tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 17, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
weekend, and the legacy left on the court. the bipartisan policy center on the federal reserve and possible changes to interest rates in the coming weeks. that you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> good morning. president obama said the constitution is clear. the senate should take up his nominee to replace the late justice. the first news conference since the passing of the justice, president obama vowed to represent a qualified nominee. should aifications supreme court justice have. republicans 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002.
you can also join us on twitter at c-span. or if you go to facebook.com/c-span. we will get your thoughts here just a minute. first, but sure you obama yesterday talking about what qualifications he is looking for in his next supreme court nominee. president obama: we will do the same thing we did to respect to justice kagan's nomination. we will find somebody who is an outstanding legal mind. somebody who cares deeply about our democracy and rule of law. there will not be any particular issue that determines whether or not i will nominate somebody. i'll present somebody who indisputably is qualified for the seat. person, fair-minded
even somebody who disagrees with my politics would say they would serve with honor and integrity on the court. host: that is the heaven on the front page of the washington post. obama pledges qualified nominee. he said any fair-minded person could appreciate his pick. by the way, at the supreme court now, the supreme court has marked justice antonin scalia's draped in black. as part of a tradition that dates back to the 19th century. dead on saturday. these are the funeral plans. on friday, he will lie in repose of the great hall. the private ceremony will take place at 9:30 a.m.. on saturday, family and friends will gather for a funeral mass at 11:00 a.m. at the basilica of the national shrine of the
immaculate conception in washington. then, a private burial will follow. that is the latest on the plans. turned to you this morning about the president's nominee. he said he will be nominating somebody in the coming weeks. that is on the front page of the washington journal. their headline that he will name this person in weeks to calm. has rolled out choosing a liberal sibley to fire up the democratic base. they suggest mr. obama is looking for somebody more moderate. the challenge to mr. obama somebody is politically difficult to refuse. what are your qualifications for the supreme court justice? let's hear from willie in annapolis. democrat. go ahead. caller: first of all, i would like to have a person, let's not
take politics out, someone who falls the constitution. i am not sure he has to pick somebody just to please the moderates. i do not think it makes much of a difference. i think we need to pick somebody who will follow the law. host: what -- if he does not pick somebody liberal, if he picks somebody moderate, how does that impact bernie sanders and hillary clinton? how do they talk about the nominee? so much discussion about being aggressive and being liberal, well, the word progressive -- moderate is kind of a difficult thing in my opinion. moderate means you can go either way. one way or the other. i digress secretary clinton. i think that if a person is going to follow the law, whether it is progressive or something really within the standards of the constitution, i do not think
will make that much difference. let's go to new york. independent. sarah is watching us there. go ahead. hello. thank you for taking my call. i think this supreme court rollce should be able to the law and not on politics. that a supreme --rt justice should have they have a different stature in the first place. as opposed to being a regular judge. but, i do not think that president obama will be able to get anything through because he has 14 judges that have been out of committee and, they are approved, they have not even been brought to the floor yet.
are generallyons over a year old. as republicans have indicated have the majority in the senate. they control what gets to the floor and what does not get to the floor. wouldmcconnell said they not consider a nominee in an election year. however, there are some stories today showing that republicans might be backtracking a little bit on that. iowaublican senator from told radio iowa yesterday that he will hold hearings on this. senator ofe one gop north carolina, here's the headline. he warns against party obstructionist supreme court strategy. interview doing an with conservative radio. he said the american people
should have a voice in the selection of the next supreme court justice. they said the gop will be happy to consider a candidate who has identical resume to justice scalia. if he puts for somebody who is the mold of president obama's vision of america, will block that nomination. withll then move forward the election. and both likely with the next president. the -- obama's phil and the court vacancy. he is not let out blocking the senate proceedings sets them apart from other republicans. beach, southyrtle carolina. democrat. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. , i want to give condolences to the scalia family. secondly, i think the
,ualifications should be this stay right with the constitution. upholds, and uphold the law. to be, i do not know. and then yourals have conservatives. working together the best you can and supreme court thatrst of all, make sure the law is being held to its highest degree. what you're saying is being economic facebook as well. thatreme court justice
will not use ideology, but will rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by congress. susan said the supreme court justice should be one of judicial temperament. believe strongly in the rule of law and apply legal principle and a fair and equitable manner. fern says one who does not believe corporations are people. the number one qualification is to overturn citizens united and to be a nonreligious person, wisconsin, a republican. what do you think? what are the qualifications for you? on -- -- ir: i would say the hope the present picks somebody for his nominee that is transparent. then you can see with the person's record has been.
and, hopefully, they will be a moderate. one concern i have is that it seems like no matter who gets put forward, i know myself, i am suspicious of hidden agendas. i think that if people saw that this person has a record or that they are honest, even some of the justices that are there now, some of them have been there now -- for a long time. they have proven records. one concern that i do have is that in the cynicism of our -- i have trouble believing any of these people. i called in as a republican, i am more of an independent. who would you say currently on the court is a
moderate? caller: i do not want to speak to or pick things like that. call is that imy hope the president will nominate somebody transparent so that people will what they are getting. host: got it. dennis, michigan, independent. it is denise. that's ok. what it should be is that we have an equal balance of justice. -- the blindfold should be on. it should not be about religion. you asked me about the justices standing today. ist you should be doing going by the law.
i believe that any blocking of a justice today just shows that nothing is being done in washington. the inner fighting needs to stop. the nine justices on there for the supreme court. host: you do not think there should be a vacancy for a year? caller: absolutely not. what happens in a year? if a republican gets in there, they will put two they want in. they will put a test that the democrats do not really like. , it couldrat gets in possibly be more years. we need something on there now. it should be somebody who can look at the law and balance the law. president obama also talked about the process for the supreme court nominee. he said the solution is clear.
president obama: the constitution is clear about what is supposed to happen. when there is a vacancy on the , the president of the united states is to nominate someone. the senate is to consider that , and either they disapprove of the nominee, or the nominee is elevated to the supreme court. historically, this is not been viewed as a question. law thatno unwritten says that it can only be done on off years. that is not in the constitutional text. i'm amused when i hear people proclaim to be strict interpreters of the constitution suddenly read into it a whole series of provisions that are simply not there.
there is than enough time for the senate to consider in a thoughtful way, the record of a nominee that i present. and to make a decision. host: two opinions backing up president obama. parker, a republican writing in the washington post, what would scalia do? she said as unseemly as political proclamations seem so soon after the death, scalia would have likely found the shenanigans childishly on musing. not faithful to the rule of law and in violation to the executive and legislative issues. the law is clear. if you will pardon this intrusion of logic, haven't the people already had a voice? didn't the majority of people already reelect president obama? lame duck does not mean dead duck, the president is still quacking.
she said all things considered, it may be wiser to avoid a divisive process. to cannot attach yourself skill is originalist abuse and also ignore the rule of law he defended. these might be his own reflections on being a good and faithful judge. you have to decide yourself, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you will not always like the conclusions you reach. is he jewel manual also writes a post today saying that a true originalist would reject the republican position. he said this. after scalia lost a bet in 2010 over whether the aca would be enacted, we shared many meals and arguments. he educated me about his philosophy of original is impaired this is an approach to the constitutional interpretation that understands the constitution only due process of the law requires
examining what those phrases meant when they were written. original is him as a backward looking doctrine that gives present those at creation. and originalist would look at what the constitution says about choosing a justice. and originalist would note that the framers wanted of the courts insulated from the people's wishes. justices were not meant to get lifetime appointments for which they are nominated, not elected. duane, the president yesterday saying that he will put forth a qualified candidate. to you this morning to find out what you think are good qualifications for the supreme court justice. go ahead. are you with us? go ahead. on to guess, in virginia. hello.
you are on the air. caller: i would like to see a -- there wehe court go, little confusion. ok, let me move on. was go to jim, delaware, republican. re you with us? caller: i have my tv turned down. i think we need another originalist. i can understand why the republicans have acted where they have. sotomayor who was his first appointee, who apparently said i support the concept of the right to bear arms, xina she got in there, she went back on that. i think some of the dependability of the people he has put on the court is questionable. , called therday
republicans obstructionist towards his appointees. i think that out of all he has put up, only to have been turned down. only two people have been shut down. it is different than what happens george w. bush. you know, i think republicans should not have been as outspoken about it. they should definitely reject anybody they feel will not be honest. they should reject anybody who is not going to be and originalist and their view of the constitution. host: do you think chief justice roberts is an originalist? i am not sure what he is. i was very disappointed with the way he changed the situation
,rom its being a fine to a tax tore he found the wording stand the test of the constitution. he is not my favorite justice. win some, you lose some. it will be called to the point where is somebody who is a dependable supporter of the original constitution. we face the challenge of people who want to do away with the basic rights of the people in the united states. ,ost: what do you think about some say a moderate? -- the justice was approved overwhelmingly. fixresident obama were to
-- picked somebody like him, shall republicans say no to him as a nominee? caller: what did barry goldwater say about moderation? moderation in the defense of liberty is not any good. it is too early in the morning to remember exactly. name five famous moderates. that is my view of moderates. host: thank you. by the way, politico has the wary of theany are thoughtful fueled past. he represented enron's former ceo. he has issues with some eco-activist. we will talk more about
prospects and who could be picked on the washington journal. we have covered the supreme court for many years heard first, more of your comments about qualifications for the justice. todd, north carolina, democrat. you are up. caller: good morning. as thethink that as far supreme court justice, somebody who will do research before making a decision on voting for a law or even addressing the media. do your research. scalia made a comment -- i hope i can say this -- about minorities not scoring high on the sat. i'm not sure about all the details, but he did not do
research. you have all the major networks doing research saying that is not true. if you make a comment to the media, do your research. that is how president obama became president twice. people did their research. he was a leader. do your research before you open your mouth. do not just listen to what people have to say. post thisington morning in her story about president obama's news conference note this. that mcnamara writes president cast the standoff over evidence ofas more washington's dysfunction. the process will test whether congress can rise above its recent history of partisan rancor to complete a fundamental constitutional task. at blocking the 2006 nomination of justice alito.
it is the venom of presidential employees. he says both parties are to blame. i want to show you from our archive what he had to say in 2006. the then senator from illinois had just met with president george w. bush in the white house after visiting the country of iraq. it talked about his opposition to justice alito and he said he explained his opposition because of qualifications. take a listen. obama: justice alito is intelligent and capable. when you look at his track record, it appears that he believes in an unconstrained executive branch. does not seem to have much concern or regard for the most vulnerable and our society.
