tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 11, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
this is just some of what she was talking about, as far as how much you should talk about in the confirmation process. how much does the nominee to reveal? if you want to join us for this discussion, this is the way to do this. and if you are wanting to send us something electronic, you can do this using e-mail. firstname.lastname@example.org. and on twitter, twitter.com and cspanwj is the address.
before she became a columnist for the new york times, greenhouse was a correspondent for the supreme court. she has a piece on this topic. and this is something that she writes. the confirmation hearing should reveal the vision of the court. privacy rights and free speech, race and gender discrimination, everything should be on the table for analysis. and she has her own thoughts. she says, i hope that the nominee believes now what she wrote about back then. i believe the white house handlers muscled her when they said that they should not leave the minimalist approach. there were 31 votes against
sonia sotomayor. what was gained by this strategy? i would say that this is a loss for the public, and for progressives in particular. conservatives were able to claim a moral victory. again -- we will take your thoughts on what should be revealed by the supreme court nominees. we will start in maryland. this is on the democratic line. >> good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i believe that the supreme court nominees have to give us more. they have become so handled, you cannot get a real perspective.
i understand the reason that they do this. this is because they do not want to say anything that will cause problems in washington. one of these crazy moments. this is unfortunate because at every hearing, the questions never get to the heart of anything. this is just unfortunate for the whole process, and this does a disservice to the court and the american people. host: what kind of questions would you like to hear people asking? >> i would go to the constitution question. i would go to the questions on the large end, freedom of speech, with the internet. the things that are cutting edge, where the legislation has not been formulated. i would go to the patriot act,
questioning the powers that have changed, recently, and see what this person is thinking. they have not seen all of the briefs of the other justices. find out their thinking on these questions. host: we go to the democrats' line, in tucson, arizona. >> i just want to say that i feel that she is very capable, and i trust the judgment of barack obama. some of these phone calls, this morning, this has not been so bad. but sometimes this is so hateful. and i wish that more americans would be americans before they are democratic or independent, before they have the republican point of view, just be the
american first. we're walking a little bit more unity. >> can you tell me how much should be revealed by these nominees before they get before the senate? what do they need to be talking about? >> the opinion matters, but more so, what matters is the background and what she has done in the past. what has she done for the americans to bring people together. what will make her good. and there were several opinions going one way or the other. is she going to do america justice? >> richmond, virginia. good morning. >> thank you for taking my call. i think that this is difficult to imagine these people giving you everything in the confirmation hearings. the history speaks to what they are all about.
when these people speak to them, they know what they think about things. i think you have to respect that if they are nominated, they have done great service to the country, and you will not get everything that you want in a compromise -- a cop -- a confirmation hearing. >> because she came from the academic field, does this matter more this time around, that she will talk more about certain issues? and that she should give that evidence? >> i believe that you do. having not have been a judge, that is one area where she will be able to give us more. but these are the questions people ask. these are the questions that i
believe that she will answer. she appears very forthright. >> the headline says that there is no lightning rod. it goes on to talk about her scholarship and the harvard law review describes and endorses the presidential powers in different areas such as domestic energy policy. she said the policy-making, was bingham's or by the white house. -- was being made by the white house. she says -- host: we are talking about how much should be revealed by the nominee.
patricia, go ahead. >> i would like to know if the nominee is a zionist. if so, i think that disqualifies her. we have too many zionists in the government. the supreme court should be free of extreme religious views. host: tampa, florida. guest: my concern is she is not working as a judge. it is hard to imagine somebody being a justice who has not been a judge. that is my major concern. this is something the president could hve chosen. somebody who will pass the test. she won't pass because she is not a judge. host: what would you like t osee
o see her talk about? caller: her views on issues important to this country, like immigration and terrorism and human rights. these issues are important wand we don't know how she would rule. host: how much information will be revealed on these issues? caller: it depends ont h the scrutiy of the senate. how much detail will they ask for? host: that was tampa, florida. because of issues in louisiana and the oil, there are harings on capital -- hearings on
capital hill. we will have an offshore drilling hearing. jim snyder writes -- he joines us on the phone. can you tell us who will be featured and what kind of questions they will answer? host: we have executives -- guest: we have executives from british petroleum joining us, including newman of transotion and cobert, the president of global business lines for halliburton. and you have the man who regulates the oil industry. i believe that the executives,
they all had workers on the oil rig when this exploded. they'll be asked to explain what they think was the cause of this. >> as far as these three executives, can you tell me the relationship that they have to each other? guest: british petroleum, and halliburton was responsible for closing this down. this is exploratory, and they will be covering this, and it will come back later to actually cover this. host: what is expected for those who will be doing the questioning. the situation still continues. guest: these three individuals will be before two committees, the energy and resources and the environmental and public works committee. they will face questions from both panels.
