Administration is proposing, and why experts within the census era thought it could undermine the accuracy of the count. Guest it wasnt a short form and asked of every house up until 1950. Between 1950 and 2010, it was 12, 13, or 15 of households. It does do a count of everybody and asks whether the person is a citizen. It doesnt ask whether they are here illegally. There are lots of people that are lawful permanent residents that live in the country who are not citizens. Answers to census questions are, by law, to be kept confidential. There are reasons on why you would want to know about citizenship. The reason it was offered by sec. Wilbur ross, was that the department of Justice Needs the information to litigate Voting Rights act cases and cases challenging whether there are enough majority minority dish makes districts. There are lots of programs were the beneficiaries have to be United States citizens. The court didnt buy the reason that was offered by secretary ross, but those are the policy reasons in support. Host correct me if im wrong, but the question is out of their hands come out of the court part chains. It is back to the Commerce Department and state cases proceeding in maryland. Guest its a federal case, but we are back to the District Court. Guest i feel fairly confident in a matter of days, it will be back. Here is sydney in alexandria, louisiana on the independent line. Caller i would like one of them to explain to us how the Supreme Court has all this authority to rule laws unconstitutional or constitutional when judged , just took it. They write laws that are so scrambled up that you have a republican read it and think it means one thing, and a democrat means it another. Gobbledygookt this and write a law in plain english . Thank you. Host john malcolm, do you want to tackle the short history of judicial review . Guest there are three branches within the rogue government. The judiciary is meant to provide a check on the congress branch. What Justice Scalia was saying is that, in his view, mine too, the Court Extends itself to reach issues that they deem to be constitutional issues. Justice scalias opinion should have been left for the process. C courts are not supposed to rewrite laws. In reality, they occasionally do. Judges take an oath to defend the constitution and are there to provide impartial justice to all people who appear before them, regardless of political affiliations. Inevitably, ones Life Experiences and approach to the bench, and predilections, sneak into opinions. Its regrettable, but reality. Guest judicial review goes back to the early days of the republic. If you look at the role of the federal courts, the framers created a federal judicial system to serve as a check on illegal action. That is important to understand the gerrymandering case and why the chief justice and the courts majority got it wrong. Tois the role of the courts step in and address unconstitutional actions and extreme partisan gerrymandering, like the one in this case, is an example of that. Host the chief justice and direction of the court, this is among the wrapup pieces, the wall street journal said he moves to the right, and they write even a chief justice who holds the courts ideological center and his formal leadership cannot always retain the reins. In dissent inlf 10 cases which upheld including one that upheld a ban in uranium mining. Also, a lower courts ruling in racial gerrymandering. There were various judges joining judge ruth bader ginsburg. The role of the chief justice in this, is past term. Guest for years we talk about court referring to tony kennedy. I think it is fair to say it is now chief Justice Roberts court. Its worth remembering he is at the center of the court and conservative. He has a conservative record on court, but he has some of theys and other conservatives in the court. In part because of the chief justice caring deeply about the reputation of the court and its legitimacy. He doesnt want judges to be seen at sibley politicians and roads. Watching him this term and in the future will be interesting to see what extent he seems driven by his conservative ideological views or is willing to put those aside and follow the law in the interest of preserving legitimacy of the court. Host john, do you think the with a full convention contention is making more decisions in previous terms. Is chief Justice Roberts steering it in that direction . Guest im not sure he is steering it in that direction. If there were going to be a change, it would be a change in personnel. Is right in the chief justice is right in the center of where the court is. More majority than any other justins in the court other justice in the court in terms of the major ones. He provided the vote in the census case and is the person who kept hour and seminal rock deference. In a case. T live those were two significant cases. In terms of the change from personnel from Justice Kennedy did cavanaugh, it is early days. To justice cavanaugh, it is early days. I would say the following, anaugh has talked about being an originalist and textual list textualist. I dont think they could have set Anthony Kennedy was either of those. Billy wanted me to difference, the one you can only point to was the partisan gerrymandering case. Its a case a number of years ago in which the majority rejected a partisan gerrymandering case. It was Justice Kennedy that was prepared to revisit that if the challengers came up with a formula he thought made sense. That was rejected. I think you could say Justice Kavanaugh made a difference in that case and with respect to the rest, it is early. Host did the newest justice surprise you with any of his decisions or comments and questions from the bench . Guest i dont think this was a surprising year from him. The replacement of Justice Kennedy with he marked a significant change in the court. Justice kennedy was the deciding bunch of whole issues. It is early still. We didnt have most of those issues two for the court this year. There was a case that involved a stay where there was a challenge to a louisiana abortion law that was identical to a texas law that had been struck down a couple of use go of years ago. When the challengers went to the court to ask them to put it on hold, chief Justice Roberts sided with the more liberal members to put it on hold. Justice cavanaugh was on the other side. You can see, even in this term, there was some splintering vanaugh. Cavanaugh ka host we show this chart earlier, how often he agreed h the other justices, justices. From california, we hear from priscilla on our republican line. Caller hi. Im 73 years old, and for many , thees now ive heard United States, had over 320 million citizens in the United States. Ive heard china has 1. 