that is to i will vote no against. host: then, president obama went on to join the filibuster with john kerry in an unsuccessful filibuster against justice alito. he said it was because he seemed to support an unrestrained executive branch. ron, richmond, virginia, independent. good morning, what are you looking for in a supreme court justice? caller: this is my last year of law school. i do a lot of reading about this stuff. here's a thing for me. that is why i am an independent. even as a justice, you do not ask a have to have a law degree. you could be a television judge. you cannot have to be a real judge. as long as the person is right down the middle, right down the middle, they look at things openly.
do not do their research. it is the law clerk that does the research. these people need to know about how the operation works. what ever their law clerk brings up is what the justice will read. most of the time they're sitting around drinking coffee. inlong as the person comes and they give an objective opinion about what is going on, then we can understand. that is why i'm an independent. go to the republican side and i do not want to go to the democrat side. they do not have to be a lawyer or a judge, the new york times puts together a list of potential candidates and the strategies for the white house to take. one of those people is senator elizabeth warren. to declarent
political war. yes, after more than seven years of wrestling with republicans, president obama may think he has little to lose by provoking them. choose from among the younger stars in the party. he might select a left leaning judge from the court of appeals from the seventh circuit in chicago or he opt for the dream left, senatorhe elizabeth warren of massachusetts. or, he could make it awkward of put a gaps, he could between him and his party. this could lower some votes from republicans. suggest he isd above the political fray. it could appeal to moderate republicans who are tired of gridlock. using a court pick to win voters from the opposition is not without precedent. dwight eisenhower used a recess appointment to nominate william brennan.
that was in october of 1956. in the remote possibility that he likes to go down this path, president obama has two options. he can pick an older republican who will not serve for long, or he could tap a younger republican who was politically moderate enough to appeal to democrats. tim, ohio, republican. you are up. problem is that when we have an even number of judges now, what i wonder, in this situation, when one of them dies, why don't they take the newest judge that was appointed and eliminate their decision said that you still have an odd number of judges until the other one gets reappointed? that way, the court can keep working. stand for theess
number of people. pulled from a united states military person. he cannot say i'm republican, they voted in a democratic president come i will not be in the army anymore. you do not have that choice. you have to be neutral. host: so, to your question, we can ask this of david savage of the l.a. times, he wrote a piece about this with a divided supreme court heard we look at the key cases coming up. he said some votes could be deadlocked 4-4. it means the last ruling issue will stand. we will talk about that coming up. patricia, democrat. caller: host: hello. what do you think echoed -- think? host: can you explain that? caller: meaning, good morning. how are you?
on theou have to turn tv. that causes the confusion. from texas. good morning. caller: i like to say first of all, i am an independent leaning towards bernie sanders. one thing i would like to express his that i think that the obama administration is dropping the ball. they could actually make a recess appointment now, while the senate is in recess. because, when they come back, i do not believe they will ever go back to recess. so, when your next guest comes on, could you pose that convince what would president obama to make it a recess appointment now,have a g. keep getting your thoughts on this.
you can keep dialing in or join us on twitter and facebook as well. news, tim cook has opposed a court order to help the fbi unlock the iphone used by one of the san bernardino killers. forays it could demand security of apple's customers and have applications far beyond the legal case at hand. theou want to look at letter that tim cook sent out to his customers, you can find it on apple's website. they say. customers, ther united states government has demanded that i will take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. we oppose this order which has locations far beyond the legal case. for public calls discussion and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.
-- hackers want to steal and use that information without our permission. we expect apple and other companies to do everything in theirpower to protect customers. requestedbi has information in their hands, they have provided it. they have made apple engineers advise the fbi and we have offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options. we have great respect for the professionals and we believe their intentions are good. done this point, we have everything that is both in our power and in the law to help them. now, the u.s. government has asked us for something we simply do not have an something we consider too dangerous to create. that is on the decision from apple to not comply with this
court order. in campaign 2016, front page of the washington post -- angry tea party or has abandoned donald trump in south carolina. that is on the front page of the saying thetimes is move that george bush cost him the move. and on the front page of the washington times this morning, they have a story about who scares america the most. a poll that was done with suffolk university. 38% said donald trump scares them the most, if he were to become the president or win the nomination. 33% says it was hillary clinton while 28% said it was the per senator, bernie sanders. we will ask you this question in the last hour of this washington journal. we will get your thoughts on that. onsident obama weighed in
campaign 2016 and he labeled the entire gop field as unserious candidates. back to our question for all of you. what are the qualifications for a supreme court justice? let me go to judaism illinois. a republican. caller: good morning. think that ifi the constitution states something, there should be no question about it. understand -- i am a republican but i don't understand he republican stance that they are making about president obama not appointing someone wednesday constitution clearly says he can and should. to me, that and the discussion. as far as the qualifications for the supreme court justice? constitutionor the and always going by the constitution.
understanding the constitution. and when there are issues they need to talk about that they disagree on, they should discuss it and talk about it and do whatever they need to do but it always comes back to, what does the cuts duchenne say? -- what does the constitution say? is something that all of the candidates are talking about on the trail. donald trump has weighed in. -- others are sure to do the sure to do so. have coverage live on our road to the white house coverage. that is 5:00 eastern on c-span, you can watch that. we also have coverage of marco rubio in south carolina at 6:00 also on c-span and c-span radio and c-span.org. alan in maryland, a democrat.
good morning to you. what do you think about the qualifications? caller: i think they should let the president choose the person. can be able to be competitive and everyone should know that the court of justices are part of the government. believe that none of them would be able to do favors by any of the by partisans. that for the independent body, we should nominate a person. senators get the opportunity to choose who is the best candidate from president obama.
twitter sayson republicans never worry about middle ground when they make scotus selections. they get the heart is conservative they can find. rick in ohio, a republican. what do you think? caller: good morning. i am 70 years old. every president that i'm aware of since i have lived said that there is no litmus test for the candidate that they will choose. and that is not true. every president has a litmus test. the test is, put is a candidates judicial velocity? so my qualification that i would look for would be the same that justice scalia had. of the original intent of the constitution. and the actual textual meaning of the constitution.
and i think that can be determined by the paper trail that whoever the candidate is -- it will become pretty obvious. anybody whoill find will really replace justice scalia. he was a unique man. and obviously, i was an admirer of his. the selection, whether it is president obama or thenext president, that is philosophy that they will be looking for. host: did you see the front page of the new york times yesterday? what would justice scalia want in a successor? a dissent offers clues. he wrote that the court consists of nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at harvard or lawyer -- or yale. harvardscalia went to
as did five other members. and the other three went to yale. went for oneurg year at columbia. they write, not a single evangelical christian or even a protestant of any denomination. they are not on the court. surveyed the lack of geographical diversity on the court. four out of the nine are natives of new york city. -- justice scalia was from queens, ginsburg is from brooklyn, kagan is from manhattan and stottlemyre is from the bronx. he referred to john roberts who is from indiana. are you still with us? what do you think? well, i didn't read the article but i'm trying to follow
on the screen as you read it. evidently, he thought that there was a concentration which is a pretty common trait. i think there should be diversity but not at the extent of the judicial philosophy. if they all come from one state or one city, that doesn't bother me as long as their judicial philosophy is what i consider to be the "correct view." a concentration from harvard and yell and perhaps they produce the best attorneys. i'm just a common joe blow out here in the midwest. and justice scalia's philosophy lined up with mine or mine lined up with him. that is what i'm looking for. someone who has the original textual conversation. they can come from hawaii, florida, timbuktu.
the philosophy counts, as far as that. host: white house officials have outlined several criteria. a record of impartiality and it takes on different potentialviewing candidates, fetching, developing a strategy and coordinating with congress. the white house always has a list of potential supreme court nominees. couldn't officials have anticipated this specific scenario playing out during an election year. decident obama must now whether to alter any previous plans. host: john, you're next.
caller: this is an interesting topic. what i had to say about the whole thing is that if you look at it, a person has to have graduated from law school. expertuld make them an at what they need to be able to do. i have to look at the historical aspect. it's really i think about. in the 1800s they had the case of plessy versus ferguson. and then it took brown versus the board of education. so what we're dealing with today, we have the demographics of the population. if you look at it and when we voted for president barack obama for a second term, that means
that we voted for some of the things that he believes in. and this is just the population shift. and i think, if you look at it, this happens and his unfortunate that the chief justice passed on. for him toime nominate. and then the senate can do what they feel they do to do in this situation. host: we will talk more about that process coming up. grace, a democrat. good morning. caller: you put up there a point that i was going to make about there being no protestant on the board. i don't know if there is another jewish person besides justice ginsburg but i feel that we
need, for balance, i asked somebody who is an expert and he was shocked and he could not believe that. thinkhat being said, i someone that he -- he is him --al -- but many of many people admired them over decades and that was atticus finch in tubular mockingbird. and i think someone who is southern with that kind of generous heart and qualifications that barbara lee book,tticus, and in his he said a good southern attorney , and heod legal mind said they should have a good command of the bible and shakespeare. i could go on but i think if they could find in this day and
fair-mindedwho is who is protestant and who has and everyone who has so admired that character -- i want to answer your question about the makeup of the court. since john paul stevens, the court has no protestant member. scalia was catholic, as our five other justices. the other three are jewish. danny, you are on the air. caller: yes, you have to understand that the republicans use codewords. get our country back means putting back the way it was in the 50's. but i think the 1850's or 1750's is what they're going for. to hear to the constitution would make black people 3/5 of the constitution. host: you are calling on the
republican line. caller: i know, but i've watched my student -- i have watched my group steps so far to the right that i don't see them anymore. host: let me leave and some other headlines. page thistimes front morning -- saudi's and russia have agreed on an output freeze for oil in a bid to halt the slide in oil prices. the students deal, which requires other big producers to , had venezuela there as well. together against a backdrop of strained relations. tensions are main high over the civil war in syria with moscow and tehran propping up the regime of bashar al-assad. and then there was this news the former-
secretary-general died. he led through times of war and genocide. so that is this morning in many papers looking back at his career as the former u.n. secretary general. let's go to matthew in virginia beach. an independent. what do you think? caller: good morning. i would like to see someone on the bench who is conservative. you want someone who knows the bible and who would be able to express it. it could teach us quite a few things. i'm not saying anything about jewish, catholic or anything else -- just someone conservative on the bench. tosident barack obama wants -- congress, issa suggest he nominates loretta lynch. let congress do it they will with her. as a country are so far
behind the times. we should have high-speed railroads going north to south and east to west. it is ridiculous that we are behind the times. people still use cars and a lot of gasoline. if we had high-speed rail, who would love going from new york to atlanta? host: i have to go to best, a democrat. what you think? think: i certainly don't somebody who is an originalist, whatever that means, should be nominated. ands a silly argument justice scalia said that abortion and gay rights were not in the constitution. and they were -- and he was against them as a result but corporations are not in the constitution, you don't see that he giveshere, and yet
great power to the people. it is a retake it -- it is a ridiculous term to use. at you didn't get in the conversation at the beginning of the program, keep dialing in. we will continue on. nominating who could be president barack obama's pick. we will talk with david savage from the l.a. times and later, could thell they go, federal reserve go to negative interest rates? we will discuss whether that could happen here after the break. ♪
cityis weekend, the c-span tour hosted by the charter communications cable partner takes us to greenville, south carolina. to explore the history and literary culture. on booktv. 1939, when europe went to war, our allies, england and france, looked to us in washington, d.c. for getting the materials that they needed. so washington, d.c. looks down to the textile capital of the world and all of a sudden, government contracts came funneling into this area. asking the mills here to begin producing for the war effort, and initially for the allies and then for the united states as well. >> and on american history tv -- >> this really was a nasty spot.
