Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20161102 : comparem

you can find more information at www.c-span.org. a new survey shows that in most or partners tend to support the same candidate as their significant other. what about you? spouse or partner agree or do you differ in your opinions? tell us about it. if you agree on a candidate, 202-748-8000. if you disagree, 202-748-8001. you can post on our twitter page and post on facebook. pew research center put out a new poll taking a look at spouses and partners, how their significant other feels as well. here is their initial findings. , 78% of registered voters who support donald trump for president said their spouse or partner also intends to vote for trump. just 3% say that partners planning to vote for hillary -- 77% saying their partner also backs the secretary of state compared to just 3% who say their partner is supporting trump. among all registered voters, 85% say they have not argued about the election with their spouse or partner that while just 15% have. you might want to double check that you probably don't know who your wife is voting for. while 45% of married women say they were voting for hillary clinton, only 43% of married men responded that their wives will be casting their ballot for the democratic nominee. with that in mind, your spouse or partner, do you agree or disagree on a political candidate? tell us about life in your household leading up to election day. if you agree on a candidate, 202-748-8000. if you disagree, 202-748-8001. we will take those calls momentarily. a story taking a look at a meeting that took place between james comey and the attorney general over the release of information last friday about a new look at e-mails saying the were not up to rise to speak publicly, described the meeting as cordial saying comey and lynch pledged to work together to resolve new publicly charged-- politically review of thousands of e-mails links to clinton top aide huma abedin. that story in "usa today." our first call is from amy in fairport, new york. she and her spouse or partner disagree on a candidate. amy, go ahead. you are on. host: one of us is always happy on election day. this year come i really hope it is me. host: who are you supporting? caller: hillary clinton. host: and the other one is supporting donald trump? caller: i think he's at the point where he is only going to vote down ballot, cannot bring himself to do that. we don't live in a swing state, so that decision was made easier for him. host: is it tense at this time? is it always been a tense moment between discussions on this nature? we respectfully disagree. i think it's been good for our children to see how people can discuss differing views respectfully. host: jim is in delaware. the household agrees. good morning. caller: good morning. i do come from a mixed marriage -- i'm a married to a democrat. she is for trump this time around. i been a lifelong republican. i just think the swamp in washington needs to be drained. it's america against washington. up.let me put a trump sign did that agreement come early on or did it take convincing? caller: i think she was open to anybody but hillary. she sees hillary as. evil, just like i do. evil, just like i do. she voted for the clintons back in the 1990's. she's been a backsliding democrat ever since then. the transition has been a long and slow one. she has definitely become more conservative the longer we live together. where was she with barack obama back in 2008 and again in 2012? caller: i think she did not like barack obama very much. she saw through him. she remembers when he was promoting himself as a kenyan born united states senator. either not vote for him, . host: where is up from montana on our line for those who disagree. good morning. caller: good morning, america. thank you, c-span, for everything you do. grateful that we disagree, but the most important thing i want to say is please don't believe the lie that voting doesn't count. it's the most important thing you can do. host: talk about your disagreements. where did they lie? caller: my significant other believes voting is completely irrelevant. voting is so important. we just got the vote as women. to the lie that the parties are all the same. get out there and vote. you had some really interesting people on there on the rights --livestock animals this is a topic that is never brought up. it is such a big topic. host: columbus, georgia. .ichael, hi there i'm on disability social security. i know what obama health care has done to me and other seniors. $30cal bills went from from5 that medication went $10 to $40. paul ryan has a plan when trump gets elected. democrat -- my wife's trump.is voting for host: you voted for barack obama in 2008 and 2012? caller: right. we believed his slogan, we need a change. the change was for the worse and not for the better. host: doreen from springfield, new jersey. tell us about your experience in these days. i feel that women who have been personally hurt or rejected by men cannot see any they don't see any of hillary clinton's saying one thing and doing something up with a different because they cannot see past their emotions. most people do. most vote on a motion. seem to be at a bit of a loss, even in new york where i attended a group that meets weekly to discuss politics. they are trying to save money. they don't have cable and they don't have all the facts. host: when it comes to you and your spouse, where do you agree or disagree on candidates? whenr: i told the woman she called that this was regarding me and a friend -- we cannot even talk right now because she is not open to any facts. spouses or partners is what we're interested in. the numbers will be on the screen. another release of information from the fbi, this one going the surprise tweet from a little used fbi account came about 1:00 saying the agency had published 129 pages of internal documents related to a years old investigation into bill clinton's pardon of a fugitive democratic donor. there is more to this story. page @fbirecords vault. catherine from miami florida -- caller: thank you for taking my call. was aband initially hillary supporter, then he said he did not want to vote at all and i finally persuaded him to vote for trump. the turning factor was the health care premium increases just for the two of us come is now over $1600. leak drips are very devious. we had a trump sign in our yard and someone stole the sign. i'm very frustrated about the inability to express your opinion. vote.ne go out and host: west bloomfield, michigan. how are you? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: you say you disagree as far as candidates are concerned? caller: yes, it is putting pressure on a relationship in many ways. i'm just looking forward for it all to end. host: who do you support? caller: he has voted for trump already. he voted for jimmy carter. and i am with hillary. for many reasons. we just don't agree on anything at all. it's putting pressure on a relationship. host: d you avoid the subject altogether? caller: he needs to broaden his scope. my car and will change all my radio stations to all and he neverows listens to npr. he needs to broaden his scope of information. he's only getting his news sources from what i consider right wing extremist news sources. all my conversations fall on deaf ears and he both against his best interests that his and they won'tly even listen to you -- they shut down and tune out. that it'stunate putting pressure on our relationship at this time. it's really unfortunate. i was with reagan. i liked ronald reagan. i thought he was a great president. i liked george bush senior. i consider myself a moderate and i'm with hillary now because she is sensible and experienced. donald trump is a complete fraud. ware will be a nuclear before christmas. talking about the disagreements in her household. the atlantic takes a look at the story looking at married couples and how they vote. either way, it's been working for the grand old party -- taking a look at the current race, the poll from early showed married women breaking 48% for hillary clinton , 40% for donald trump. among married men, trump b beainton -- it clintont. we are interested in hearing your experience. where these areas of disagreement and agreement go to. let us know, 202-748-8000 if you agree on a candidate and 202-748-8001 if you disagree. michael is in lorton, virginia. good morning. go ahead. me and my fiance tentatively agree on trump for now. we were originally voting for bernie. i voted for obama last election. hillary has had quite the history of being the kind of politician that people in this country generally don't like. itple are willing to ignore just because trump is not politically correct. he may be a racist or a sexist -- it's andidates presidential race. they are talking about the policies they are trying to promote themselves to the people they are expecting to vote for them. hillary has had a long history things that would maybe be borderline in politics. trump seems like a rude guy, but it may be better to go all the way with a candidate that may really mess things up -- maybe that will allow people to see the things that really need to change. if we put hillary in office, we may end up with another term of our government. on thenitely agree subject. host: carson in eureka, california. caller: how are you doing this morning? c-span.u for i will keep this quick and prompt. i've already done my voting. as i encouraged my girlfriend do. i encouraged her knowing that she may not agree with me wholeheartedly. we've had lots of discussions concerning politics. this year, i'm voting for trump. she has written in a name. i believe she wrote in paul ryan. we are conservative. the biggest thing we disagree on is thely speaking abortion topic. host: the usual breakdown as far as the nature of your discussion or other topics? caller: that's the thing we discussed the least. wherever we are watching on c-span, she will join in on the conversation and c-span really does utilize the television correctly to start discussions. host: carson in california. puttingrump campaign out a new ad in these days leading