2 billion people there. I think it is my right as an american citizen. I should have a right to know how many citizens are here in the United States. Its one thing to say i am a citizen on the forum, but there is another thing that should say im other or im a noncitizen. I think we have a right to know, as americans, how many citizens are in our country. I see nothing wrong with that. We should know. Like ir countries no say, this has gone back to when i was in college, i always heard it was 320 million. Does either of the guests know approximately how Many American citizens are in the United States . Host we talked a bit about the Citizenship Question. Any further thoughts . Guest i have no idea how many citizens there are in this country. Ive heard estimates that we have 11 to 12 million unlawful aliens here. Aheard that is also dramatically low figure or the figure is much higher, but i have no idea. Guest i dont know the answer either. That there is is information and data the government has about citizens and doesnt necessarily need does not need to use the census to get the information. That was one of the issues in the case, whether the Census Bureau could have used administrative records in order to get the information needed. One of the arguments made by those challenging the addition of this question was that, again, the point of the sentence is not to get to the citizenship data. The part of point of the census is to count all the people in the country. The Census Bureaus own experts reporting this to the will provide less status less accurate data. Host our guests are Brianne Gorod and john malcolm with the Heritage Foundations Institutional Foundation for. Overnment ,emocrats call 202 7488000 republicans call 202 7488001 and all others call 202 7488002. Our next color is from the democrats line. Go ahead. Caller thank you for taking my call. I have a couple of quick comments. One is in reference to accounted made by Justice Roberts. I believe we are taught that Supreme Court should be nonbiased, whether it is republican or democrat. Nobody seems to remember that when they evaluate the particular ruling. Resident of alabama, i heard a lot of comments about abortion and the concerns about the life of the fetus, but nobody seems to be concerned about the fact that every day 22 or current people serving in the military commit suicide. Concerned about the fetus but not the people already living. I want to say one other thing. He law passed in alabama on abortion is ridiculous, given the fact that they are still trying to put a pedophile in office. We in alabama got work to do. Thank you. Host Brianne Gorod, any thoughts . You mentioned the stay against the louisiana abortion law. What might be coming up in the fall . Guest theres a petition for to hear thear th case. It is an issue the court didnt take up in its first issue of composition, but it is likely the court will see some Abortion Case in the near future. One theme of this term has been the court upon street of its existing decisions. You saw this come up in the number of cases that had nothing to do with abortion, but some suggestions it is on all of the justices minds minds. A majority of the court overruled long serving president. Decision said the john malcolm, your thoughts on many themes you picked up . Guest i agree with everything she said. There were several decisions in dissent would in talk about precedent. One concurring opinion in the double jeopardy case, one justice came out and said he thinks it is important to get the constitution right. An intervening court has gotten the constitution wrong, and it is their job to say with the constitution isnt. There were a lot of impassioned views and opinions expressed on how important or not important this is. I agree that the element in the room is roe v. Wade. Host tell us about the role of the Heritage Foundation in terms of their providing input to the president for potential judicial the federal we note society and Heritage Foundation was an important part. They continue to offer the advice to the president . Guest lets step back a little bit. What happened in february of 2016, Justice Scalia died. President trump was one of 17 republicang for nominee had a meeting in washington and the former president of heritage was there and asked whether someone would help him prepare a list of Supreme Court justices, and a senator raised his hands. It came back to heritage and it felt to me to prepare that list, which i did in a blog. I was not furnished to donald trump. It was published by the Heritage Foundation available to bernie ers as it was to donald trump. I had a very short list, 78 names. Was made it to the list, Justice Kavanaugh, and the president was very kind to credit the Justice Department, mainly me, for that decision. I have my own set of contacts, and if there is a vacancy, and if i think somebody would do a good job as a potential nominee, either to the judiciary or executive branch decision, i would forward the name and get an email back thinking me. Sometimes they go along with suggestions and sometimes they dont. Host once the court goes on vacation, and the term ends, any indication of retirements in the upcoming months . Guest i think we wouldve heard by