as the members who have been more favorable to the offshore drilling, there was a bill to expand this into the gulf. this was thought to be included in that climate change bill. this is not clear what will happen, and this may be removed. there are a lot of questions about who is to blame, focusing on the particular issues that led up to this, for the explosion and whether there were a series of valves, attached to the type of the draw -- tight -- pipe of the drill. and there is still danger there. host: have these executives shown their response, in light
of this questioning? guest: the energy and natural resources committee released their testimony yesterday. british petroleum is focusing on preventing the explosion. they said they were understanding that no matter what happened, they would close down the pipe, preventing this from happening. they were partially, but this has not close them completely. 5,000 barrels are leaking. halliburton and trans ocean have a different account. their testimony is focusing on the process of when this was taken down to the well, to close this. there is a process where they put this heavy fluid, to prevent the gas from seeping up.
typically, they will put concrete down into the mud, and then they step this out, replacing this with seawater, and apparently -- the mud was taken out and replaced with seawater, before this was taken down. halliburton mentioned their focus on the process. host: what kind of questions do you expect about this as far as they are concerned? guest: there is legislation in congress, to raise the liability to $10 billion. these executives have spoken about this issue, and enough about by the cab and they will pay everything. there may be a fight among the companies, and their mite -- there may be a lawsuit against
trans ocean or halliburton. there will be a lot of focus by members of congress on who was doing what. there is no cap on the cleaning costs under the oil pollution gap. >> he writes about energy issues, to talk about these hearings that will take place later on today. do not forget, 10:00, the senate environment committee will talk about this issue with these executives. and if you want to continue in this discussion, there is a question on facebook.com/c- span. you'll be able to see what other people are writing about this. back to this story of the nominees before the senate, looking at the supreme court
nominees and how they should deal with certain cases. thank you for waiting. >> my belief about the nomination is that whenever they have the hearings, they will try to make a circus out of this. and one of the favorite phrases seems to be that they will in this down their throats. and this goes down to the civil rights bill. and it seems to make everyone angry when they say this. they are going to avoid the issues, regardless. host: if this is to be expected, how much should the nominee revealed? >> this is where equality comes in, before someone goes before the judge, the judge should be neutral. they should not be prejudiced,
trying to determine if someone is guilty or innocent. by their looks or by their race. >> good morning. >> thank you. guest: i would like to speak to the previous caller in regard to her judicial experience. never having been a judge. this is my understanding that the chief justice, justice rehnquist, was a non-practicing judge, but rose to the chief justice position. i do not believe that this is something that disqualifies her. in fact, this may present a balance that is needed on the supreme court. we have heard the term about
activist judges. we have experience, with the position by many judges on the court. i believe that her real-world experience as well as her and practical experience, teaching the law and having the full understanding of the law, through the educational system as well as serving two presidents, makes her an excellent candidate and i would like to conclude by saying that the democrats always do a very poor job in promoting their ideas. they do not get in front of the arguments that are baseless, that have been made by the opposing party. i am an independent, but i
believe if you have someone who is qualified, and you have an issue that is truly something that you believe in, you must be willing to fight for this. and you have to have a plan and you do not do this well at all. >> to get some context to this process, we were able to talk to -- we were able to have justice john paul stevens talking about this. >> i understand that the interview with the middle of the committee and the nominee, they may ask all sorts of questions about particular issues, and of course the nominee, to the extent that the person has addressed this issue, with the published opinion. to talk about this opinion in cases that have not yet been presented, i believe is quite wrong. this is wrong to have the nominee tried to indicate what
position that they would be taking. this is often true that you really do not know about this until the case is argued. host: illinois, you are next. >> these right-wing collars cracked me up. it would be terrible to have a constitutional collar on the supreme court. look what these judges have done for us. the supreme court ruled that corporations are people, and they are afforded all of the rights of citizens and none of the responsibilities. more recently, the eminent domain, land can be taken for commercial use. not for the good of all people, but for rich people who are making money. exxon did not have to clean up after the oil spill.