up to election day. a large amount of money being spent on ads. here's the latest from the donald trump campaign. the american moment is here. disco choices, two americas decided by you. hillary clinton will keep us on the road to stagnation. fewer jobs, rising crime, america diminished at home and abroad. donald trump will bring the change we need. the choice is yours. poor households that agree -- four households that agree -- for households that agree -- i have to say two things really quick. the program you are involved stuff iir, most of that turn on and listen to for 10 seconds and turn off because it's just the rhetoric and the same old thing and they are knocking down big bucks and they you areir own ideas -- talking to the people. you are not talking about what they think and then what you think they think. you are talking to us. away, but we did agree on a lot of the politics. she doesn't have any idea what's happened. i mentioned to the other gal if she was alive, oh boy, it's just not good. i did not vote for him. i did not vote for them, either. i thought they weren't good then. up until now, it just gets worse and worse and worse. more lies, more innuendo. thing come at the beginning, everyone was against trump. because that is their agenda. host: is donald trump who you are supporting this time around? caller: no doubt about it. he's made a lot of mistakes but he's not a politician. he's a businessman. one of the things people forget about how simple this is that he's not going to know everything. the bottom line is you have to have wise counsel. you have to have a lot of it and you have to listen to what they are saying and go from there. jack on our line for those who agree. caller: thank you for c-span. i believe mr. trump is an unstable person and it's been demonstrably shown through his public statements, which he denies. he attacks everybody who disagrees with him, calls them -- if people understood basic economics 101 about one book,level college they would see that mr. billy -- demonstrably how democratic governments have benefited everybody -- host: this is shared in your house? caller: yes, it is. if you watch the tone of the republican convention, it was attack, attack, attack. thate economics book demonstrates how the economic policies of the democratic party help becoming a citizen. that's the common day citizen. host: jack in michigan. randy in maryland. how do you and your other feel about candidates these days? caller: we agree. my wife is 53 and she never voted. -- sheld listen to me got into it with trump. she asked me, hasn't always been this way -- has it always been this way? we both agree. been in business 31 years, raised seven case. deal with the effects of the borders being open. thatal with the effects of we los -- we lost our health insurance. as far as people talking about nuclear war by december -- trump will not be the president. that's on obama. host: duane is in westfield, wisconsin. the household has a bit of disagreement when it comes to the candidates. tell us about it. girlfriend likes hillary and i go for trump. she doesn't believe nothing is wrong with the system and all that stuff. she doesn't believe what the news says and i do. hillary's got something up on -- she's gott something on everybody so they protect her. i don't understand how president can take air force one and to run airt money force one around to campaign for hillary. it doesn't make sense to me at all. host: front page of "the wall street journal" this morning. the changes of the united states when it comes to areas of diversity. the top of the u.s., what it means for the presidential candidates. the analysis of census data show counties in a distinct cluster saw among thetes fastest influx of nonwhite residents of anywhere in the u.s. we will hear next from michelle in tennessee. she and her other agree on issues. how are you? caller: how are you doing this morning? that both and i agree trump and hillary are terrible. we are voting for gary johnson. we both took the political quiz on isidewith.org. it talked about all the different issues. ours were both gary johnson. the more that we watched him, the more we agree with him. being in tennessee, we are in a big minority here. have you already voted or will you wait until next tuesday? caller: waiting until tuesday. host: on twitter -- if you want to agree or to tell , call usthe agreements on our lines. issues of control of the senate and what happens in the house also as far as the down ballot four are concerned, only o seats needed if hillary wins to change the senate to democratic control. take a look at missouri. this is the "kansas city star." the governor's race even closer. and democrat are tied at 46% each. donald trump leads hillary clinton in misery by 14 points. missouri by 14 points. take a look at the senate race in wisconsin. feingold -- russ while wisconsin was beginning to feel like a state back in play, russ feingold continued the listening tour monday. feingold cited -- as a key component of the state's economy. go to the pages of rollcall. both the current u.s. senator, ron johnson and a member of congress teamed up together for an ad touting both their campaigns. [video clip] >> you might not think a businessman and a lumberjack .ave much in common ron johnson and sean duffy are both hard-working outsiders. they are both fighting for wisconsin families. working their hearts out for you. government waste and corruption and protect second amendment rights. >> we approve this message. the tv and the digital duffy'sl air in sean district. that story in rollcall. go to north carolina, this takes a look at the senate race featuring richard burr, the incumbent republican out of raleigh reporting the north carolina senator is apologizing after he was caught telling republican supporters that he was surprised hillary clinton appeared on the cover of a gun magazine without a bull's-eye on her face. he's locked in a tight race against deborah ross. it was the audio of this obtained by cnn, it features about theng american rifleman in a gun shop -- i was a bit shocked it did not have a bull's-eye on it. burr issued a statement monday afternoon asking the the comment i made was inappropriate and i apologize for it. "washington times" takes a look at the race in new jersey. the house reason new jersey. -- the house race in new jersey. the rights becoming an issue when it comes to this race. mr. garrett reportedly refused to pay dues last year to the house republican campaign committee because it supported a gay candidate. let's go to new jersey. saying he andd his significant other disagree on candidates. thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: good morning. this is real public television. my wife and i disagree. i have my sample ballot in front of me. i was going to write in and in mcmullen. evan mcmullen. i think i will hold my nose and vote for trump. i definitely don't want to vote for mrs. clinton. my wife has not decided whether to vote or not. i'm urging her to vote. host: does she generally support democrats or republicans? caller: she generally supports democrats. we both used to support democrats. i voted for carter and clinton. i was going to vote for president obama on the first election until i found that his vote in the illinois state about children getting medical care -- i decided to vote for mitt romney. host: barbara in chicago on outline for those that agree. agree: my husband and i policy -- has a real his slogans and his policy reflect fascism. for those people who have not , youit, the documentary can find it on netflix -- it's almost as though trump has taken all of his slogans and some of his policies that i don't think he's what a lot of people think he is. they need to watch that documentary. host: cindy from mississippi on outline for those that agree. how are you? ♪ i'm fine. -- caller: i'm fine. my husband voted for barack obama. i'm republican and he was a lifelong democrat. are we agreed at was the judicial system is broken. when we have a corrupt thernment, we feel like corrupt government trickles down to the judicial system. that's where the breakup husband. we are both for trump. we agreed on that. hillary will not make the judicial system better. host: were you looking at the supreme court appointments? caller: yes. without the constitution, you have no freedom. our courts have been corrupted. did you both come to agreement on donald trump early on or did it take some convincing? on.er: early we've been studying the judicial system for years. me especially. trying to figure out just what went wrong. because of the bazaar prosecutions against citizens. we have 500,000 laws on the books. the ministers of justice are not bound by them. we have no rule of law in the u.s. the des moines register reporting this morning that to metro area police officers that he does area police officers two shot and killed -- metro area police officers were shot and killed in an ambush style attack. at 1:30.died he was responding to the scene where the urbandale officer was shot. pat in maryland. on outline line for those who agree. good morning. -- on our line for those who agree. caller: i called on the independent line because i don't have a significant other. lot to couples -- i've watched couples, agreement seems to be happening. i will tell you why so many women are ending up with trump. they want a man who will make a decision -- they are admiring the fact that trump is that weing what a man need a man to run this country. it is sad, but true. host: florida on outline for those who disagree. -- our line for those who disagree. caller: first, i was not going to vote for either one of them because i was quite disappointed with my choices. more and more, i started to lean she hashillary because been doing it for so long. one thing i don't agree with is the fact that trump is such a liar and he is so ignorant. it is hard for me to back that up. i'm a christian. a lot of people do vote towards that because of his stance he claims to be pro-life. i don't think it really matters to him. i don't think he will do anything to change anything in office once he gets there. he does not stand