,t is hard to believe now looking at it that it was one of the best spots in the country. if this was a nasty place. it is a great story about a andunity getting behind starting to appreciate and cherish a park. watch the c-span city store .aturday at 12:00 eastern and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. the c-span cities tour working with the cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. washington journal continues. are back with david savage from the l.a. times. let's begin with president barack obama yesterday at the news conference. we showed this to our viewers earlier. i want to get your reaction.
theident barack obama constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen. when there is a vacancy on the supreme court, the president of the united states is to nominate someone. the senate is to consider that nomination. either they disapprove of that nominee or that nominee is elevated to the supreme court. historically, this has not been viewed as a question. there is no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years. that isn't in the constitutional text. i'm amused when i hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are
not there. there is more than enough time for the senate to consider in a thoughtful way the record of the nominee that i percent and to make a decision. host: your piece in the l.a. times says obama won't follow the original intent of constitution. guest: it was a smart argument. this is about justice scalia and his replacement. ofwas known as the advocate following the original text of the conversation. mitch mcconnell came out and said we would not act on anything this year. and the president said come on, look at the constitution. it says the president shall nominate and the senate will advise and consent. i think it puts the republicans in a very difficult situation if they want to say, no hearings, no nothing.
my guess is that they will have a hearing down the road. president barack obama is clear though, the senate is not obliged to approve -- to improve the nominee but they should advise and consider the nominate give their consent. a very smart way to frame it. mean,what does that advise and consent? guest: it could mean a lot of different things in the modern era. it used to mean, you should consider the nomination and vote. there is some tradition that goes way back to when i first started doing this in the 1980's. reagan was in the office and a vacancy came up at joe biden was on the senate committee at there was a discussion. the white house had 10 names, they ran them by joe biden's people and senator biden said we could go along with these names and not this name. one of the names they said don't
go with was robert orc. one of the names they would go along with was anthony kennedy. and reagan nominated kennedy and he won 90 7-0 in a democratic senate. so it means a process like that. or the president and the consultation some and discussion about who will be a good choice. ist: the current chairman turn crossley and he has said he is open to hearing. guest: i think that's what he said. after the, shortly death, he seemed to say that it should be reserved to the next president. and then he had an interview with radio reporters were he seemed to say, we will take it one step at a time. and that said he was open to holding a hearing. and i don't have inside knowledge on this but my belief is that there was public
pressure and the senate will at least think we should hold a hearing. assuming this is not somebody who they think is oh, they are unacceptable. they have got themselves in a situation now where they won't approve no matter who it is, even though we don't know who the nominee is. i think there will be a vote down the road. talk about the impact of having a vacancy for a year. but before we do that, it is the process for picking a nominee from the white house? gut telling you about how long this will take? will he move quickly or will it be a month or two? guest: a month or two. i only know what the white house people are saying and they are saying it may take about a month. they don't have a set of names ready to go. the president has been in california, working on other
matters. so what we were told is that a were just getting started. a tough choice. they are all tough choices but this one is particularly so early on, they had a couple of favorite candidates but this is near the end and you are replacing the most powerful, strongest conservative voice. so it seems to me, you have to take that into account. so it is a tough choice as to who he picks. he would want somebody who would be seen as qualified and capable of doing the job and as a good balanced figure. picksl see whether he someone who looks liberal or in the middle of the road. host: so he has to consider who he is replacing. but does that mean for the time spent considering the nominee once he makes that pic? guest: in the senate?
that will be interesting. picks -- a lot of him, he gotd about a unanimous confirmation edit went to his hearing and ted cruz spoke well of him and i thought, that is a good thing on your side. they were clerks at the same year. -- clerked for justice o'connor -- sod cruz clerked for if president barack obama chooses sri srinivasan and he is approved positively and ted cruz has broken will of him, that would seem like a good start. that therell think it wouldjections but be an interesting debate in calculation. senator,e a republican at some point you have to come up with the argument that this
person is not acceptable for this reason. you can't just say, no. you have to explain why this person is not qualified or acceptable. host: phone lines are lighting up. people are engaged in this conversation. carol in florida. you are up first. caller: i started to think of a question but let me get to another. so-called the 80 year policy of not nominating someone in the last year of a president's term? whoe's only been one person was nominated the year before that and in the last year, got confirmed. it seems to me that the senate and the president are clear as to the president being the lame-duck and he is about to leave at it isn't fair for him to put someone on the court who may be there for the next four
terms. host: we will take that. guest: i will give you a version of the answer from yesterday, that is an unwritten precedent. a made up rule. in 1956, in the middle of the campaign, one of the justices retired and president eisenhower picked -- in october and put them on the court in a recess appointment a month before the election. he served for 34 years. people talked about the justice kennedy situation. he was nominated in november. thing to say that it is a matter of understanding. none of the justices are going to choose to retire in the middle of the election campaign. like what happened --
someone can die suddenly and there is a vacancy. lott doesn't happen a because the justices don't want to get in the middle of a presidential election year. nobody intended this to play out but it is a vacancy and the president has nearly a whole mother year in office. nearly another year in office. this is a made up presidents. -- this is a made up precedence. how could who he chooses impact the court? guest: there are so many big issues -- affirmative action, abortion, environmental protection, death penalty, gay rights, gun rights -- there are so many issues where it is a 5-4
or 4-4 and justice kennedy. and if justice kennedy is on the right side then there is a conservative minority but on the other side, a liberal minority. that is a big deal. this is because the co-producing states -- they granted it. now, the very same thing would come up and it is a 4-4 split. all of the contentious issues show it is a one-vote matter. so back to your question, if there were a liberal leaning justice to replace justice scalia, the balance would tip to the left on all the big issues. and that is why republicans are
so insistent that we are not going to allow you to replace the most conservative or strongest conservative voice with a liberal justice. it would be a real change. host: david savage reported that if there is a 4-4 decision with the vacancy, it means the lower courts last ruling stands. we go to lydia, an independent. caller: thank you for this opportunity. i think it will tip the balance. tipped withwill be fair play. i want president barack obama to go deep and be so involved. and i also want him to put on picture that was in yesterday's new york times sports section, showing jackie robinson dressed in a suit, standing at a podium, looking at facing a group of young men, all
seated in their suits facing him. and he was captivating. obviously, for one reason. because he represented something was, fairand that play. that is what we have to do. we have to go outside of this venue that is set up by mitch mcconnell and everybody else. and we need to take it to the venue of fair play. hisnt that introduced into presidential library. that is where we have to go for the young people. that is the qualification he needs to look at for his next new supreme court justice. host: all right. argument.ike that i agree, that is a wonderful photo. i agree with the fact with it
that a president could find somebody who would be seen as both a person who would be fair, balanced and who follow the constitution. not an ideologue on the right. a lot of people would be very happy. finding thatult is person or even defining exactly what that means. --ause people have their a you can't get around the fact that the supreme court, by its nature, gets the hard legal questions where people are genuinely divided. you don't need a supreme court to decide issues where everybody agrees what the law is. so there is something to be said about the court getting really hard issues. a good argument on both sides. but i agree with that in. it would be nice to be with someone who was fair-minded and idealistic and honorable.
and i could trust this person to do the right thing on the supreme court. host: rosalie in nevada. a democrat. caller: i have that same issue. the supreme court is supposed to be above the politics. someonenee should be who is above the politics. and who interprets the constitution in the way that it is meant to be. host: and does that include your governor? i would imagine? supreme elected as a court justice, then he would have to be above politics. anybody would be. i want to stop you because you are using the word elected. they are not elected, they are nominated.
if we had gone back in number of years, i would have thought that somebody would say the smart thing to do is to find republican,iberal someone who the democrats would like but also some of the republicans would like. i don't know if the governor of nevada is such a person. what has been going on with the court is a little bit like what has been going on with congress. if you go back through the years, there are a bad -- there are a lot of moderates in both. there are a lot of people in the middle. we had a series of republican appointees who were liberal, some of them, they had a conservative democrat. people like lewis powell and sandra o'connor.
justicese two or three and it was hard to figure out how they would come up. increasingly, the presidents have done a better job from picking nominees who really reflect the mainstream views of their party. andident bill clinton president bush and president obama. so increasingly, you get a supreme court way they are not people in the middle. there are people strong on this side or the possibility of finding somebody who is more of the old-style, somebody who is agreeing with the liberals on some issues and with the conservatives on others but is not predictable. -- disagreed with the president yesterday, saying the constitution is clear. the house members said it is long past time to stand up to obama. to scotus appointment
should not be made by a lame duck. john from florida. good morning. caller: give me a minute, i don't mean to correct you but they are elected, in a way. they get a vote in the committee and the senate. from the lady who mentioned jackie robinson, a lot of people don't realize he was a republican. as far as the qualifications for the supreme court nominee, there are none. he could be a janitor. he could be a doctor. he could be anyone who can judge, unbiased plate and read because it to shin and learn the constitution and know what it means. this is a beautiful example. mentioned brennan and he was a democrat. eisenhower, a democratic congress in 56 -- 1956. and don't forget that kennedy was the third choice.