and even foreign corporations can get unlimited amounts to political campaigns in this country. we need to have more real judges, and not a constitutional scholars. >host: mark? i want to echo the young woman from florida. and if this woman is confirmed, she would be the 41st candidate on the supreme court not to have had experience as a judge. the 41st judge with no previous experience, and adding to that, justice roberts only had two years of being a judge.
clarence thomas only had one year as a judge. i would appreciate getting that in, information that is true. >> what does this mean as far as how much the candidate should reveal with the confirmation process? how much do you want to hear about these cases? >> i agree with the previous caller, because this is exactly right. you can only talk about something -- to try to go into the future and talk about these issues, how can you do this if the law is supposed to be based on the facts? i would expect for her to be able to support her writings, and whenever they have been in the past. i believe that this is fair game. i do not believe anything she
has documented, giving away her legal opinion -- all of this should be open and fair game. >> there was a piece by naomi, the assistant professor at the george mason school of law. with the associate white house counsel to george w. bush. she writes that this is a hollow charade. it would be good if she could explain her views of the judicial process. we know very little about this and because she has never been a judge, she has never written on this topic. the nominee will differ substantially from the predecessor as she articulates this difference. those facing her face a simple political problem. progressive views of judging are difficult to defend. nobody has tried to do this.
the idea that judges should make felt -- should interpret the law and not create this -- reality may be more complicated but the attitude that emphasizes the long rule of law, because this captures the idea -- this emphasizes that the judge should interpret the language of the law, and not impose her personal view of justice. this is naomi. this morning in the wall street journal. >> good morning. i would like for the justice or the nominee to explain why she took the military from harvard law school. she lost 8-0. the other thing is that there
will be six catholics and one jewish individual. i do not see how we are eliminating the protestants. i think that religion has some impact on your thinking. nobody has been talking about this. thank you very much. >> we have gilbert on the independent line. >> thank you. we have to have another black person on there, because clarence thomas is not this. one of the earlier callers mentioned that the courts -- we do not have any protestants in this, and the only time that we get by partisanship is whenever we have someone on the court coming up -- that is the only time. >> several newspapers mention
the court and off of twitter, one person says that this is the fulfillment of a mandate. lancaster, pennsylvania. the republican line. >> the last person who called, i did not think that this would be six catholics and three jewish people to represent america. but my question that i would like for someone that answer, i believe that she was on the board of goldman sachs. this is in 2008. and right now, they are facing a legal investigation. it would be unprofessional to nominate somebody who could possibly be involved in the investigation.
and i would also say that she is appointed to by lawrence summers. she appears to be with the financial oligarchs in this country. with tim geithner, and henry paulson. this is becoming very ridiculous. it seems that they are starting to run this country. and what about commerce? this is going to swallow up the constitution and she will need to answer some questions. host: new york, independent line? caller: i think that the last person who called was spot-on.
there is lawrence summers and the rest of them. i am here to hear her answer questions about miranda rights. we have the response of americans with this next criminal -- this last criminal incident. i would like to know what her case should be, if she would be strengthened, and other cases like the patriot at, to see her view in respect for this. and it seems that in this age of terrorism, we are giving up all of our rights as americans. this is something that is very questionable. given the fact that she has no experience as a judge. we have had numerous people on the court that do not have
judicial experience. but she should be asking some hard questions -- they should ask for some hard questions and i believe that she will differ, but we will see what happens. >> another man says that -- a couple of other stories from the newspaper this morning. toyota is facing another probe from the united states, as they launched an investigation to see if they fail to report the defects in certain models. this was one month after they paid a $16.4 million fine, that the company knowingly was hiding defective piping. there were the delay rods, and this prompted 21 complaints to
the national highway safety administration. no one was killed before they recall the vehicles in september 2005. this covered 938,000 vehicles. fannie mae, coming under question again in the new york times this morning, for their request for 8.4 billion in federal aid. this comes at the inconvenient time, for the obama administration that is pushing financial regulations. the government has transferred $137 billion to fannie mae, ever since they took over the finance giants in 2008. the democrats want to hold off the policy before the midterm