for the things i stand for. shown --nstantly been , he hasng he says constantly been unable to back up the things he says. he says one thing and then doesn't go along with the things he said in the past. he is contradicting himself. every time he says something, he contradicts himself. at least hillary can back up a lot of what she wants to do with some sort of a plan. he keeps saying, believe me, believe me. in my past come anyone who keeps telling you to believe them, don't believe them. host: our line for those who agree -- caller: my husband and i agree because of a court case that esther trump that mr. trumbull have to deal with in the middle of december. it is called jango versus mr. -- that mr.stein trump will have to deal with in the middle of december. doeis called jane versus mr. trump and epstein. mr. trump is accused of raping someone when she was 13. she does not want her name spread around. it's disgusting. it's absolutely disgusting. his wife is a new model. -- was a nude model. is this the kind of first family we want? i don't know how his kids live with this. host: lisa from new york. go ahead. one more chance for lisa. go ahead. you are on. caller: good morning. are in and my husband 100% agreement together. we are voting for hillary. family, the rest of our is not -- it has put a huge divide between our entire family. we cannot talk about politics any longer. to be in raise him agreement with somebody like a donald trump. he is away at college, going to ohio state. i do feel that that has turned him, the great state of ohio. it's a very difficult situation for us right now. an unfortunate situation, but we cannot talk politics in this house. host: do you think that will be resolved after election day? caller: no, i don't. feet in the sand and we do as well. i only hope that this country will make the right decisions about the election -- donald trump is a product. -- is a fraud. he has multiple lawsuits against him. he's against women, he is community. lgbt the media has not gone after him with all of his negative aspects. the democrats have not gone after him with hardball the way he has gone after the democrats. i don't understand. in this family, it has really destroyed a lot of our views toward each other. host: lisa in new york. we will change topics and we will take a look at statements by the donald trump campaign aout the possibility of compromised election, even drawing comparisons between that and what happened with george w. bush in 2000. joining us next is julian zelizer. later on in the program, new york times supreme court reporter adam liptak to discuss state judges who are elected to their positions and to see it they can remain independent in their rulings. that conversation taking place when "washington journal" continues. ♪ i think most of us when we think about winston churchill, we think of the older man sending young men into war. no one knew better and few new ,s well the realities of war the terror and devastation. he said to his mother after his second war, you cannot gild it -- he absolutely new the disaster that war was. muillat talks about the military career of winston churchill. >> he says, give me a regiment. i want to go and fight. he ends up going with a regiment to pretoria on the day it fell to the british. he takes over the prison and he frees the men who have been his in prisonsoners, puts his former jailers and watches as the boer flag is torn down and the union jack is listed in its place. place.ed in its , we areweek on c-span2 featuring political radio programs with national talkshow hosts. , hugh:00 to 9:00 eastern hewitt. thursday from noon to 3:00, tom hartman. on friday from 9:00 a.m. until show.the mike gallagher c-span2.week, live on >> "washington journal" continues. is withlian zelizer princeton university, a history and public affairs professor and also the author of "the fierce urgency of now." thank you for joining us this morning. during this campaign, the donald trump campaign has raised this specter of what happened with the election of 2000 between george w. bush and al gore. can you paint the picture of not only what's been said about it in the context of this campaign but whether there is merit to those comparisons? guest: in 2000, it was a very close election between al gore and parts of the bush. -- george w. bush. there was a dispute about the count in florida, looking at particular ballots in certain counties. what we saw after the election there weress where recounts over contested votes that ultimately ended in a supreme court decision that stopped the recounts. that's very different from what we're hearing today. today, we've heard from donald trump about the idea of a rigged not abouthere it's contested ballots after the election in certain areas, but the entire political system. it's about the entire media being stacked against one candidate over the other. combined with allegations of voter fraud without any evidence that has happened. --re are two very different two very different kinds of issues. recountt gore ended the -- they are different. more about the people involved than the actual voting process. caller: exactly. then, it was about how you count the votes. there were ballots were you cannot see exactly who someone voted for. today, there is one aspect of the voting process that is emerged -- donald trump has argued that there will be a lot of voting fraud in this election. we've heardargument from many conservatives for over a decade now. that's why we have new voter id laws put into place in many states. people will try to vote by saying they are someone they are not, they will claim the identity of dead people. this is something he's warned about and he has called on his supporters to go and monitor on election day to make sure that no such fraud takes place. in 2000, we heard about the infamous hanging chads. now, we have a paper ballot system in play today. caller: the 2000 election exposed some of the inadequacies of how we conduct our voting. it was very archaic is still run by local governments. it was sloppily done in some places. the butterfly ballot dispute in 2000 really focused on some democratic counties in florida where many voters have voted for , patrickm candidate buchanan, even though it was pretty clear that is not who most of these voters wanted to vote for. howaised questions about the ballots are constructed and we saw television coverage during the recounts of local officials trying to figure out who people voted for, looking through a magnifying glass to see if the paper was still singing -- hanging. be conscientious fraud and that that of identity to vote? there's no evidence that this exists on any substantial level. politically, it's been a very potent issue. donald trump has used that. in addition to his broader claims that the entire system is rigged against them. talkinglian zelizer about these comparisons in the modern day with this election, even going back to 2000, examining aspects of that. .emocrats, 202-748-8000 for republicans, 202-748-8001. for independents, 202-748-8002. the legal ramifications of this year's election that's what you -- what dot happen you expect might happen? are there lessons learned as far as the legal process we can gain from the year 2000? areer: both campaigns preparing for any kind of challenges that might take place contestselections, after election day. in 2000, the elections works for an area -- were extraordinarily close. neither candidate was able to reach the electoral college total. that's why the 25 votes in florida mattered so much. ago, it looked like hillary clinton might have a pretty substantial lead. which case the trump campaign manager try to obtain recounts in any close states, but it was -- we don't know if the letter from the fbi the other week will narrow the election and create a much closer outcome. in which case i think both campaigns will be prepared in some of these battleground states to mobilize for a recount. campaigns remember 2000 and they remember the republicans it asjames baker treated a political issue. they thought about how to debate the frame -- frame the debate in the media. they were much more effective than the democrats. the campaigns are not only preparing the legal battle, but thinking of the politics of the postelection. there's the issue of the courts. for many people after 2000, the courts and a lot more political. --ecially the spring court the courts seemed a lot more political. especially the supreme court. the memory of that will shape the legal debates that might unfold. as discrepant are as people think they might be, if this has narrowed, it will be harder to conduct a recount challenge. host: james in virginia on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. on a scale of one to 10, i give you 11 cool points. i love your program. was saying it's actually different with al gore and president bush than it is now because one is being contested in the other is just saying it is rigged. he is trump has said going to contest it if he does not win. he did not say if it was close. he did not say if one state was very close that he said if he does not win, he's going to contest it. that is an issue we need to be addressing. if there is voter fraud in a state that has already caught individuals for voter fraud, does that substantiate what donald trump is saying that there is widespread voter fraud? on the first point, that is true. f al gore spent the final months of the election arguing that this was not going to be a fair election and also saying he would not accept the result if he didn't win -- we did not hear that from al gore. he was talking about social security reform. he was talking about social policy. and theis all unfolded --pute emerged over florida first, the networks were saying that he won in florida and later, fox called it for bush. today, the republican nominee is talking about this being rigged and is being unfair, long before there's any evidence to support that. combined with his claim during the debate that he would not necessarily concede on election night if it seemed that he lost. after the supreme court decision would offer a concession speech. his demeanor