first was ginsburg. that was about a 1.5 year process. decide and inuld election years, that is what has happened. theyople want a liberal, will vote democrat and if they want a conservative they will vote republican. so let the people decide. let's all be more educated when we call in. not that i am petsmart but i would appreciate if we could have some truthful answers. guest: let me see. the constitution allows the president and says the president shall make this nomination. the senate gets to vote on it. if the republican senate votes to disapprove president obama's nomination and the vacancy remains then of course, yes. the voters will be in effect, choosing by whoever the next
president is. but i do think it is strange to say, let's follow the constitution but let's not allow this president nominee to be considered because there is an election coming up. presidento me the should make the nomination and the senate should vote. that inay well turn out november, the election will effectively decide. how many votes does the president need for the nominee? guest: a good question. the constitution would say 51. it is just a majority. there is no two thirds requirement. on the other hand, in the senate there is the filibuster motion. the idea that you could block a vote. unless you have 60 votes to end a debate, you can keep the vote. so the filibuster rule may not
come into play because they have a maturity anyway. down athey could vote it is true that thomas won in a democratically controlled senate on a 52-48 vote. sometimes they are really close. anyway, the answer to your question is just a majority. host: the reaction on twitter from the republican senators -- don't confirm any bush supreme court nominees. senator alexander said on the question of whether this or the next president replace scalia on the supreme court, i think it is reasonable to give american people a dose -- a voice by allowing the next president to fill this lifetime appointment. and senator roy blunt saying the senate should confirm a new member -- should not confirm a
new member when americans will be voting. guest: they seem to agree on their lines. don't they? out ar schumer put further statement about what he said in 2007 and i don't know whether he is correcting the record but he said, shouldn't approve anybody who is not a mainstream candidate. that was his phrase. and he repeated that and said, it is still my position. senate, you could vote any way you wanted but you should approve a mainstream candidate. a mainstream nominee, whatever that means. so he wasn't saying we shouldn't we need ane but mainstream nominee. i've never heard someone come around and say they are not a mainstream nominee, they are liberal and that is why i voted
against her. host: others are pointing to what senator obama had to say 2006 about scully is nomination. i want to show you what we found in our archives. after he obama in 2006 met with the bush about his visit to iran. he gives his reasons on qualifications. judge alito is a capable and intelligent judge. if you look at his track record however, it appears that he believes in an unconstrained does not branch and seem to have much concern or regard for the most reliable in our society. that is the reason i will be voting no. guest: it's amusing. i have mentioned that to justice alito a year ago and they went
back and looked at what president barack obama said and it is a great example of how things change in this town. the democrats position was, president bush has gone overboard with the commander-in-chief attitude and we need to rein in the executive. said he wasn'tma confident that judge alito would rein in the executive. it seems that the conservatives and republicans are saying we need to rein in executive authority used by president obama. it is amusing to think that. he does not give much of an way, toesterday, by the that question. he was asked about that question he -- i didn't understand the answer. is that there were a lot of reasons but in the end he got a vote and he was approved. joining anxplain his
attempt to block a vote. host: from illinois, ron. caller: hello, good morning david. there previous segment was some discussion about having a protestant or an evangelical christian on the supreme court. present, there are rules in effect in a number of corporations that don't allow controversial speech. personally speaking, that has gotten so extreme so that if i say god bless in the form of goodbye to people, i am holding to the bosses office and told that i'm not allowed to say that because it is controversial. i have been suspended because of
religious discussions i have had in the break room. host: tie this into the conversation? thiso or don't think religion should play a role in this? caller: i believe we need any much alcohol on the supreme court because there is a termination going on in the workplace against christian speech. your point.have got guest: i would say that there are four or five or maybe nine who have been sympathetic to that few. the justices have been very concerned about religious liberties and that has been the whole debate on the contraceptive mandate cases. links ine some 9-0 favor of religious liberty. it is not the case that you are referring to, a workplace an unusual policy,
as you describe it. there have been catholic spokens and they have and written very strongly on the principle of religious liberty. and that his religious liberty being suppressed by the government, not by the workplace. , there are no evangelicals on the current court that there is a strong belief in the importance of religious liberty. host: maryland, darren is next. you are on the air. caller: i think my question has been answered a little bit but about was going to say obama and mitch mcconnell are both connect because they both have a role to play at his to nominate ady justice and to arrive at consent. they don't give a timeline on
when the consent needs to take place. host: let's take that point. guest: i agree with that. with the one caveat that senator mcconnell seemed to be saying, we should consider this nomination, we should wait to the next president. position becomes, we ought to take a look at this nomination, it is our job to advise and consent and consent that we don't have to approve the nomination, then i agree that both of them are stating the position laid out in the constitution. who are some names that are being floated as a possible pick russian mark -- possible pick? guest: we talked about shri sure boston. there is another highly regarded isge in boston, i think he the judge who a lot of the republicans would like.
he was a prosecutor back at the time of the oklahoma city bombing. he is a very good judge and a very much admired person. so he could be a possibility. there are other judges on the d.c. circuit. kennedyfrom iowa, jane -- ite was backed by would be an intriguing pick if the president picks her. paul watford on the ninth circuit from southern california and went to berkeley and ucla. he was an assistant u.s. attorney and clerk for ruth ginsburg. another highly regarded judge, an african-american who could be chosen. i have heard some people talk or janeretta lynch johnson from homeland security.
wherehard to figure out president barack obama will go with this pick. is talk about, why don't we find somebody who is -- remember when bill clinton was president? there was a lot of talk about picking someone who was a bigger figure in politics. i'm sure there will be some senators names. the senator from minnesota. but in the end, they go back to picking someone whose career has been as a judge. host: some people are saying a dream candidate would be elizabeth warren. guest: yes, that would be an interesting pick. but wouldn't you guess, that is the pick to say who the democratic face, here is who we would like and the republicans immediately, here is really who we would not allow.
that'll be a way to stay in the november election, here is a person that a democratic resident would put on the court. my guess is that she wouldn't be someone who he republicans would say yes, that is the nominee we go along with. guest: by the way, senator hatch has said to the president, it don't pick me. in politico.dline we are talking to david savage from the l.a. times. we have about 10-15 minutes left. we're taking your comments and thoughts. we're going to tennessee, a democrat. caller: good morning. live in a country where it takes a caucasian tuesday out for us. -- on the views that this is a racist act but my continuous
comment on this is that i think the president, he could nominate himself. scholar in the area of constitutional law. he has been a state senator and a u.s. senator and now has been president. chiefld be the next justice. host: ok. guest: he couldn't actually be the next chief justice because that is a position that is not chosen within a court. don't -- i don't know whether the answer to that question. as to whether the president could nominate himself? say here a lot of people that president barack obama would be a terrific supreme court justice after he leaves the white house because he is a very smart scholarly person who certainly could do the job and do it well.
my belief is that he probably has other things he wants to do. and i'm pretty sure he will not nominate himself. maybe in 5-10 years, someone will say, he is the ideal. the ideal person to fill this vacancy. host: our history buffs have thought of william howard taft, the president to also served. guest: absolutely. he became president but really wanted to be a judge. he was a judge early on and became president. he had a difficult for years and was voted out in 1912. he was said to be an effective chief justice. out in the court was
a new in the 1930's and grand building opened. joe in clifton, virginia. caller: good morning. great topic. in the spirit of trying to get my candidate in office in november, i'm going to step back from policy and position because that is a moot point. in the age of the internet and social media, and it be better if our party could appoint people we would accept and give this president a chance to pick out of that pool. show american voters that yes, we can get something done in this political climate on something so important as a judge. that we get clobbered with the large boat in
thember, and we do well in off cycle election, do you think that is a step back from reality ? and if you wait until november you risk losing the whole ability to influence who they pick. guest: an interesting thought. i'm not sure that -- it would be new to have the social media pick the nominate but actually do think that there is a version of that that could take place. -- there wasicans discussion about various names over the past weeks and a lot of people on the republican side say, here would be a great nominee to fill the seat. or here are several names. there is no reason that mitch mcconnell or grassley couldn't .ave some discussion
they could say, here are some people we would look fondly on. we would be able to give that person a hearing and inclined to approve. there is no reason that could happen -- no reason that couldn't happen. reason why the republicans couldn't sort of ,gree on who would be a nominee judges or people with a political background. toy can suggest those names resident barack obama. host: let's go to mike in pittsburgh. caller: i am curious to know justice scalia's views, was he an anomaly on the court as far as the plaintext reading? every constitutional law class i've ever taken over the years, they have always talked about the constitution being a living and breathing document. and i have always subscribed to
that and i thought the majority of people did. so were his views an anomaly? when did you go to law school? caller: i got a bachelors in political science. about 12 years ago. guest: this is a great question. because if you look back a number of years, when justice scalia came along, the living constitution was the way it used. it adapts and changes with the time. the classic example is the 14th amendment saying equal protection to the law. until the 1970's, the understanding was that you could have laws that discriminated between men and women at the supreme court said, in 1868, they may not have been thinking about sex dissemination but today, we are not allowing laws that treat men and women differently. that was an example. than-quality differently
we saw it in the past. scalia is a proponent of the original meaning and sticking to the plaintext. i think it is hard to answer that question. i think it has had a big influence on the discussion and debate about law around the country. it has not been a great impact within the supreme court. because they continue to make --isions where there is a they have never gone to the strict scalia view of sticking to the original meaning. it is frequently very hard to answer that question. like, you could be ok following the text.