now. When they announce, they announced at the end of the term. I think we have the court for the next year at least. Host lets get back to calls. Fred, a republican call. Caller i disagree with the young ladys statements here because roberts opinion is somewhat puzzling. I wanted to quote the supreme specifically that these questions are a linchpin of the. Ederal system these questions are not unconstitutional. Roberts to me that stepped into the arena and he is trying to anticipate what a question would do and what it might cause. That is not the role of the court according to my studies in the way i was educated. To otherontrast this cases, there is a long record of facts that lead to a conclusion that this is not right as a decision. It wasnt right for decision. There was no record of misuse of this, no record of that. There were problems with skewed resolve. He was anticipating these things and i think his decision was incorrect. I will hold for comment. Host Brianne Gorod . Guest a couple of things. I dont think this was the chief justice trying to anticipate what the effect of the Citizenship Question will be. The Census Bureaus own experts and lysed this question and analyzed there would be a Significant Impact on the accuracy of the count of this question was added. The other thing i would say is that the basis of the chief justices opinion was the conclusion that the rational ,iven to secretary wilbur ross and the secretary is located the rationale he gave was wellsettled and Administrative Law that court can only uphol d administrative actions based on reasons they give. If the reason wasnt true in the chief justice concluded there was a disconnect between the reason given and what the evidence showed, it couldnt stand. To go back quickly to appoint john made earlier, the reason the secretary gave was enforcement of the Voting Rights act. That theh noting Citizenship Question was not on the short form since the Voting Rights act was passed. No one, before now, has thought the inclusion of this question was necessary to fully enforce the Voting Rights act. Guest i would like to respond to that. It was a fractured opinion in the census case. The chief justice, along with the conservative, said it did not violate the constitution to include the question. He also said it was perfectly reasonable and not arbitrary to persist or secretary ross to choose inclusion of that question over the other potential options suggested to him. No one knows how significant it would be, but they estimated there would be a slight undercount. I would disagree with the last thing she said, which is the department of justice does go into Court Cases Involving challenges to districts, and what is something that is constantly handcuffing the Justice Department is that they do not have any sense or an accurate sense of how many citizens are in individual cases. Are if you are trying to district, given the fact only eligible citizens can vote, if you dont know how many eligible citizens are within a particular district, its difficult to craft an accurate majority and minority district. Host heres michael in arkansas on the independent line. Caller good morning. I am a single male household. 2013, my Health Insurance policy was canceled because of the fact that i did not have maternity coverage or pediatric dental or vision. None of which apply to me. Thisd to 5. 6 happen to 5. 6 Million People. When the marketplace went into effect, which in effect, the 5. 6 Million People had to go to, it was swimmingly successful in its First Six Months of operation. Hi felt like the federal government put their boot right on my neck and a lot of other peoples. How are they able to do that . Its the biggest disappointment ive ever had about john roberts. Host going back to the aca decision, how do you want to take that . Guest michael, im sorry you are having these difficulties, and i hope things get better for you. The Obamacare Decision was highly controversial. I think there will be many conservatives as a result who will not forgive chief Justice Roberts in either of the Obamacare Decisions. There are new challenges in light of changes in the tax provision dealing with the individual mandate that undercut the rationale for chief Justice Roberts decision. The constitutionality of obamacare is being litigated again. It is before the fifth Circuit Court of appeals. A federal court in texas struck down obamacare, but stayed his ruling. I think that issue, certainly if obamacare if that Lower Court Decision is upheld by the fifth Circuit Court of appeals, i think the Supreme Court will have to take that case. Talking about the fifth circuit case pending, i agreed john that this is a case that could end up in the court depending on what the fifth circuit does. The fifthgood chance circuit will disagree with the District Court judge. Fervente of the most opponents of the Affordable Care act, individuals part of the initial challenges that made it through the court agreed that the District Court decisions in the case was totally at odds with the law. His decision to strike down the Affordable Care act in its entirety, based on his view of the constitutionality of one provision, the individual mandate. It was at odds without the Supreme Court said courtship engages. That is a question of what courts do and when they can decide a laws unconstitutional. They are supposed to leave the rest intact if they thought that is what congress have done. Here, congress zeroed out the penalty, the shared responsibility tax, but left the mandate and the rest of law standing. Host we talked about the citizenship decision about on the program so far. A question here from one of our viewer cools tweets this. There are other ways to determine the number of citizens we have in the country. Who says we have a right to know how when the citizens we have . Lets hear from robert in atlanta on our democrats line. Good morning. Caller thank you. I wanted to focus on the gerrymandering decision, but put it in