was different after this was resolved. might be some fraud, but we have to remember there is very little evidence of systematic butter fraud. a study that looked at how much this happens. it's very small. a handful of examples where there is concrete evidence of this. it's very unlikely at this point that that kind of problem is going to be central after the campaign. the one other issue is hacking. computer voting and whether there's any effort to undermine that. again, that is speculation, not based on evidence that on election day, that would somehow turn the boat. vote.n the host: katie on our republican line. i'd been calling in since the early 1990's. i love c-span. i am going to keep on the subject. i never liked bush. bush did some underhanded things when he was governor here. forook people's properties and all this malls kinds of stuff. i never liked bush. i just thought he was crooked and it was always about the money for the bushes. i think they stole the election from gore. and those are my thoughts on that. host: thank you, katie. caller: that sentiment -- guest: that sentiment comes from the governor of florida at the time was his brother, jeb bush. not only did the bush family have a lot of clout in florida, the republican party was quite powerful and there was some sentiment, usually among democrats, but some republicans that the recount process was not handled well. and the republicans within the state and the bush campaign were essentially in florida in 2000 trying to stop the recount. they were trying to delay and obstruct and they realized the longer they did, the closer they would get to the deadline where decision had to be made. that left a bad taste in the mouth of many americans in both parties that it was not handled well. added to that was the supreme aurt intervening act making decision in december to stop the recount. there were many people, mostly democrats, but some republicans, who thought it was not the right way to handle this. some of that feeling continues to linger. there are some doubt argue that it was unfairly handled. very different that the entire political process nationally is rigged, which is hard in our system. it is so fragmented. this is really about the recount in a particular state being handled poorly. i think it gives rise to those kinds of memories. southlet's hear from carolina. danny is up next. caller: yes, good morning. i think i have a pretty unique perspective on the 2000 florida fiasco because i was working the polls in south carolina at the time. we used the exact same voter machines. withroblem with florida the counties and the basic problem was they were not doing the basic maintenance on the machines. as they were not cleaning up the trays that held the chads. they got so full you cannot punch through. that was the beginning of the problem. added this idea that you had a bunch of people who voted for the wrong person because they thought they were voting for one in voting for someone else is ridiculous. it was clear on those machines how to vote for whoever you wanted to vote for. guest: there are 2 separate issues. the first is the actual process of a voting. 2000.ecame a big issue in how the machines work, how they were handled, how they were maintained. in 2000, it was surprising to many people how antiquated our voting system was. in an age of computers and the internet merging on the scene that we still voted in ways that looked more like the 19th century than the 20th century. this became a discussion after this all ended with calls for reforming the voting process, including electronic voting. in terms of people being confused, it is always hard at this point to understand the intention of what voters were doing. there was substantial evidence that in places like palm county, people have not voted for the person they intended. the reason it was an issue was patrick buchanan was on the ticket, very controversial. he had been associated with anti-semitic statements and organizations and many jewish american voters voted for him. it was unlikely that is who they intended to vote for. this was a heavily democratic aereo. that was one of the issues they gave rise. it was not just in florida. we have learned in many parts of the country how poor the actual machinery of our election process and that is in part because we leave it to local government who is often strapped for cash and did not have the funds they needed or the manpower they needed to have the system.data we have shifted more and more to electronic voting. host: was there ever a resolve of the ballots that were in question? was there ever a result of who would have one? byst: there were recounts newspaper organizations. most of them from what i have seen showed that al gore did have more votes. in awas pretty consistent lot of the findings that came after the election was all -- over. host: democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to -- what i have seen saying thatom trump he trashed the election process that if he he would say he did not win -- the election process is junk. if he doesn't win, but if he does win then it is ok. i think that is a representation me -- the wayl the he has handled himself through his election process. a tabloid type candidate. host: thank you. professor zelizer. guest: that has what has been troubling to some of his opponents and even to some of his supporters that by calling into question the entire process, many trump's supporters will have trouble believing in the legitimacy of the outcome and if he is not the victor. even if he is the winner, and some ways to hear these kinds of statements as a theme, as a closing argument for the campaign would just confirm and strengthen some of the cynicism and distrust many americans have and how in how our political system works. in an area where we have a polarized election, it is hard to get one side to listen the other side and the other side might have legitimate arguments, this idea that in the entire system is not just flawed, not just broken but rigged. it is unfair to create an even more toxic government -- governing environment. as i think the caller was saying , in some ways to undercut for some voters him as a candidate. it is saying i will not follow the rules if i look, but i will follow if i win. some have emerged with the fbi and comey letter. the system seems to were more in his favor than before. some will see it as confusing in which way the rigged system works. teaches atuest princeton university and is the author of "the fierce urgency of us," julian zelizer joining looking at this election and going back to 2000. we will take you back right now. our board conceding after the decision by the supreme court. al gore: moments ago, i spoke to george w. bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president. i promised him i would not call him back this time. i offered to meet with him as soon as possible so we could start to heal the division of the campaigns and the contest we just passed. almost a century to half ago, stephen douglas told abraham lincoln, who just defeated him, partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. i am with you, mr. president. in it same spirit, i say to president-elect bush, what remains ranker must be put aside and may god bless his stewardship of this country. neither he nor i anticipated this long and difficult road. neither of us wanted it to happen. yet it came and now it has ended. resolved as it must be resolved through our democracy. over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed "not under man but under god and law." ,hat is the ruling principle the source of our democratic liberties pretty i tried to make it my guide as it has guided american deliberations of the complex issues of the past five weeks. the u.s. supreme court has spoken. let there be no doubt -- well i strongly disagree with the court's decision, i excepted. i except the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next monday. tonight for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, i offer my concession. host: professor zelizer, analysis of that from al gore. guest: it is a pretty remarkable speech. if you remember the moment, he references his early concession call, which is on the night of the election. what happens is about 2:16 in the morning, fox news called it for george w. bush, called florida for bush and all of the networks followed. gorecame clear after al had offered a concession that it was not settled yet. gore talked to bush and said circumstances have changed and a very tense interaction between them when bush is saying the governor, his brother, called it and it was over. gore said they would have to have a recount to figure out what the vote was area he referenced in the speech with a joke. --e broadly, the joke was the speech was hard for many democrats. many do not accept what the supreme court had done. they believed the recount should continue until we had full knowledge of won the vote. al gore decided what was most important was protecting the political process, stopping the fight, sending a signal to democrats and republicans that he was done and he would accept the legitimacy of the decision that he did not agree with. for hisof the call supporters and the country to think of the values, patriotism rather than partisanship. that will not work very well in the next few years. at least for the moment, it did. that concession was enormously important. although it comes on while after the actual election day to place , it was soon after the supreme court decision and was an important moment many historians certainly will consider of leadership for the person in the end lost the election. it was very important in healing temporarily some of the wounds that emerged. , massachusetts, independent line. trump, hesay with says it is a rigged election. can, i can take money that he had collected from insurance, billions of dollars and say i can. them because iy can. i am entitled to that. muscleman because i can. pull apart in the handicapped because i can. i can man. he turns around and talk about women badly because i can. where does it stop to this man? i am telling you right now, i can