-- a militia being necessary to the security of a free state -- that shall not be infringed. but what does that sentence mean? individualut the right to have a gun and defy state law? or is it about sending a well-regulated militia? and there is a lot of evidence that when that clause was put in, they were saying that because intrusion was giving too much power to the federal government and we need to have the right to have our own militia. that was the history. scalia wrote ae famous opinion on that in 2008, he adopted the individual rights view. there was some history, going way back to the bill of rights, where there is a discussion about people having the right to be armed, but there is also history about state militias. so i only think, even though most people have come around to talk about the original is them
outhe text, it is still hard what did that phrase actually mean when it was adopted? the chair justice scalia sat in is draped in black. it is a tradition dating back to the 19th century. fuel lie in repose in the great hall in a secretary program that will take place at 10:30 a.m. eastern. friendsday, family and will prepare for funeral mass. , what do youo go think a person -- his personality will be missed? he was a wonderful person. guest: it is hard to explain to people. to hear him on a lot of dissents, he seems like an angry grim guy, he was wonderfully charming and funny. anytime he was at a party or
reception, i also thought one of his many great traits was that he would gladly go to an aclu meeting or a liberal group. he would go around to colleges around the country. there were always liberal audiences. he loves to go back and forth. say what he thought and care a strong view had and was a confident guy and said what he thought. he would argue with people. had a wonderful sense of humor. all of his colleagues will miss him on many levels. he was a wonderful person to know. i only knew him just a little bit. anybody that was around him new what a wonderful guy he was. he will be deeply missed. host: who were some of his friends? his best friend was ruth bader ginsburg. great friends from back to the 1980's.
every new they have celebrated together. he liked opera, he liked jokes, he loved to argue. what i would get heated was he would market up and get all kinds of criticisms. he said my opinion was better thanks to his criticism. it is not personal, or are just trying to get the right answer on the law. he was the kind of person that can make it the most sober judge laugh. he would arguments over the courts.
even though none of us know anything about how electricity is produced. --is the kind of question everybody would laugh. the attorney would be backpedaling. he was very lively. we will all miss that. host: i encourage our viewers to go to c-span.org. you can see the interviews that we have done. fort washington maryland,
democrat is next. suzy, good morning to you. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i was calling to ask two questions. who terms of ,epublicans, i wanted to know will they be with the governor's appeal case. saying they do not with this person going to jail if they do not add this other justice to the court? would not the governor of virginia -- would he miss his appeal? nine host: are you following? guest: i think the answer is yes. governor mcdonald was convicted for taking gifts.
his argument was that he did not do anything. convicted to two years in prison. they said they will hear his case. thought that it may be reversed on a 5-4 vote. i think that now, the great likelihood is the case will split 4-4. justice kennedy is with the liberal side of the court in saying this looks like corruption. that hishey believe is chance of getting a conviction overturned as greatly diminished. host: are there upcoming cases that are interesting to watch.
guest: teachers could be forced to pay a mandatory fee coming even if they do not join the union. everybody who walked of the argument said the vote was overturned. she said there are no forced fees. that case looks like a 4-4. in that situation, the union will win because of the lower court precedent. the big immigration case involving president obama's immigration authority is a different matter. in that situation, the lower courts blocked his plan from going ahead. so, the obama administration appealed. they will need a five-member majority to overturn that decision. --hink the administration there is an abortion case, there is a contraception case.
these cases are like 5-4 with scalia on the conservative side. it was a 44 split. host: let me ask you. when did you first hear the news? guest: i was working on something at home. my friends from the office called. the story was in the san antonio paper. i saw justice scalia in the airport a few weeks ago. he was sitting on a bench in the national airport. i went over to talk to him. he said he was really tired. she travels an awful lot. he looked very tired. , i said heked away is almost 80 years old. he was heavyset. he was looking very exhausted.
i was always a little worried about him. i was very sad to hear the news. the governor of texas put out a statement or quickly. we started writing about it. and the court then issued a statement. this just a set day. more i want to get in one call from california. steve, republican, you are on the air. .aller: good morning i have a question about the next justice. i want to know how you can be 100% in choosing that? host: i think i am interpreting that, they might say one thing and a confirmation hearing, how do you know from their records or writing that they will follow what they say? guest: you never know for sure.
you trust the person to be an honorable person described their views. we look at what the person has done as a predictor in the past. what host: kind of justice they have been in the future. more to come on this. obviously. chicago, japan following the supreme court for many years. good to be with you. we're going to switch topics coming up. we'll talk with the deputy secretary treasury. he works with the banking secretary on capitol hill. he is the director of the polity -- polity -- policy center. he talks about the move from the federal reserve. >> american history tv on
c-span3 features programs that tell the american story. is about the 1966 vietnam hearings. years later, will hear special consultants from general maxwell taylor's opening statement, followed by committee member questions. >> our position is equally clear in hisily defined baltimore speech of 18701950 five, president johnson did so in the following terms. our objective is the freedom of south vietnam. we want nothing for ourselves. only that the people of south vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way. this is been our objective since 1954. it has been pursued by three
administrations. it remains our basic objective today. >> next saturday, secretary of state we rest is his testimony defending the vietnam policy. for the complete american history tv. c-span.org. >> wrote to the white house began in iowa. the caucus which dates back to 1972, then we go to new hampshire with the first of the nation primary. has a long and rich history. we will begin to test the candidates and their message. more than likely we will see a lot of candidates drop out of the race. move into early march. super tuesday is the start of the winner take all primary. the delegate count will continue.
we get a better sense of whose message is resonating, and who is on the path to the nomination. [applause] we arey election cycle reminded of how important it is for citizens to be informed. we need a way to track the government. >> i think it is a way frost to stay informed. will say i saw you on c-span. >> there are so much more that c-span does to make sure that people know about what is going on inside of the hill. >> washington journal continues. morning,our table this aaron klein who is the director of the financial regulatory reform admission. secretary-treasurer for economic policy. to talk about this policy of negative interest rates.
the federal reserve is up on capitol hill. he was asked about this. i want to show you and our viewers what he had to say when he testified for the senate about negative interest rates. , yet they question is loaded balance sheet. people are beginning to observe that the fed is probably out of ammunition. to go into adecide negative rate, i am just observing this about what is ,appening around the world people said the fed realized that they had no real ammunition left. are you considering if things go south, which none of us hope they do, are you considering a negative rate? yes or no.
that wehe answer is have previously considered and decided that it would knock work well to foster accommodation back in 2010. countriesf european that have these negative rates, we're taking a look at them again, because we would want to be prepared in the event that we need to add accommodations. we have not finished that evaluation. we need to consider the u.s. institutional context, and whether it would work well here. it is not automatic. there are a number of things to consider. i would not take those off the table. we have work to do to judge whether they would be workable here. host: was that an old statement?
guest: it is important to know the context. this was before the senate banking committee. this is from the republican from tennessee who was an active member. that was a day before she testified in front the house. it was one more question that i think brought a rare misstep. what she was clarifying is that the fed has the authority to try to move their federal funds target rate, how they manipulate the economy below zero. it is often called the zero lower bound. they did not do that during the financial crisis. instead, they stopped right of zero and came to what is known as quantitative moving. however they debated in 2010, while they chose not to do it, since then, the rest of the world has. the eurozone has, japan has, sweden, switzerland, denmark,
what happened is, economic theory said that you cannot go below zero. people just take their money out of the bank and put it in their mattress. we found that is not actually so. countries can actually go below zero in an attempt to stimulate their economy and the world will move forward. we have seen this move throughout europe and japan. now, the fed is reevaluating its full cast and potentially putting a new tool and their toolkit. thatshe clarified there is the fed has the legal authority to do it. she was unclear the day before. they use the next day to clarify that. at their come you look internal memos. it says something surprising. this was just released in 2010. the data computer system glitch. when they thought about putting it in 2010, they cannot find a negative number. kind of like the y2k problem. i would assume that in the five
years since then that the fed has figured out how to fix their computer system and it is more fully operational. host: how does the reserve have the power to go below zero? they have been setting the fed funds target rate for a long time. they will lower rates 25 or 50 basis points. they just said it. with certain technical transactions in buying and selling the demand, great in demand for the federal funds rate. that is how they managed monetary policy for decade. starting with the financial crisis and aftermath, they started using new tools that congress gave them. one is called interest on reserves. i was on the senate banking committee when we wrote that legislation. another one has to do with the reverse purchase program the fed created of existing authority. instead of creating a target rate and having the zone, they
are doing something new and different as they ration the zone. though from zero to 25 and from 25 to 50. there are some technical issues at the top of the zone with how you would charge banks or not. you do not have to necessarily use the zone. the fed did not do it for decades. since the fed funds target rate, they have broadened this authority. host: how does that impact these countries you have mentioned. guest: it is a mixed bag. they have shown some stimulus. -- a general, illes commonly's are struggling. japan just had a negative quarter. europe has a lot of headaches beyond a negative rate. the fed is low on ammunition. they barely raise interest rates at all. if there was an economic slowdown, they did not have many cups left.
by going below zero you put another bullet in the chamber. host: i thought they were thinking about raising the interest rate, not below? think the next thing will be an interest rate hike. they cut rates so low during the crisis and kept them there so long afterwards that we are in an advanced stage of our economic recovery. interest rates are well below what they normally should be. only at 25-50 basis points. however much they will raise them. i think they are trying to raise them to get out in front of the next recession, when the next recession comes, nobody knows for sure, that it will come, they will have to start cutting rates. the question is how high will they raise them before they cut them? it seems like they will not be that high. host: this is from the economist writing a piece in the washington times.
he said japanese and european monetary authorities are discovering banks face keeping moneyor in the bowl. negative interest rates do not encourage more lending when banks see my list government regulation. more importantly, negative interest rates drive down a profit and stock price. the realization that central banks have it wrong. onlyive interest rates serve to destabilize banks is causing capital flight of all kinds. everybody is against mindless regulation. i never met anybody who said they want minas regulation. people should be in support of some regulation. angst themselves are for some regulation. where you strike the balance? after the federal crisis, i think everybody would expect too little. some of the regulations in dodd
frank went too far or have not worked well. probably heard i have yet to encounter a large piece of legislation that was perfect. in proving the regulatory balance is perfect, negative interest rates, the theory was that they could not exist. clearly, they do. i thinke countries come switzerland is down three quarters of 1%. down three times. japan is at -10. other countries have experimented with this. that nobodyto say will pay money for an atm fee. the privilege of getting your money out of an atm. nobody would do that. i do not like the atm fee. but, they exist. any negative interest rate a consumer would face in terms of their money would be dwarfed by a fee they would usually pay. on the flipside, lower interest stimulateitionally
demand. make the mortgage cheaper. make getting your car easy. i think there is a distinction. peter draws us out a little bit. where interest rates have been less effective than normal, -- the the question world has evolved to a binary credit situation. if you cannot, at his knowledge of credit that is more expensive, you are just out of the credit box. if you cannot get credit, that is something you cannot slowdown. you can't borrow to invest. thatis other things stimulate economic growth. there are limits. there are limits on other policy. in terms of federal reserve raising its balance sheet. a lot of people should say the government will do more to invest in infrastructure. there is a limit to what any central bank can do. we are with eric klein about federal reserve holocene
and interest rate. either way, he helped crack the dodd frank bill when he served on the banking committee. he was treasury secretary and assistant secretary of economic policy. now, it is my personal policy. in manchester, connecticut. good morning. caller: first of all come i want to thank c-span for the service they provide for all of us americans. we truly appreciate it. the reason why say we is because with the group of people who want change and are going to make it, we will make it. competitionreate for those people. this is how we do it. government is full of servants. not masters.