election. republicans say that this is a priority. i think that this is a fair thing to say -- florida, on the republican line. caller: good morning. [unintelligible] i want to have somebody who has rights -- >> david, i'd like you to try back so we can make a clear connection. benjamin, dallas. caller: i knew what he was talkinga bout. my question, and my opinion is
that this is kind of hard. i do not say that she is automatically disqualified. it makes it ahrder. stephens -- harder. stephens said it becomes harder to look at the case-by-case basis. this makes it a little bit harder. i want to know if she is trans- national, and she believes that the constitution is below the law of the international community and the world? this would go against everything that we have believed in. you were reading an article about progressivism, and this is basically what this. but the gentleman before was talking about, how this shall not be infringed. these are the specific words that have to be interpreted the
way that they were meant to be when they were written. and i like to hear what she thinks about the constitution. and anything is fair game. if she is wanting to answer this or not, we have to know where she stands on the issue. this is the supreme court. this is the real deal. she will be here for life. this is a major deal and we have to know everything about her. and this will go for anybody. this is very important. the supreme court is an important branch of the government. >> what do you expect in the confirmation hearings? >> i think that this -- this is
going to change. some people say that we're only doing this because of obama. but the nation is changing. this is because of george w. bush and the things that he did. people are skeptical about the government. i am one of them. we have to know more about who we nominate and start taking the law seriously. the process, serious. people go through the motions and they make legislation, but they do not think about this. there was a democrat that said that they make all law that is not in the constitution. just like this, this is serious. people not really have time to care, because they have to do things. but as a nation, we have to wake up to the fact that we're facing the demise of a democracy. this is very sad because nobody
is falling the rule of law. we have to have more -- we have to take the amendment process and make this much easier. there are things that could be -- could be solved with an amendment. sometimes the justices are asked about cameras in the courtroom. this is what she had to say about this. >> i will ask about this question that i am interested in. justice sotomayor has the opposite view, of keeping these out. what would you tell them? >> they are not going to ask me. i have the feeling -- that will
make this decision themselves. and they probably should do this themselves. they are the most dynamic on the court. and we're pretending to give them advice on this. as i have been watching the court and the confirmations -- the day after this i went to every argument that was there, and this showed the supreme court in a much different way. the american public would see an amazing and extraordinary event. this court is so smart, and so
prepared, and so engaged, and everyone who gets up there, these of the toughest questions and the most challenging questions are thrown at this person. and there was a debate over, the extraordinary intellectual depth. and i would think, i not know if people remember, years and years ago. c-span have those cameras in the legislative chamber. it was clear that nobody was there. what are they doing? if you put this in the courtroom, people would see the institution of their government working at a very high level. that is one idea for doing this. >> if you want to see the
complete video rendering throughout the year, we invite for you to take advantage of the video library. if you go to this website, tyke elena kagan. you can see her and her work over the years, for a better idea of her thinking and positions. that is the c-span video l ibrary. we can give you all the information there. ft. meade, maryland. caller: i think this choice is very good. this may actually be an advantage. >> one question has that there is not much to look at .
so what would you like to see? >> she was working for thurgood marshall, and in general, her career. she also knows a lot -- much about the financial aspects. you see that she knows this person or that person. maybe she can help us get out of this. and as far as constitutional law, when you have arizona and requesting papers, and things of that nature, she would be a great asset to the court. >> washington, your next. caller: i am thinking that she is a good choice, and most of the supreme court justices that have been made in the past, much
of this was made by the republicans. i was surprised when the republican secretary was coming out and saying that there would be problems. because she is from the present administration. she worked with thurgood marshall, who became the chief justice. they solve this in the previous administration. >> what kind of questions would you like to see during the hearing? >> i would like for her to address the issue of the power of the states over the current immigration law, as compared to the federal authority over immigration.
i would like to see if she thinks united states has the right to legislate the integration. we are going to go host: -- host: we are going to go to the line. >> i would like to hear what she has to say about socialism in america. i would like to say that i would hate to see this go this way. >> we will continue on this topic as far as she is concerned. mark sherman is going to join us next. we will have this discussion in a few moments.