take him apart. goodbye. guest: thessor? fundamental critique, many critiques that donald trump has heard and has been criticized for many things but with the rigged election in addition to calling digital question the legitimacy of our political system before there is any evidence that any problems exist of the kind he is talking about. we have many issues were our political system can be reformed. there is an ongoing discussion about whether he understands the limit of power and our political system. that is why the idea of a concession speech is so important. the idea of accepting the outcome is so important. as a candidate, you understand if you do lose, that is it and you have to accept the results and the new leader of the country. it is not new with donald trump. he was part of the birther movement in 2011, which people consider a similar kind of argument raising questions about the legitimacy of our president, the person who is in the white house through arguments about where he was born. i think this is the danger that people fear and they connect it to a broader outlook he has about how he handles all kinds of issues for business to his personal life and now politics. host: california, democrats line. caller: i have a couple of questions. expect to haves people such as yourself say that we have fair elections when we side andhe democratic for the primary had a news bc -- nbc callin the election for california the day before for hillary clinton, knowing the polls do not close until 7 p.m. on the west coast? that type of behavior in the -- beingsenting partieses for certain and corporations instead of seeing the citizen as the most important piece of democracy as being a fair process. --the primary, they called there were ballots that had still not been counted when it they gave the delegates to hillary clinton. within day, for me alameda county, my ballot stub from your ballot, the part you keep for yourself to check and see if your vote was counted, to this day, my vote has never been counted. host: thank you. guest: we have to distinguish ofween the arguments we have accusing the whole system in a coordinated fashion being rigged from real problems that exist in our election process. some of which is the caller talked about and others which others have mentioned. a finance system that many people urgently feel needs to be corrected because there is too much private money flowing into campaigns and candidates are forced to constantly asking for the funding they need to run advertisements and the organizations that they need to win. we have talked about allocation -- allegations of voter fraud. the real problems many people eating our though voter fraud met -- many people think our though voter fraud mechanisms that has led to the disenfranchisement of voters. often at this might fall hardest on a disadvantage communities, latino, african-american, where some of these ideologues -- id laws and mechanisms might dissuade people from voting. there are problems in how the media covers elections. there are issues that have been ways on which contests are called. this is part of 2000. one of the argument is fox should not have called it election for george bush in the early morning hours. it was not clear. a network that is more conservative than others, the other networks followed quickly. many people said why didn't they do that, they made a collective mistake. they framed the 2000 election as george w. bush has won and al gore was going to contest then an election night where nothing had yet been resolved and nobody won. many problems with our system. many of the mechanisms we use in counties to vote and we need to have a discussion and talk about reform. are serious policy issues that cannot be pushed aside nor should they be ignored. afraid to connect to the kind of arguments about a rigged election which people do not want to engage in. those are serious questions. a lot of of interest and discussion about reform. it was a pillar of bernie sanders campaign, how financing works is skewing and breaking our political system. host: caffe in delaware, republican line. caller: good morning. --ill give you three just basic reasons why trump has legitimate complaint. obama lied about knowing when he clinton's emails. loretta lynch met with bill , that has the appearance of total corruption. brazille send questions to hillary clinton before the debate. has had to trump deal with the most corrupt government that i have ever seen in my lifetime. i am retired. i have to go all the way back to nixon to see such corruption in our federal government. it is just a deplorable. host: thank you. what is remarkable about the obama administration's ,egacy at this point, the issue the scandal, the allegations of corruption are actually far fewer than we have have -- had a in a longistrations time. there has been much less evidence. even with the toxic, partisan environment we have in washington than president clinton even under president bush. i am not sure the comparison with watergate is really fair simply on the measure of how many instances there have been of actual corruption. obviously in the severity of what we're talking about, there is a lot we do not know in terms of how this e-mail issue has been handled. it is too early to tell what happened on the inside. at least in the end, the fbi director, through his letter, sent the political winds in favor of donald trump. weeks, thel administration has not ended up working in favor of hillary clinton. actually the opposite. this is not an administration where there's a big record of corruption. there are a lot of other issues that people point to where they disagree with the president's policies overseas or health care. they do not like him personally, but corruption, it is not the scale and scope we have seen in previous administrations. host: our guest to talk about these comparisons between two 2000 and potentially -- and potentially with the election next week, julian zelizer. take us back to 2000 for george bush. part of his acceptance beach. we will play a little bit of it. -- part of his acceptance speech. our country is bent through a longer trying period. foroutcome not finalized longer than any of us could have imagined. vice president gore put our hearts in hopes into our campaigns. we both gave it our all. we share similar emotions. thiserstand how difficult moment must be for vice president gore and his family. he has a distinguished record as a congressman, a senator and a vice president. this evening i received a gracious call from the vice president. we agreed to meet early next week in washington. we agreed to do our best to heal our country after this hard-fought contest. all of, i want to thank the thousands of volunteers and campaign workers who worked so hard on my behalf. i also salute the vice president and his supporters for waging a spirited campaign. that thank him for a call i know is difficult to make. the vice i wish president as senator lieberman and his family the best. i have a lot to be thankful for tonight. i am thankful for america. and thankful we were able to resolve our electoral differences in a peaceful way. host: professor, what about that -- what you gain from that? guest: obviously, his central message was one of reconciliation. he does not ignore the bitterness and anger that existed nor does he totally ignore what happened. he is in that speech reaching down to al gore, to the democrats and asking the nation to move beyond what it had to live through through a very difficult few weeks. it was strategic. the big question after 2000 was how do president-elect bush govern after what happened. whoe were many democrats did not believe the outcome was the right one. the process had been handled poorly and the supreme court with the majority of conservative justice had unfairly stopped the recount process. that message was important to personally and politically because he wanted to set up the first year where he was going to govern aggressively despite not having a mandate. it is a really remarkable first year in that respect with policies like no child left behind where he is not hesitant early on to star governing and push forward his agenda even after the way election unfolded. that speech is an early effort to send a signal he was going to move and his administration was going to move beyond all of the controversy of the election and the recounts. host: gary in indiana. morning, c-span, your guest. all i have to say about that outcome 60 years ago -- 16 years ago. speech,tage of bush's if i had been mr. gore, i am not sure i would've been such a good work about it. douglas' talk about -- what was it -- oh, shoot. patriotism over partisanship. the supreme court's decision was over partisanship -- patriotism damn it. gore was president there might not have been a 9/11. guest: some of the sentiment that still exists. frustrated with al gore during the recount process, they felt the democrats were not tough enough. the republicans handled it as a political issue and understood the way the recount happened and to the way it was talked about in front of the media and the way they strategically talked about the timeline in politics that would ensue down the investigation was much better than the democrats who the writer jeff said it was a legal issue than political. and at the end, it was a losing way in which to handle this. whoe were some democrats was not happy that gore was conceding. they thought it should continue. gore disagreed. he did not want to create a constitutional crisis. he did not want to put the nation and ongoing period of jeopardy. he felt the last battle had been fought. he made the decision. remembering there were many supporters who did not agree he should do it. it reflected a broader problem with the democratic strategy during those weeks. that is important going through 2016. since then, democrats and republicans prepare methodically for election challenge. they have legal teams and money to support legal teams in case recount should happen. they remember 2000 and think through what the political strategy will be if there any electoral college loaded states where there is the ability to