this is our land, not our representatives land. oil and natural gas, isn't that a new resource. is everybody in america who is american? let's figure out how much oil and natural gas we have heard let's find out how much it is worth. you have as collateral. you take out these and call it a federal law. but the government follow money from itself and put federal constraints all across our land. we will refinance the home. host: what you make of his suggestion guest: america has more banks than on most any other country on earth. we have 60,000 different banks. six,nada there are about inference there about eight. in germany, yet 180.
we have thousands of banks. a lot of people can get transactional services. so, there is a tremendous amount choice people have in banks. that people bet choosing to go to a larger and larger bank. if you look at the data, since the financial crisis, people have been choosing large banks. is because of technology or services are better. they move around. people do not like to move their bank account. it is very sticky. thing why i think negative rights are more likely to work than a lot of people have thought. because come the transaction cost of switching to a bank is pretty high. ask yourself, when was the last serviceid my basic atm because i saw an offer that was maybe a tiny bit better. host: is that because banks make it difficult? guest: i do not know if it is
difficult, i just know it is a lot of work for you. give online banking, bill paying, direct deposit. you have to fill out a lot of forms. it is not that the bank is doing this, it is that you messed this into your life. it is a high cost. philadelphia , democrat. welcome. caller: good morning. how are the banks or credit unions handling people who are already locked into a five or seven year rate? do honory still have those rates? can you explain the difference between credit unions and banks? thank you. that is a good question. first of all, yes, and a commitment is locked in. in fact, one of the things that america has that is need -- unique is when people can choose
to refinance or repay that at times. the bank cannot change your interest rate. that is a uniquely american thing in the fixed rate mortgage. it is something that comes up a lot. so, yes, they have to honor that. credit unions are nonprofit entities. they pay no income tax. in order to be a member, you cannot just walk into a credit union. yet to be a part of what they call field membership. they lost said it is supposed to involve a common bond. things turn out in a teachers credit union. i'm still a member of the credit union for my server my staff. that common bond has been interpreted more and more loosely. it is a growing issue on both regulation and in terms of competition, when i drive into work, and i hear people say borrow from the credit union,
and we talk on the radio, i wonder what is the common bond that they are going through? there is a growing issue there. the credit union movement or membership has expanded drastically. host: isaac, independent color. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to ask you about the sudden shift it seems that both republicans and democrats calling for big banks to break up. fed, the newis official saying that we need to break up these biggest banks. frank work? number two, will there ever be a push to break up the nation's big banks? guest: very thoughtful question. very much about i would expect from people from maryland. there is a push. you heard it occurring on the campaign trail. on theof both parties
republican side talked about that. bernie sanders is talking about that. there is a push. dodd frank did not consciously break up the big bank. the government had a position where it owned and equity stake in a lot of the largest banks. there is a big push for the nationalization of banks which the obama administration, and i was a part of it, i think it was widely resisted. the call to nationalize the bank and rehabilitate them and put them back out. you know, i think a lot of the question has to be the devil's in the details. dodd frank created a series of very costly situations to correspond to this. eating a big bank cost a lot. .he op ed you talk about the idea it was to let the market make that determination about how much is too big, and what is too costly, rather than
the government set an arbitrary threshold. when we were at this bipartisan , we're breaking up the big banks and analyzing that. it turns out that the devil is in the details. it is easy for to cost more. dople say what do you want? you want to separated by business model? the first one is bank of america, because it is too big. no is going to tell them that. the devil is in the details. speech,ay that the minneapolis federal reserve bank president was very provocative. it was part of a large conversation. i think it is good to see different people and the federal reserve about different ideas. host: by the way, we cover that situation. c-span was there. if you missed it, and you want to go back, whether panel
discussion. first, neil spoke and then we had a panel discussion. thatid in the headline dodd frank did not deal with too big to fail. guest: too big to fail becomes one catchphrase. if you tweak it, you can follow me on twitter. it is like one word. if you stop and think about it, it is really two concepts. to fail.- ask yourself, if any institution can fail, does size matter? if you're in a situation where apple hasannot fail, predicated on business been able to fail. that should extend to banks. in fact, one question i like to ask about the time in american history belongs the one between 2202 thousand six. that was not a sign of health, it was the sign of a problem. should have failure and banks. sometimes, i wonder if we do not
tolerate enough failure. if you really care if it opens a third branch or expands its operation, dodd frank was opened much more on the to fail side. as set up a system which i think had a lot of promise to allow any bank to fail. if anybody can fail, then you have to ask about them being too big. some people are. think it is important to pull apart these concepts. that is when you think through analytically. host: explain how dodd frank had these things. guest: number one, they had a new failure regulation regime called single point of entry. in which any large bank, be it a commercial bank or investment bank lehman brothers can be theired by the fdic, resolve commercial banks. now, it has broad authority to do this for commercial banks and investment banks.
non-banks have been designated systemically. it allows them to put them into without creating this systemic disruption that you saw in the lehman brothers. weay that in theory, because have not put it to the test. it feels very promising. that is step one. step two is that it requires all banks to create a living will to describe how they could be the situation of failure. at the moment of crisis, you have a plan. the things wef found was that the crisis occurred so quickly. you woke up every day and there was a new mega institution in the paper. now, regulators will have a plan. there deems to be credible in order to unwind them. regulators find these wills not credible. both the fdic and the fed. they have the authority to break them up on that basis. host: denver, colorado. dean is next.
caller: good morning. yes, i have a comment and a question. as long as i have watched the federal reserve q interest rates and keep them low, or beyond zero, it seems to me that they have only enabled banks to grow larger. between mergers and acquisitions. to do a lot of arbitrage investing. at the same time, at the consumer level, credit card rates are at 19%. student loan debt rates and interest rates have been climbing. as a small businessman, in 30 years, i have never been able to get a loan from a bank. money to be used in a certain way to stimulate the economy, if that is the true intent of qualitative using. and, issuing more funds for the bank. guest: that is a great question.
it is complicated. let me try to piece couple of those things together. first of all, the federal reserve should not decide who does or does not get a loan. the problem of a small business getting a loan is that it is particularly acute in this economy. what you have seen in the financial crisis is that there are too many loans underwritten too poorly. there is a natural pendulum where it has swung too much the other way. variety of a economic reasons and regulations. there is a lot of uncertainty. what looked like it was good in 2007 has turned out not to be so good. one thing that the obama administration working with congress did was that it created a program whereby banks can get cheap capital from the u.s. government if they lead to a small business. a more small business lending they did, the more interest
charged was. now, i want to point out that at the end of the day, the bank made the ultimate decision on the loan. that is where the ultimate decision should lie. they just had a strong financial incentive. that was targeted towards small banks and small business lending. the second point i want to make about bank mergers is that you have to member where you started from. before 1990, banks cannot regulate across the state line. we had a prohibition on interstate banking. with 16,000 banks in america. i think that is a little inefficient. we eliminated government restriction in congress. you saw a wave of bank consolidation. we went from 16,000 down to 6000. that is like 5900 more than almost any other country. have seen these waves of
consolidation. we have more branches today than we did when we had 16,000 banks. it is not that the customers are not being served. there were a lot of mergers. this financial crisis has not had much in the larger banks. what we found was that even when the merger stopped, other consumers weren't walking towards large banks rather than smaller banks. this may be because people move. they've the better atm network. better products, better access to technologies. some people argue that even though the fdic insures everybody has the $250,000 deposit. very few people have more than that in a bank account, still, there are some sort of government issue of too big to fail. i do not think that is the issue. it is not really what is driving consumer choice. those are all different factors. the data is clear. people are choosing larger and
larger banks to hold their money. daniel is next in michigan. independent color. hello. caller: hello. question is that can the federal reserve motivation, part of their motivation to keep banks low help clear the interest that they pay on the no.onal debt that go guest: you are right that their interest is tied to the market rate which is tied to how the federal reserve moves. there is a real supper is asian of market and monetary policy and fiscal policy and the treasury department. i think the independence of the fed is a monetary policy is paramount. any legislation that would challenge their independence and make them think about issues to keep the treasury department have a would be problematic. on the treasury department, we had low interest rates for a long time. treasury department debt is long-term.
that is 30 year debt. we do have short-term debt. some of that has already been locked in. that is not their motivation. the fed has two mandates for monetary policy. stable prices, and full employment. that is often called the dual mandate. thus, it fills those two objectives. host: when you look at those objectives, what you see in our country? side, on employment official unemployment is low. i tend to think the economy can sustain more unemployment than their internal models. they said the unemployment rate fell below 6%. it is runaway inflation. down-3.9's we went percent unemployment. we do not see any runaway inflation. sometimes, i think the fed may have an overreliance on the models.