>> this morning, a senate committee listens to executives involved with an oil spill. they will testify before the senate energy committee and we will have live coverage of this hearing beginning at 10:00 eastern, right after washington journal. what was behind the plunge in the stock market? we will hear from the chairman of the sec, the commodity futures trading commission, and the new york stock exchange. this is on c-span 3. >> in the relentless revolution, she ascribes that capitalism is a cultural system. this is sunday night on c-span. >> we cannot replace his wisdom
or his experience, i have selected a nominee that i believes -- and i believe will maintain excellence and independence, integrity, and the passion for the law, and it will provide the same kind of leadership on the court. elena kagan. >> learn more about the nation's highest court from those who served on the bench. in "the surpreme court," conversations with all the justices. available in hardcover and an e- book. >> "washington journal" continues. host: will there be more that
is expected from her because she was not a judge? guest: i expect that the game plan is going to be the same. she will say as little as she has to, awaiting confirmation. she wrote about this about 15 years ago. she says that she has seen the error of her ways. >> and this will come up again. there is a battle to define her. but how will this breakdown? >> the republicans are suggesting that she has a thin record, and this then record it means that she will be a rubber stamp. i have heard this, for the administration. there are questions about her political inclinations, and the
republicans argue that she will be left of center. and i guess that this would not be much of a surprise. the democrats will say that she is a moderate within the mainstream, and open to both sides. obama talked about her willingness to go to both sides. host: if she becomes a justice, becoming the solicitor general, with this require her to hear cases -- to hear the cases coming up from the court? and how much will be affected by this? >> she would have to step aside for a number of cases. perhaps more, if the court actually agrees to this, and also, with the case is disposed of by the court. there is a case involving the government lawsuit against the tobacco industry that is currently pending on the court.
this would probably happen before the decision to hear the case, and her confirmation. she will almost certainly have to step aside. >> but this is not a problem, overall? >> this is considered a short- term problem. >> tell me about the preparation that is going to go into the confirmation. who are the people who will be there with her and what is their job until confirmation? >> you have the white house counsel himself, but this office and that team, along with the justice department and the office of legal policy, will be involved in getting ready for the confirmation hearings. we saw this just one year ago. this is going to be the same in many respects. and there will be a lot of time that is spent in the next few
weeks, preparing her for the questions that we see with the hot-button issues. and the articles that she has published and the speeches that she has made. >> such as? >> will we have already spoken about, her view of the kind of scrutiny that the nominee should get. she will be asked about her view of executive power. that she endorses a fairly robust you of the authority of the president. this will raise questions on both sides. the republican center said that's the american -- republican senator has said that the president's has taken too much power, and he is wanting more, with a friendly supreme court justice.
some democrats and critics in the past administrations, with their policies on the war on terror, there is the tension policy and the effect of the warrantless wiretapping policy in trying to prevent the exploration in lawsuits. this is the kind of question that she will receive. and i am certain that she will say as much as she leaves that she has to. >> the number is on the screen, and the caller this morning mentioned a couple of specifics. can you talk about what this may mean? the decision that she made in rotc. these with the military recruits -- recruiter.
harvard kept a policy of anti- discrimination. they were keeping the recruiters away, and the military, at first, prevented gay and lesbian shoulders -- soldiers. the institution was taken by harvard and lots of others. this is discrimination. they did not allow the recruiters on campus. they did not use the campus office but they could use space on campus to work with the veterans association. and when elena kagan became the dean, they were back on campus. and win the intervening court decision went against the federal law that tolled the universities they could not prevent recruiters from campus,
when this had happened, then they told the military recruiters that they could no longer have the office of premier placement -- career placement. and they have the court ruling and the recruiters came back. this is the long-story. and i explore this in great detail. >> and other -- and another caller said that she was involved with goldman sachs. >> this was not about anything having to do with this, this was about the policies and the global affairs. there was some kind of the advisory board. and she would take a payment of $10,000. >> this was during the hearings for solicitor general. she received support from the
republicans. is that going to happen this time around? >> she received seven republican votes. all of them have said that this was then. this was the appointment that defined the term, and this is for lifetime. this is not clear how many of those republicans are going to vote for her this time. she did also receive support from the former conservative legal scholar, -- >> and what is her mindset? as far as how much information that she will reveal? >> she is very discreet and does not reveal much of herself. she is more analytical, and that she does not embrace the ideological positions. >> had she been speaking about this?