contest the vote and how they will do it. the political strategy for doing that. election day is just one part of the process. i think there is an ongoing legacy that has really reshaped the campaign. it has kept to the issue of the vote on the table. that is why you have these heated battles over voter id laws. there are many democrats who have been very opposed to vote a restriction mechanisms that have been put into place for the requirement of different kinds of identification when you go to vote two states who have made it harder to vote by registration or limiting early voting. many democrats thinking of the lesson of 2000, every vote should count and we should make it easier not harder to vote. it still shapes our conversations. host: julian zelizer at princeton university. the author of "the fierce urgency of now." thank you for your time. look at thel take a topic of state supreme court judges and if they are elected to the position, can they be swayed by political allegiance? adam liptak will look at that and tell us more. later, native american protesters are gathering in north dakota. gilmer will ben here. >> i did research information because this is the case with a lot of pieces that will be done. mental illness especially. it is a complicated issue. it is not black and white. a bigto research to get knowledge of what i wanted to do. there is a lot of -- it is so complicated, i cannot talk about it all in five-evan minutes. -- 5-70 minutes. >> before i started interviewing internet ande started shooting, i researched the topic. .his my dad's pharmacy i talked to my mom and her colleagues and coworkers. i did internet research. toa lot of internet research find facts and data and statistics about employment of debate --tal disabilities and see what was going on. most of the information came from government funded websites and that is how i knew most of the information i was getting was legitimate. --ouncer: this year's theme what is the most urgent issue for the president and congress to address? our competition is open to all middle school and high school students per $100,000 awarded in prices. compete alone or in groups of three. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded in shared between 150 students and 53 teachers. of $5,000 will go to the student or attain with the overall best project. information, go to our website. is adam liptaks of "the new york times" and he covers the supreme court. he talks about judges. can you give us a sense of how many positions or judge variety? of an elected excuse me.guest: and the states, almost all judges are elected. and at the federal system, judges are appointed. that is what most of the world does. the point that electing judges is foreign to the rest of the world. they think we are weirder to do that. and the states, they think it is important -- excuse me. -- they think we are weird to do that. on the statewide system, generally they have to face an election. guest: we want our judges to be independent. they are appointed for life and we hope they make fair-minded judgments on the law unaffected by politix. in the states, it varies. 39 states elect most or all of their -- some or most other judges. we want them to be accountable. that is a different way to run a railroad to how the rest of the world does. you might think you want them to be independent of political currents. you would think that were beholden to the people who elected them or topics important to them? guest: two studies show there is truth in that. one shows judges tim tebow in the direction their campaign contributor would like to them. that does not mean they are changing their positions. another study shows elected crime will be tough on and a tall for on crime -- and tougher on crime the closer the election comes. they are more likely to impose a death this -- sentence as election comes. if it isrue even businesses trying to put judges on poor sympathy that it to business interests. you see studies showing them changing their position as elections approach. i think almost everybody would agree that is troubling. host: not only on criminal justice side, one studies show what they do in reaction to gay rights. guest: a recent study shows elected judges were more hostile to gay rights than appointed judges. that is not to say that one or other is the correct answer. the fact that they are different is some cause for concern. we like to think of judges as coming up with the right legal answers and looking at the material unaffected by other factors. there are some people say electing judges are better. -- a some people say that about appointing judges. they may be cronies. it is not as the appointed judges are immune from influence. we have two very different systems. host: our guest talking about the result they mention at the beginning. be on the screen and you can pick the one that best represents you. adam liptak covers the supreme court, here to talk about these issues. when it comes to elected officials, what is the sense of transparency about whom back the judge, how much money they get? how much information is available? guest: it varies by state. the same kinds of concerns about money in politics we have four officials like lawmakers is now bled into elected judges. now,shington state just people unhappy about the ruling about charter schools per it may be right, it may be wrong, who knows. money pours into the election to try to replace judges who voted one way or another. way's probably not the people like to think about the judicial system subject to influence by rich people who do not like the decision a judge has made. in iowa, three justices were ousted after a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. they presumably made it on their best understanding of the law. because it was politically unpopular, they lost their job. it might make the next judge reluctant if there's a chance you will lose your job. host: we have calls to talk about the independence of judges. beal is up first. bill is from new jersey on the line for independence. good morning. caller: the question i have is this week, two sitting united senators, mccain and ted cruz made statements saying if the republicans do not control the senate and hillary clinton is elected to the white house, it does not matter who she nominates, they will not confirm them. i find that very troubling. is a little bit surprising. i am not sure everybody predicted we would be almost a year into president obama nominee, merrick garland, not getting the hearing. this really branches of the distinguishede 2 republican senators saying they will not let anybody on the bench that hillary clinton elects. if theng we can say is democrats retake the senate, these kinds of comments on the republican side will almost mean certainly the democrats will blow up the filibuster rule. i'm not sure if everybody thinks that is a good ink. -- good thing. i was just wondering why since the supreme court is a third and equal part of a government, why have we heard nothing from them about recommendations on appointing anyone to fill the leah spot? scalia's spot? guest: ginsburg said she hoped they would world. scalia's-- before death, robert said he thought that the process was much too affected by politics. kagan and sotomayor were all highly qualified and why that was not the only consideration taken into account. both for justice scalia's death, qualifiedrts said a candidate should not only get a hearing will be confirmed. host: you are on with our guest. caller: hello? thank you so much. thank you for c-span. i am concerned about our supreme court. when i first called in, i have been a loft lying -- lifelong democrat. i've switched to the republican party. for that very reason. ginsburg can bader talk about our political atmosphere, they are supposed to be nonbiased and do nothing but protect our constitution. and i think that was wrong. and i am voting republican. i want to save our supreme court so that we do not have this bias i want to republican in their for several reasons. i believe our christianity is under attack. our right to bear arms and protect unborn children. justice ginsburg -- guest: justice ginsburg made comments about donald trump and she said she made mistakes and justices should not comment about nominees. host: how much of a political issue has it been this cycle? -- guest: i thought we would get more in the election. the next couple of appointments will reshape the court. if you have for the first time in many decades a court dominated by democratic appointees as it is a recently likely prospect, you will see a different court. host: how is the core functioning with eight? guest: it is not great. they deadlocked in 4 cases, 2 quite important. not a terribly high percentage but not what we want. in some cases where they did not do a lot, they might as well had because the opinion was so model dled and narrowud that it did not give people an answer. with a couple of major exceptions, this is not a highly , fully empowered third branch of government at the moment. host: david from kentucky. go ahead. caller: good morning on c-span. court to ask the supreme courtsoverride all other . we have condition in kentucky, jim davis down in morehead, gays a licensed to marry. the supreme court said we were all created equal area and the bible, the lady who commented before i commented on religion. the bible goes back and says we are all created equal. i am not for the days -- gays. else, gay or what ever, i am definitely not for they get if forgiveness, they are ok with me. shouldreme court override all other courts decisions. thet: the supreme court is final arm of federal law, the supreme law of the land. if the supreme court says the same-sex marriage is recognized by the constitution, then state officials have to follow that mandate. host: we started talking about state supreme court justice. humidity get and taken off of them because of the supreme court decision? guest: it seems easier. if they were saying i am doing what the u.s. supreme court tells me, it makes the state supreme court justices' lives easier. was chief judge of the alabama supreme court and he also got crossways with the