labor withres of underutilization bring down the broader marshals of unemployment at 9.9%. is the lowestthis it has been since early 2008. there is additional slack in the labor market. we've seen a lot of people leave the labor market. hopefully, they can come back of the economy stronger. we have made a lot of progress since we had 10% unemployment. with regard to inflation, inflation is too low. the fed may have gone too far in their battle against inflation. nominal to have a 2% target for inflation to we are nowhere near that. we have gas prices getting farther away than that. the fed has seriously underestimated inflation. they keep thinking it is around the corner and never shows up. that is one reason why they may be overly aggressive. host: are they worried about the
opposite? guest: they should be worried about it. they started to get worried about it. one reason is that they keep thinking oil will rebound. at the fedok statement, they talk about the 110 down toil from 80 down to 40 down to 30. i think part of the problem is economists -- and i am one of economists tend to think and use a lot of models. models assume a certain amount of objective rationality. most people think about oil, there was an earlier caller talking oil and natural gas. about maximizing profits. they think in terms of a private company. --m not sure that opec russia, a lot of these countries that have more nationalized oil are out to maximize profits like a short-term corporation. i think the different objectives
and the fed has continually not got those right. it is hard to write a model to the goal host: of the kingdom of saudi arabia. this is the front page of the times. they are in an agreement to decline -- to stall the decline of oil prices. guest: often they are not in regards to what is good for the american consumer. they raise the cost of oil and cause a giant recession. now, the u.s. is a net energy producer. the effects are not as clear. i will say when i filled up my tank this weekend, that put more money in my pocket. i am not sure if that helps us were hurt us. host: explain what is bad about deflation. guest: what does deflation mean? it means that your money is worth more tomorrow than today. or theosite of inflation
value of money roads over time. if the money is worth more tomorrow than today, why should i buy anything today? everybody took that point of view, nobody would buy anything. the economy would go into free fall. it is not just actual deflation, the expectation of deflation can be very troubling. japan has had problems with this. it is something that what happens in a developed economy it creates a recession. is next in florida. democrat, thank you for hanging on the line. your turn. caller: i wanted to talk about the credit history. you see how bad the credit freeze has hurt the united states with this bubble. i just came back from zimbabwe where the united states had a credit fee fall in the country. the credit freeze is hurting them as bad as anything can hurt them. iran, is really
hurting this small country, because magali told england they had to leave. host: i think i understand what you are saying. guest: a couple things. as you point out with your mortgage, this can impact the concept of the credit box. isyou're out of that rate expensive. that kind of binary is what we want. we want a continuum. where the richer you aren't you on a higher interest rate less lending. you do not want that to end your year route. we deal with the hyperinflation of countries that still have those problems. questions about rule of law where you lend money. of america's great competitive advantages is the rule of law. invested money saying you will wake up the next day in the government has taken this. very different than countries we
have discussed. host: going back into the united states come all caps deals transpire, what impact does that happen -- impact does that have yet to -- have? guest: some of the housing bubbles are inflated by foreign investment. in general, housing is a supply and demand again. ,hen there are other people that will drive up the price. the housing market is rebounding but will have a lot of issues. for newer people who need the money, they can get pushed out by the same price. we do not have to worry about whether their financing will come through.
this creates a have and have not problem, which is problematic because the homebuilding has been a great avenue for people of more modest means to build the mastec the need for retirement. host: we will go to brian in maryland. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i heard you speak that we need more bank regulations. prior to the clinton administration, we have single ads. as you know, the clinton administration allow the banks to go off and go there ways and separate interest banking. all the different things that caused all these problems. also with the clinton administration, we also had community reinvestment act. a balloon money to people who were not qualified , which lowered the standard for suitable to put 20% down. now, they can go interest only. , we also hears
about how the banks room the housing market. how they run the economy. i wonder if you can explain to people about how the government is forcing banks to give out loans to people who were not qualified. now, they cannot get that money back. i wonder if that had any effect on the economy. all those things. if you take the reinvestment act out, that makes dodd and frank moved. guest: i hate to disagree with you. the investment act was passed in 1970, it said a bank can't ignore it problem of redlining of ignoring moderate income community's. it does not force a single bank to make a single loan to a single person. whove never met a banker said i do not want to give that loan, but the government forced me. in fact, most of the loans you are talking about in the housing bubble did not even come from
banks that were responsible. they often came from mortgage bankers. from mortgage bankers to a trade into a private investment bank. we had to securitize straight into the market. we need to go to the banking system. so, the community reinvestment relevant toeally the financial crisis. host: before you go on, what about the pressure that fannie and freddie felt from congress to give out more mortgages? guest: they do not give mortgages. they buy mortgages other people have made. they relate to the subprime gain. they got into late. they lost a lot of money. there were not adequately capitalizing. they went under. if you talk about the interest ninjas, thosens, practices started outside the system securing money into investment.
fannie and freddie got into the game. they were greedy. they have problem with their mission and their structure. they exacerbated the problem. i do not give them a free pass. it is important to get the timeline right on that. glass spiegel, technically it was not repealed. of things.w a lot allowed commercial and investment banking to merge. bank toit -- it allows own traveling. anybody have their car insurance through their bank? the theory did not work out. the company split. exception is usda which operates on a different business model. banking and insurance have not mixed. it is an area where a lot of people scratch their heads. it was a big driving force with allowing that activity.
the question you ask yourself is , what are the companies and the names you think about the financial crisis, fannie, freddie, aig, countrywide, indymac, lean in, bear insurance. none of them could have existed doing all the businesses they did under glass-steagall. that did not change any of their corporation structure. i think what my friend is getting at, and absence of the four is the idea that our grandparents, in that generation in the 30's who lived through financial crisis coupled what we did put in a series of tough regulations that kind of hemmed in the practice and created a dice -- the stable financial system. allowed a great generation to have economic growth. was someone in the deregulatory genre of the last 20 years, we that some of the new forms
prior generations did and let things get out of control. whether that was the government or the natural business cycle. if you go back in recorded history, we see the three generation pattern, because people forget. make a know will it. ninja subprime loan. host: i want to make it clear that you are saying that some have been critical of congress in the situation. on all the blame should be the banks. some of it should be on policy makers on capitol hill. do you agree with that? i think policymakers a capitol hill do not pay enough attention. i think is one of the first congressional hearings on subprime. 2001-2002. the chairman of the banking committee for maryland will be the chairman for 18 months. that multiple hearings on the credit market. that kind of went away.
i think that congress did not pay enough attention because in part, people that house and was good. they thought it would always go up. how can there be a home prices failure? going back to the federal reserve and interest rates not being in their computer, people do not have in their model that prices could even go negative. i think that congress does deserve some blame for not seeing the regulators. for not overseeing the subprime mortgage market. for not asking workable questions. and, for pushing. bank regulators deserve some blame. they say no banks have failed for three years, that means the sectors doing great. there are 6000-7000 banks, none of them have failed? nobody is trying a new business model? if you do not see a single restaurant go out of business for three years, that is not the sign of a healthy economy. host: we go to joe and south carolina. caller: i would like to raise a
capital access and property reduction issue, as it relates to african-american and hispanic entrepreneurs enable to get capital. i'm a green tech company owner. as you might know, less than 1% of companies like mine are able to get investment capital. however, as an older american, i have a substantial work time and account. helps have a 401(k) that me invest in any business. what i am suggesting is that individuals like me who have been denied access to capital be allowed to have their retirement account, like to me, have my retirement account invested my own company. onlyat were to happen, and 1% of the 5-6-trillion dollars that are still in the account of thosewould be used for
purposes, especially if investment was going to a poor community and printing jobs in that poor community, somewhere -60 $5 billion in private capital could be unleashed. , 750 jobsh estimates could be created. i would like to get your opinion about this. let us invest our own money in our own business. guest: thank you. that is a very thoughtful point. torge you to write it up some thoughtful members of congress down columbia. i think more than a few presidential candidates are on the stump down there. it is a very thoughtful suggestion. the whole area you are suggesting it needs to get private capital into small business. historically, small business is funded by home-equity loans. savings, credit cards, these things have really narrowed down and become a more stringent in
their underwriting of small business. there is a real problem with access to capital. to your retirement account, there is an issue of the tax-free retirement account. if you want to invest money outside the tax benefit account, you can get a trade-off. the government wants to be really certain that the money will be there when you retire. you raise some good questions. it would be worthwhile to look into the details of whether those restrictions need to be updated. host: unless call for you. dennis in south carolina. independent. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i'm a first-time caller. i'm trying to make this call from canada. 70-year-old company. we have some health issues. where on social security only.
we have done pretty much everything we have been taught to do. our entire license where children. be conservative with our money. mass.me with have a small ,e feel like and a lot of ways we are being punished by these extremely low interest rates. we will use this money to supplement our income. i like your view on this. thank you. go,: dennis, before you you're messing your social security increase either? caller: no. guest: dennis, you raise some good points. independent from south carolina. they all go together. they -- low interest rates are in the negative. in the aggregate, they seem like the economy. in the negative, people are older. what i would point out is that
it is not just the nominal interest rate you senior deposit , it is also the effective interest rate when you look at inflation. we measure inflation broadly. it includes things that are more applicable to senior like health care costs. it includes things that are less applicable like college tuition. broadly speaking, with low inflation commission mean a lower nominal interest rate. it should mean the same purchasing power. what you buying gas to get to the doctor or the store has fallen price. closing today is much cheaper than it was 20 or 30 years ago. , ituting, your cell phone may cost the same get a fliptop phone 10 or 15 years ago. tool thanr greater things you can get free online that used to be very costly. so, as a question that you are right that people who make long-term plans, plan on a
higher interest rate. they have been hurt in this situation. it is a good thing to always think about that because when you think about your own plan for the future, the past is not a guaranteed -- prologue. you probably remember when interest rates were at 20%. they could be zero for five years and we will talk about negative interest rate from you 11 say that will never happen. it is important to have a lot of contingency planning. host: we appreciate the conversation on interest rates. negative interest rates. by the way, you can follow eric lines thinking and writing, if you're part of policy.org. ,hat is it bbc underscore bipartisan. thank you very much. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will turn our attention to campaign 2016. is there any candidate that scares you? usa today asked that in a recent poll. the results are on the front
page of their newspaper this morning. 38% of those polls said donald trump scares them. 28 --id hillary clinton, 28% said independent vermont senator bernie sanders. we turned the calls to you this morning. does any candidate scare you? will put the numbers on the screen. start dialing it. we'll take a break. first, let me say president obama's news conference from yesterday weighing in on the 2016 gop field. president obama i think foreign observers are troubled by some of the rhetoric that has taken place in his republican primaries and republican debates. i do not think it is restricted to mr. trump. i think it is interesting that everybody's focused on him, primarily because he says and more interesting ways what the other candidates are saying as well.
ante inay up the anti-muslim sentiment, but if you look at what the other republican candidates have said, that is troubling as well. he may express strong anti-immigration sentiment, but you heard that from the other candidates as well. you have a candidate who sponsored a bill. one i supported. , to solve the problem he is running away from it as fast as he can. they are all denying climate change. that is troubling to the international community since the science is unequivocal. the other countries around the world kind of count on the united states being on the side of science and reason. and common sense. the unitedy know
states does not act on big problems in smart ways, nobody well. -- nobody will. this is not just donald trump. look at the statements being made by the other candidates. obama yesterday at his news conference talking about campaign 2016 republican field. he doesn't believe the american people will elect donald trump to be president. donald trump tweeting this out -- "usa today" asking people, who scares you the most when it comes to campaign 2016? take a look at the results. 38% said donald trump, 33% said hillary clinton. does any candidate scare you?
republicans, democrats, independents. let's dig into the numbers in this suffolk university poll. 38% said scared of donald trump. included 62% of democrats, 17% of republicans and 33% of independents. hillary clinton's numbers, 30 3% said the idea of her winning the nomination scares her coming clini. sanders, 28%e scared. 45% of republicans, 28% of independents and 12% of democrats. stanley in mississippi. independent. good morning to you. does any candidate scare you? jeb bush scares me the
most. brother tookis and elections through fraud he got us in an unfunded war that cost the country trillions of dollars. the bush's know how to steal elections. jeb keeps hanging around. they are waiting to steal another election. likely, that scares me. host: headline in the washington post. ae war in iraq remains divisive issue in both parties. unearthed theump controversy to discredit opponents. muriel in florida. the publican. caller: sanders, of course. he will give everything away. because i have no idea
how she keeps getting away with all the lies and all the things they are finding out. i did call up the first one, the man that just left. man was talking about, he was on social security, so am i. if you figure out the people that are on welfare, section eight, health-care and everything they are getting come it is more than anybody on social security and that is a shame. host: tom in cave springs come arkansas. democrat. do any of these candidates scare you? caller: all of them on the republican side except jeb bush. he seems to be the most moderate. trump does not have a clue. ted cruz wants to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of the people of the country. marco rubio is just too crazy.