the context of what i think is a larger, very troubling issue. Is that concerned about there seems to be a confluence of events leading to a distinct minority controlling the levers of government. You have gerrymandering, voter suppression, Electoral College. If i recall correctly, four of the current Supreme Court on thes, currently court, were nominated by president s who did not get a majority of the votes in the election. I think that is bad for the country when a distinct vocal andrity, represented typified by you, mr. Malcolm, a controls the levers and asserts authority. I wonder where this is going. It cannot be good for our republic when a minority gets the controls of power and subjects the majority to a lot of the stuff that is going on. I would like to hear your comments on that. I see you smirking at my commentary, that is fine. That is sort of the aggressive minority approach that i find very troubling, sort of a smugness about what youre doing. Host we will let john malcolm respond. Guest thank you for your opinion. I was smiling, not smirking, and i respect your views. I disagree with them. I offered my views on partisan gerrymandering, what you call voter suppression. Other people call it voter integrity issues. We could have an hourlong debate about it. I think the Electoral College is very important in terms of making a broadbased making sure a broad base across the country decides the National Elections and not the views of people in new york and los angeles, and in my old stomping grounds of atlanta, where you happen to live. The one thing i will assure you is that i was smirking and enjoy having a civil dialogue. If you want to consider me part shanty con oshenty, theres nothing i can do about that. Guest the courts prior decisions on Voting Rights and democratic issues, i think they do indicate this court has something of a constitutional blind spot when it comes to democracy and in terms of protecting the constitution and recognizing constitution robust protection democracy. This invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights act. It is blessed, purging individuals from the voting rolls. Again, against the backdrop we have, the decision on gerrymandering. This is something that is important to our democracy and something we should all be paying attention to as the courts move forward. Host some political reaction to the gerrymandering case from joe biden who tweeted on that decision. Today, the Supreme Court refused to stop pollution politicians by election by writing election rules for their own decisions. Lets go to the republican line and hear from ruby in texas. Welcome. Caller good morning. Host good morning. Caller how are you . Host doing just fine. Go ahead. Caller i have something to say. The American People better wake up and get rid of these lowlight democrats. They dont have enough sense to pull piss out of a boot with directions on the side. All they are doing is taking our money and making us a third world country. Wes is gods country and have the constitution, rule of law, and it was made before you was ever born. You have no authority to come to america from another country and break our laws and expect us to put up with your damn krapp crap. Some key rulings by the Supreme Court, we have touched on a bunch. The scandalous trademarks ruling, the ruling the court said the First Amendment for bids for the patent and Trademark Office from denying trademarks it deems immoral or scandalous. We cant say the name of the product on air without getting some amount of pushback from certain agencies in the government, but the product name was fuct. We will go from there. Guest this follows up on a couple of cases years ago in which a rock group called the slants filed for a trademark. They struck down certain provisions for offensive trademarks on First Amendment grounds. Here, this clothing designer, whichhe spelling of fuct, stands for phrases you can trust. You can pronounce it and figure out other ways to do it. Was awas in there challenge to another provision that had to do with immoral and scandalous trademarks, and the Supreme Court, as they did in lee versus camps, said there was a First Amendment right to this and suggested various ways in which Congress Might be able to clearlye laws for vulgar or obscene trademarks. The problem with these laws, which is not really of the courts making, is that they are very difficult to enforce. This is the government enforcing them. Any challenges to the cases come up with all sorts of examples where they will Say Something that appears to be picking sides on various political issues, with respect to trademarks. Challengers can come up with examples similar to this fuct trademark that somehow passed muster. The courts said the way the laws currently written is too broad and enforced to generally. Host i was a pretty broad opinion for what i recall. Most of the court agreed this was a majority decision. Guest its a good reminder that we often talk about two to three cases the court is hearing, the real blockbusters, but the Court Decides 70 to 80 really important cases each year that have important implications for people around the country. Its a reminder of how important the Supreme Court is and how important the lower courts are as well. All of these cases in the Supreme Court start in lower courts. Host if you look at the recently completed term and do a scoresheet in your head, you think about who came out on top of federal regulations versus state interests, what would you say . Guest given the Court Decision in gundy, the case about the nondelegation doctrine where a number of members support reconsidering longstanding Supreme Court precedent allowing congress to confer authority on federal agencies as long as they have an intelligible principle to guide these. When you disses her when you consider that decision and the decision john talked about, there is real reason to be worried about what a majority of the court is willing to do in terms of federal