u.s. supreme court over same-sex marriage. the disciplinary board suspended him for the balance of his term on the same grounds. we do not know everything about the structure of government. supreme court decides what the constitution says. the constitution is the supreme law of the land. host: if you are elected to a judgeship, was the likelihood you will see -- what is the likelihood you will see reelection? guest: incumbents seem to do fairly well. if massive amounts of money are rolled out to the polls somebody , and it does. people with credentials sometimes get on to state supreme court's. on the u.s. supreme court, we have very accomplished judges and lawyers and people whose academics and professional credentials are not in dispute. that is not the case on every state supreme court. that kind of temperament and that might make you a good judge , solitary, withdrawn, is not the same that makes you a good politician. to run for state supreme court, you have to be a good politician. host: do you see outside groups coming in with money and support? guest: yes, it is more and more common. typically businesses who want to reform. they will put quite a large -- fairly large money into tv advertising. even if it is not effective, it peoples'affects reviews of whether courts are functioning well and independently if all they are hearing is that so is so let a child molester lose. host: republican line. you are on. bill from pittsburgh? caller: thank you. much about local and the state judges. the main thing i am calling about this to point out that in my earlier life when i was watching the supreme court, deliberations, it was clear that congress gave reasonable efforts to the president and a matter of challenging on qualifications only. that does not mean there was not a political background to it. it was the standard. then, we had at the hanging of a judge. the entire process of the supreme court became a matter of one political group desperately doing everything they possibly could to keep them off the court. was followed by justice thomas. and suddenly, it became very group would fight nail for knelt -- their political view. it has been open season. host: thank you. it was a transformative moment in modern american judicial appointments. the judge, everybody agreed, qualified in a credentials since and thought to be. when he went down, that's really changed the landscape. the clarence thomas hearings, his qualifications were not that high and then there was sexual harassment allegations. there were other nominees who went on by overwhelming votes. history,'splicated but the viewer's general point correct -- but the viewer's general point is correct, it is much more of a political fight. president be their did not only look at ideology, sometimes they put a crony on, sometimes who was thought to be right for the catholic or jewish seat. there were many considerations. gerald ford was said to of told his attorney general, "find me the best lawyer." the general point is right, in an era where it is a highly politicized the battlefield and that's probably not good for court. host: walter is up next. caller: yes, i would like to is they talkroblem about the gay rights. they are not reading the right book. hello? i guess you are referring to the bible. that's a good way if you want to religious judgment. the constitution if you want to make a legal judgment. topics, theous election process if they are dealing with gay rights -- gay marriage. will vary by state and case. sure. all of the contemporary social controversies run through the law. just as supreme court deals with it, so do they judges. -- state judges. state cousin to just do not always have the provisions. host: you talk about business groups. guest: i do not see as much but cause of not have the same resources and that is not where they are allocating the resources. host: from maryland, independent line. you're on with our guests, adam liptak. caller: hello? my point is when the president nominated supreme court justice and mitch mcconnell denying him. people have the right, the constitution says, the people have the right to petition him and give him the authority to nominate and appoint the judge on his own. isst: i am not sure that exactly right. what the constitution says is the president has the power of nominate and with the consent of the senate to nominate. most he was saying that means the senate has to consent and has to decide to consent for the appointment to go forward. if it with holes consent, it will not go forward. you cannot deny an appointment or this what we are seeing, you can decide not have the process at all and denied the appointment. the senate has a role. host: what is the possibility if hillary clinton wins that merrick garland becomes of interest amongst republicans and the senate to get some nominated? guest: there are two ways. rational republican, the moment hillary clinton is appointed should confirm merrick garland that afternoon because he is old, he is moderate, the best that are going to do. the other thing is to take the republicans after their word. they said they will not to do a lame duck. some republicans are saying they will not confirm anybody. i do not know what happened in a lame-duck. it is possible that a new president clinton were to say in the intersection after the new senate comes in but while president obama is still president she has no problem with the merrick garland appointment. it could happen then. she is free to renominate. she has kind of talked around that issue. , is he ofick garland concern because of his stance or because of his nomination by the president? guest: more the latter. very little evidence. the overwhelming evidence is he is a highly capable, very moderate democratic appointee. if he comes on the court, he will link to the left of antique -- anthony kennedy. him and stephen breyer will become the swing. that moves the court to the left. republicans are not crazy to think it is something they are happy about. host: from a new york, independent line. jerry is next. caller: i have three perspectives. how did all of the federal to the same opinion regarding homosexual marriage at the same time if the they were not politically minded? the second to think is, i think of the court is better having eight people. they will have to struggle with the same kind of issues the rest of the government's. in some ways, having eight is a lot better. well those are the two main things. host: thank you. guest: if all of the judges came out at the same why does say way, it could be evidence that is what the law required. the decision on same-sex marriage was 5-4. not a situation where they all came out the same. whether eight is better, a small school of thought. you hear people saying it is for the good and it might make the court to work harder for consensus. it might mean they decide less stuff. why it isreason almost always an odd number. it is not very satisfying to have deadlocks. host: republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the accountability. elected by politicians and they seem to take the politicians sides. case in point of obamacare, obama regime. they are not a fan of the basic constitution. how do we hold them accountable? they are elected by officials. the judge decides whatever is the community. how can these people be held accountable? guest: in the federal system, it is not easy to hold them accountable. the design. of we want them to have some level of independence. you mentioned the affordable care act. talking about the 2012 version. so did chief justice john roberts. host: independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a comment. we put too much emphasis on the supreme court and the presidential elections. we need to pay attention what is going on in our states. ,y neighboring state of kansas they came out yesterday that governor brownback is giving his money from his super pac to an antiabortion pack. right, should pay more attention money play necessary them. this morning is adam liptak. next, democrat line, you are on with our guest. good morning. comment and a question. when a decision goes the way we think it should go, we are all up in arms when it doesn't go our way. the question is, can the president, the next president, fill axecutive action to court? thank you, c-span. the short answer is no. the constitution is fairly clear on the w justices get supreme court, whether you are happy or unhappy with the the president can nominate and with the consent of the senate appoint. may well try to and hillary clinton has talked about this, put justices on who will particular way. justices have been known to surprise their appointing instance, but for hillary clinton has made it pretty clear she will try to ind nominees who will be committed to overruling, for nstance, citizens united, the campaign finance decision. host: from tom in euless, texas, line.lican tom, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span, call.you for taking my r. liptak, he said the supreme the is ash arbitrator of law and lower courts are obligated to follow what the supreme court said. f kennedy, ginburg, sotomayor ere to declare a homosexual father have a constitutional right to marry each other all at time, does mr. liptak obligatedate would be to recognize that lawlessness and if not, why not? guest: you know, that hypo tottical question, not going come before the supreme court, i don't retreat from the general roposition that as to matters of federal constitutional law, in our system, as it evolved centuries, the united states supreme court is the federal d and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. adam liptak recently wrote profile of one of the court's -- justices nown because of what he doesn't say on the court, clarence thomas. us about what you found out about him. guest: people have misimpression clarence thomas. he doesn't ask questions very often and went for entire decade, incredible modern record of not asking single question from the bench. he is a metimes think withdrawn, sullen, isden aged man. at all. around the courthouse, he's beloved, gre garruous, big, laugh, knows the names of every single worker at