-- if i was forced to vote, i would have to vote for jeb bush. vote if you were forced to in the republican primary, you would vote for jeb bush. caller: i would have to, but i'm a democrat. either one of the democratic candidates is acceptable to me. host: take a look at this front page of the posting carrier in south carolina. pick?ll nikki haley certainly not donald trump. she's embarrassed by attacks on jeb bush as the primary clock ticks. cnn out with a new poll that shows leads on both sides. this is what they've found in south carolina. donald trump with a 16 point voteamong those likely to
in the south carolina public and primary. that republican primary. -- in the south carolina republican primary. marco rubio at 14%. jeb bush at 10%. dr. ben carson has 6% while john kasich is at 4%. sayrs in south carolina they trust trump on social issues and foreign policy but he is still near the top of preferred candidates. hillary clinton well with black voters and women. let's go to mark in california. independent caller. mark, go ahead. does any candidate scare you? caller: good morning and thank you for c-span.
they all scare me except for bernie sanders. the strange thing is, i always thought one person, one vote. delegatesrealize that really can pick whoever they want. bernie sanders wednesday new hampshire -- wins new hampshire by 22 points but they each get 15 delegates? because the superdelegates and delegates can choose whoever they want. .o me, that is not democracy i don't know how we ever came up .ith this scheme missi that is not democracy. it should be one person, one vote.
with these superdelegates and delegates. let's just go with popular vote. upon the scheme american people and i find it offensive to say that we have democracy in america. town is thein headline. donald trump will be campaigning there. we will have coverage of one of -- offense in south carolina one of his events in south carolina and 5:00 p.m. eastern time today. you can watch that on c-span or listen in on c-span radio or go to www.c-span.org. you can get the app on your phone and listened to the event as well. we will be covering marco rubio who will be in south carolina at
six click p.m. eastern time -- six click p.m. eastern time. -- 6:00 p.m. eastern time. in pennsylvania. republican. do any of these candidates scare you? caller: ted cruz scares me. ted cruz come hillary clinton and jeb bush. i did my homework on the koch brothers and he has been paid off by the koch brothers. herary clinton because of hillary clinton foundation in canada. she's 10% charity and 90% for herself. she may be taking money from the koch brothers. jeb bush because i don't want a president who will give warnings from his military and do nothing and have another 9/11. blame president
bush as trump has been saying ? caller: i blame bush junior. not jeb. they are all the same bloodline. they are all into the oil, their own money. i don't trust them. host: who is your candidate? caller: donald trump. host: here's the headline in the wall street journal. jeb bush struggles for traction in the key state. dan in california could democrat. you're on the air. good morning. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. i listen to you every morning from 4:00 in the morning until 7:00. , all the republican
scare me except possibly john kasich did he's the only one that makes sense. the one that scares me the most is ted cruz. is going tok trump be electable. o ridiculous. cruz is doing pretty well. he scares the living daylights out of me because of his theological perspectives. he sounds like he wants to be running the country according to right-wing ideology and he is switching back and forth and associating himself with really
extremist religious folks. host: take a look of the washington times front page this money. abandons partier trump. morning.page this an outspoken supporter of mr. trump but told the washington times has become repulsed at the business man's ballot out and crude antics on the stump -- behavior and crude antics on the stump. gr in woodland, tennessee.
independent. good morning. -- jr in woodland, tennessee. caller: all three of them scare me. who claims to be a conservative. he was a liberal for most of his life. , who you don't know which words coming out of her mouth and a lie. -- ain't a lie. whole life has been scandal pretty cannot trust her. sanders in his younger , is being a communist believe a great number of the people who support him have never lived out of the united
--tes and have no idea why they give me problems. the leaders in the pack come if we end up having them as president, the united states is done. host: who is your candidate? caller: i'm leaning between rubio and ted cruz. heio scares me because became a part of the gang of eight. ted cruz, some of his ideas are pretty good. conservative,s a very staunch one, but at the he canme, not sure how work with the congress, how many of them are going to -- even there, so many of them have stabbed him in the back.
get though they tried to people to believe they are conservatives. host: we are asking the question based on the question suffolk university asked for usa today. who scares americans the most? vicki in florida. republicans are good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. -- republican. good morning. anyone in the democratic party, to be quite honest with you. it is not my grandmother's democratic party. especially hillary because she vowed to keep in a continuum the policies of our present president. i just want to make a comment, if i could come on your caller before me saying we are not a
democracy. we are formed as a republic. we are not perfect, there may be a lot that does not come across as democratic. i do agree with him that i wish it just could be the populist vote. in the policies we've been under, i'm afraid there's too many links to socialism, too many links to tomunism, too many links leaning toward an early beginnings of muslim upbringing and sympathizing even though there are many wonderful muslims. host: his religion important to you? caller: oh, yes. host: who is your candidate, then? theer: i actually think
major issue in this country for this feature is jobs. -- this future is jobs. that is the bottom line for me. i am supporting mr. trump. anita in florida. democrat. you're next. first of all, before i tell you my candidate come i would like to tell you that both radical party scare me. on both sides. becausemedia scares me they influence we the voters by giving us bias and too many of us, the american voters scare me because we are not doing enough to really check out our own ideas but yet, how do we do it if we are going to get all of this bias everywhere you turn around. i'm an american first, i'm a
moderate who wants what is best for my country. trump scares me for two reasons. we all don't know what he will do. he loves keeping us that way. he is either going to send us into war and get our kids killed or he is going to be bad for the economy because he is going to help line the pockets of his fellow billionaires. i really feel that way. host: odell in texas. what do you think? caller: good morning. i, like a lot of people, i'm used to finding trump the most scary of the candidates. this link to the debates and the town halls come i have switched over to ted cruz. any brand of extremism, particularly religious extremism of any kind is quite disturbing.
is hillary because of what i lies a lots that she . she's being investigated by the or the fbi is conducting an thattigation of her server she had at home. a private server. host: luis in san antonio. democrat. good morning to you. which candidate scares you? caller: ted cruz a scares me for several reasons.
i am an avid c-span watcher. i watch a program that was put on in november by the national religious liberty conference where a minister was up there running around jumping up and down on the stage talking about how the bible says they should kill homosexuals. gaze.s, he used the term .- the term gays ted cruz was a speaker at that conference. san antonio life put out a long all the candidates and how much money they were receiving from texas. ted cruz is receiving $31.8 million from four families, three having to do with oil, fracking and one who is a yacht builder and hedge fund manager.
host: who is your candidate? caller: i have not made a decision, but i am a democrat, so i will definitely vote for who was ever the democratic candidate. if i were to vote for a republican, it would be john kasich. he has a proven background, he is levelheaded. i believe he is a truth teller. democrats in nevada get to vote before democrats in south carolina. that is the front page of the reno gazette journal of nevada. .aucuses countdown this starts at 11:00 a.m. on saturday. state,w polls in this esta
the nevada democratic caucus is hard to call. the last major public survey was conducted four months ago. a more recent poll produced by beaconhington freebie this month found that the race had tightened considerably in nevada. larry in rapid city, south dakota. independent. does any candidate scare you? personally, they are
just a couple that scare me. is just a couple that scare me. just about every republican. to really understand what is going on here, you have to look at the capitalistic system. you look at the capitalistic system, it is monopoly. what happens in a monopoly? the rich win, they own everything, they control everything. that, youe a look at start to get scare just as bad. listen to the republicans come all of them want to go to war. what is with this war thing? why do they want to go over and kill another 5000 guys and wound another 30,000? that scares me. that is something that can be taken care of over a period of time. bernie sanders is the only one who talks like he wants to do some thing for the people of the unite states.
-- united states. host: we've got about five minutes left in today's program. chris in kentucky. republican. caller: good morning. about -- withd the american people. there were some excellent candidates in the beginning. lindsey graham and rand paul would have been excellent. ,.c. is a complicated area place to operate in. everybody wants to hire an outsider because they are frustrated. .t is very difficult to mine the american people will get what they deserve because they don't pay attention all the time. it is something we need to pay attention all the time too. host: you mentioned rand paul not being in the race anymore. take a look at the headline in politico. burning
good morning. caller: i was calling just to say donald trump scares me the most because he is not in the government. i don't know if he even knows about politics. he just calls people liars and stupid and whatnot. if the republican party, when you look at ted cruz and rubio , what they say on the different channels is so much different because they come back to washington, d.c. and get on the house and senate floor and everything they said is different. republicansl 246 voting no for health care, planned parenthood, women's rights, social security benefits come everything. why did they say they are for america when they vote no for everything? all 188 democrats vote yes for all the bills. host: walt in virginia.
good morning good independent. -- independent. good morning. caller: i'm afraid to donald trump is taking the american people for a ride. the situation started back in 2012 when mitt romney did not have enough backbone to take out obama. i don't believe donald trump is a true conservative or republican. i think he is running interference for the democrats. admits in a little thing the other day that he had signed a contract with the republicans, but the republican party has dishonored that, which gives him an out. if he comes out and decides to run as an independent, they will