regulation. I think that is critically important, because the federal government, federal agencies play a Critical Role in enforcing laws that ensure we have clean air to breathe and water to drink, to ensure consumers are protected, ensure that we are safe and healthy in our work isis. What we have seen over the past several years as a concerted attack on the administer state. Theres a sign from the court that many justices might be willing to take up that mantle. Guest i would recharacterize as she refers to those cases and say there is signs of hope that the Supreme Court will force congress to not pass the buck the unaccountable federal agencies. Also, theres a sign of hope, eventually, courts will get back into the business of having the court determine what the law is in not allowing one of the litigants before them, federal agencies, to put a thumb on the scale in terms of determining what that law is. In terms of federalism, there were two other significant cases, one of which you talked about in which he Supreme Court, three cases, one in which they overruled the precedent and said that a state has sovereign immunities, even if a citizen of another state files a claim against, say mississippi and its city of alabama. They say they would be able to prevent that case from proceeding. The Property Rights case talked ut overruling you go right to federal court to litigate that claim. You dont have to work your way through the state court system and find yourself shutout of a federal court review. Another case had to do with federalist issues with the double jeopardy case brianna talked about. Nne talked about. The dual solvents g dual sovereignty principle said that the state and federal are different sovereigns and they can both assert. Host we have a couple of more calls. We hear from kate next on the independent lined in maryland in maryland. Caller i wanted to discuss the to have theality Supreme Court have limited terms , have the justices have limited terms. I feel like you would get rid of a lot of the partisanship that we are seeing in washington, and would benefit the American People a lot more than what we have in place right now. It would bring little more quality a little more to the decisions being undertaken by the Supreme Court. Thank you. Host she may be referring to comments Bernie Sanders made at the debate about how he would approach in terms of the justices. Any thoughts . Guest theres a lot of discussion about Supreme Court reform. A lot of that grows out of understandable anger and disappointment at what happened in 2016 when president obama nominated mayor garland to the Supreme Court. The republicans in the senate fused to do their job and give him a hearing and hold a vote on his confirmation. Continuedere will be discussion about these proposals, and there should be a lot of focus, in general, on what kind of judges and justices we want. Do we want justices who are going to apply the whole constitution and look to the history of the whole constitution to understand its meaning . Thats what i would hope all of the president ial candidates disseminatebout and who they will elect into this room cream court. Host do you think the president should go ahead and nominate . Guest he is going to end Mitch Mcconnell said the senate would consider it. Anger on bothut sides of the political aisle. There are fans of term limits for Supreme CourtAdjustment Court justices. It would require a constitutional amendment because federal judges are confirmed and have life tenure subject host all federal judges have that . Guest thats correct. They cannot have their compensation reduced. It is designed to give them breathing room so they can be impartial, and they serve for good behavior. They can retire voluntarily and the grim reaper comes to all of us. You cant have a president that says arbitrarily without amending the constitution, your term is done. Host mike is on the democrats line. Caller mr. Malcolm, i have a quick question for you. If the current occupant for the white house loses the next election and refuses to leave because of various excuses he made up, what would be the position, the public position . Guest i cant speak for the Heritage Foundation, but i think it is disrespectful. I can speak for most americans that if it was recognized president legitimately lost the election and he was just saying im not leaving, we are not a third world country and that would not be tolerated. , we talked wrap up about the daca case. Guest that will be one of the most significant cases next term. Term. The court will also be hearing very early a case about whether prohibits discrimination on the basis of Sexual Orientation and gender. Host anything youre looking forward to . Guest both of those. There is a Second Amendment case aca challenge and the court also just added a case amendmentsed blaine where states refused to provide public funds to religious institutions for any reasons. And there interesting cases like the bridge gate case that the court decided to hear that decide the scope of our fraud laws. Host we will have to have you both back for a preview in october. John malcolm with the Heritage Foundation institute, brianne cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up sunday, the news that iran has exceeded its limit on stockpiling uranium, set by the 2015 nuclear deal. To reade new book, how the constitution, and why. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal on sunday morning live at 7 00 eastern time. I am a cold war historian. Friends of mine emailed and said, why do you want to tackle this issue . Marriage, and family. You are jumping into the culture war. Do you really want to do this . Paul kangoruthor will be our guest on sunday, from noon to 2 p. M. Eastern. His books include the spiritual , georgeronald reagon w. Bush, and hillary clinton. Live on book tv on sunday, from noon to 2 00 p. M. Next month, author lee edwards. Watch book tv every weekend on cspan two. Announcer now, justice ruth