the court from the elevator operator cafeteria worker. and he is very, very engaged in his work. he has a -- how shall i put this? the ynchratic view of constitution, he's deeply committed to the original nderstanding of the constitution at the time it was written. attracts five votes for his position, that doesn't mean he is not a serious, capable judge. why does he not ask a lot of question? of t: he's given a lot different answers, it is a moving target. he's lately said he thinks the asks too many questions, interrupts the lawyers too much. and letuld be courteous the lawyers make their case. it is true, it is a hot bench, put it.rs on the other hand, by the time to court, there have been elaborate briefs and it is an opportunity for the ask questions of lawyers to get a conversation going among themselves and i unfortunate s justice thomas was a good questioner when he asks question ystem not part of the conversation. host: he was at the heritage found sxagz had a chance to talk of t the process confirmation when it comes to the court. the statement from then. >> the city is broken in some been here now, i've now most of my adult -- most of and the -- i think hat we have become very comfortable with not thinking debating ough and things, that is one thing i love about the court, you can about y talk to people things. and i think that we have decided rather than confront the disagreements and the ifferences of opinion, we'll just simply aniaalate the person me. disagrees with i don't think that is going to work, i don't think that is oing to work in republic or civil society. to ome point, we have got recognize that we're destroying our institutions and we're undermining our institutions. and the -- we're going to them, the day is going to come, if it is not already need the we institution and the integrity of the institution. ven when you disagree with people, notice in my opinions, i on't attack personally my colleagues. i disagree with them strongly ecause i think it is fortunate for me to leave them standing and leave the institution sharply have the contrast and the points of view. going on't think that is to change in the city until we get back to sort of a notion a unit, we debate and decide things based on logic fact and reason as opposed to who yells the loudest or who narrative or best name or some other nonsense. justice.from the what do you take away from that? guest: the toning was last sting, that was wednesday night. on thursday, the day after, the reported aw journal fresh allegations of sexual misconduct against justice thomas, the accusation was in 1999 he groped a young woman at a dinner party. what was interesting was that the national law journal already thomas out to justice for comment before he made the statement. it is hard not to understand the statement about, this town is broken, when you disagree with anhialate try to them, that was in response to of accusation of sexual misconduct following harassment accusations rofessor anita hill came forward with when justice thomas was being confirmed for his position. thomas probably holds these view necessary general that we're in trouble partisan 've turned and nasty, they probably also the in the context of particular allegation. host: if you want to see that c-span.org, go to and listen to the justice's total.s in richard from south carolina, independent line, go ahead, next. caller: hello. i'm you for c-span and calling about the pennsylvania supreme court. there was a woman attorney general forced to resign because f some actions she it and she leaked something about pornography on private e-mails, e-mails again, and she spent ike or democrats $10 million in the next supreme supreme court r election and pretty much dropped bought the next supreme court justice by outspending republicans, i'd like you to comment on that and i'll hangup and listen to your response. bye. guest: it is hard to know how effective campaign advertising effective bably is and that situation in pennsylvania is an illustration the fact that along with the accountability we get, which may good thing electing judges, we have influence of campaign cash. maine, republican line, william, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. problem with ve a is when donald trump was saying rigged and as corrupt and then all of a sudden , because the oversight guns on , the top there, i believe have been doing power, not leaking that out, i don't think that was fair to be done. a lot of issues i called up on judicial watch to have checked thought was a concern because we should be seeing and he rump's taxes keeps claiming the media wants the no, i think more like voters want to know. host: okay, william. far from hink we are our topic here. interesting comments. ost: elmore, jackson, tennessee, democrats line, hi. having me.nk you for y concern is that when the -- when justices issues defending legal council t in my concern is when chief ustice robertson and three others descend in the same-sex marriage case, chief justice roberts says legitimacy of the court power is confined to the rule of the law. on and said that the decision is same-sex marriage do with nothing to legal judgment, it was an act of instead of dealing with the rule of law. my concern is that legal council to all the other federal judges and should we be able to deal that if the chief justice of the united states, which he id, make those type of comments? what do we do now? dissenting opinion is not law. the chief justice would be first to acknowledge the majority is law and must be followed, however, frustrating is, that judge dissenting judge knows that will some day someone adopt his or her reason nothing a future decision, but the counts, the ion dissenting opinion is just writing. the supreme cases, court will hear, adam liptak regarding ase transgender bathrooms, can you provide context? probably the biggest case of the term right now. he case is whether virginia school board could stop a transgender boy, a young person girl, but n a identifies as a boy, from using restroom. and relying on guidance from the administration, the courts have said that yes, this boy, grim, must be allowed to use the boy's bathroom. supreme court.e first time they decided to get into the new frontier of transgender rights. it arises in this kind of administrative law question of well, title ix says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex. administration says on the basis of sex has to be read transgender to individuals and the court will try to decide whether the obama to do tration was free that. all of that said, if you step back, this will be the court's with what seems to be the next step in kind of rights march and it will e very interesting, particularly interest figure it is heard by an eight-member court. it could affect decisions made in north carolina on similar nature? guest: yes. although there are case necessary north carolina and texas that raise slightly ifferent issues, but in general, the court is likely to influence the entire debate. texas, rachel, good morning, you are on with our guest. you know the -- issue, that has been years they in front of the supreme court. i just wonder, does it have they ng to do with when decide to rule on any of this? during the obama administration, the supreme court decide when is they will rule on this, just the prayer was taken out of the schools, that was kennedy time, seems things like islike it is when the democrats in issue, like the prayer does the supreme court, is it the decision or president's decision, when they rule on certain things? question.eresting maybe it is a bit of coincidence, two things have nothing to do with each other. the supreme court decides when it will hear a case and it going to en it is issue an opinion and who is the president has nothing to do with it. i suppose you could imagine a case where the federal government representing the administration in question would try to bring a case to the court and get a decision on something. on prayer ou mention and same-sex marriage were independent of who was the time.ent at the host: next from brenda and she's n tallahassee, florida, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. s would just like to say there truly is a supreme court and the jesus christ really is supreme judge of that court. want to of people forget that and -- but it is a peopleportant thing that need to remember. to think t is one way about the state of our world, but it is not the way the framof

Related Keywords

Montana , United States , Alabama , Alameda County , California , Arlington , Texas , Sioux , North Carolina , Valley Center , Delaware , Minnesota , Fairport , New York , Virginia School , Maine , Russia , Princeton University , New Jersey , Connecticut , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Iowa , Spain , Chicago , Illinois , Rochester , Miami , Florida , Canada , Georgia , Missouri River , Missouri , Indian Land , Pennsylvania , Springfield , Washington , Raleigh , West Bloomfield , Urbandale , Kentucky , Indiana , Columbus , Ohio , Virginia , Wisconsin , Stockton , Oregon , Michigan , Chapel Hill , Mississippi , United Kingdom , Oklahoma , Kenya , Tennessee , South Dakota , Pretoria , Gauteng , South Africa , Colorado , Maryland , Kansas , Orlando , Dam Lake , North Dakota , Americans , America , British , American , Spaniard , Kenyan , Winston Churchill , Jim Davis , John Hogan , Ellen Gilmer , Tom Hartman , Ronald Reagan , James Taylor , George Bush , Loretta Lynch , Gary Johnson , Ron Johnson , James Baker , Richard Burr , Hillary Clinton , Obamacare Obama , Stephen Breyer , Sean Duffy , Jane Doe , Clarence Thomas , Huma Abedin , Tim Tebow , Mitt Romney , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Leah Scalia , Anthony Kennedy , Mike Gallagher , Al Gore , Alex Jones , Adam Liptak , Roy Moore , Paul Ryan , Anita Hill , Evan Mcmullen , Bernie Sanders , John Roberts , Jesse Jackson , Julian Zelizer , Hugh Hewitt , James Comey , Jeb Bush , Russ Feingold , Gerald Ford , Patrick Buchanan , Ellen Gilmore , Abraham Lincoln , Jimmy Carter , Barack Obama , Stephen Douglas , Jesus Christ , George W Bush , Deborah Ross , Mitch Mcconnell , Ted Cruz ,