did she mention why she played things so close to the chest? >> she had seen her job, as requiring that she do this in this way. she was voting -- she was working in the clinton white house. she saw her role as reaching out to both sides, not being a lightening rod, of being the kind of person who could bring people together. as the solicitor general, she will defended the administration. >> because of her reputation of bringing people together, will she be able to do this if she becomes a justice? >> there is the long-term goal but she could do this. nobody is expecting this in the short-term, for there to be anything that is really controversial. we have chuck on the
republican line. my concern is that i am angry that with all of these justices and judges that are well-qualified to be on the supreme court, they have limited experience. this lady would be chosen, who has basically been an administrator, and she has her ideology in the liberal agenda. i am surprised that there is not more made of this than taking the recruiters off of the campus and things like that. she is more of a politician or a defense attorney or a prosecutor than a judge, and she is not wanting to change the law. i would like to talk about her lack of experience like president obama.
guest: on the one hand, the administration and many other people said, this is time that we get somebody on the court who has not been a judge on the federal appeals court. the other justices that she would serve with were all serving in federal appeals court. and she has not been a judge in the past and for the last 40 years, everyone on the supreme court -- everyone who was confirmed to the court has been serving as a judge. but it was not uncommon to see a variety of experience. there was the governor, william douglas was an sec commissioner. this is not uncommon. >> mitch mcconell said this --
>> she is a member of the administration, in a positioin that does not last longer than the position itself. she was nominated for a lifetime position on the highest court. we must determine if somebody who is a member of the administration of the president is going to be impartial in the highest court. the american people also want a nominee with legal experience. they know that a lifetime experience does not lend itself to on-the-job training. and you do not need to have prior experience to judge before being appointed to the highest court. but it strikes me that if the nominee does not have traditional experience, they should have substantial litigation experience.
she has neither of these. >> what do you think about his statements? >> she does not have courtroom experience. there is nothing significant. there were a couple of cases and she was the junior associates. but until her sixth argument in front of the supreme court, she rarely did step aside the court room. this is something that obviously is going to be debated during the hearing. >> you talk about the ability to be independent as a member of the administration. >> there have been justices in the past, with william rehnquist coming from the justice department, coming to the bench. there is there of the marshall, and then there is elena kagan.
there was justice to lea, who was an appeals court judge before that, in a variety of jobs. just as john roberts -- they signed on with the earlier republican administrations. >> douglas still, georgia. go right ahead. caller: this is a stab in the back to the progressives. the progressives and the democrats will not be supporting the president in the next election. and also, this nomination is going to move the court to the right. and also, i'd like to say that when the previous republicans
were made, that were made on the right-leaning candidates. and now you have a nomination that is going to tell us to come to this and go into this system and tried to involve us. we do not need this. we will see a little bit more of this if this is known-oriented. -- zone-oriented. they are not doing a very good job about the judicial system. .
does she have children or a husband? guest: she is not married. host: boston is next. good morning. caller: she is well-loved at harvard law school. i think it was a safe pick by obama. my only question is kind of following in the footsteps of bush when he chose one person the second time around. i think overall, a total academic and personal record.
despite hot-button issues, i really do not think there is that in the total picture of this. what do you think? >> people have tried to draw parallels to the nomination of. . -- guest: people have tried to draw parallels to the nomination of. -- harriet. she was the dean at harvard law. she is had a succession of top- flight jobs that were legal. host: pittsburgh, pa., democrats
line. caller: the think a time will downwhen we can't knock the people principal that the right wing of the supreme court -- that is a good thing for as? guest: last september, there was the argument in support of the federal campaign finance law. she said virtually nothing in her career about interests -- business interests. >> part of the announcement, the president said that an understanding of law as it
affects the lives of ordinary people. how does he define that or see that? guest: the supreme court is one of those. the truth is, she is not a person -- who she grew up in manhattan. she went to top schools her entire career. she taught at them. she does not have the personal storie has. host: florida, republican line. caller: i think she is a female obama. she has no experience like he had. how can you interpret the constitution when you do not
like it. that is what has gherig's for so many years. it took us from being dirt-poor farmers to the most powerful nation in the world. she has no experience -- i think they are both in the same area. host: in response to his statements? guest: some critics have pointed to the government constitution being defective. one person said it set a moment of the civil war to correct.
when the caller said that she is like obama, there is probably a lack of truth to that. the president may see in her out what he sees in himself, which is a person that is able to reach out and bring people together. that is his view of himself, and critics have their own view. host: will she be forced to step down from record position? guest: not until she is confirmed. she will continue to play some role in office as she gets ready for her hearing. she will not take part in any new matters that come before her. host: he reports on issues of the supreme court. we go to ohio, independent line. caller: what would the president's nominate an unmarried woman with no
children, no family background. how is she going to be fair with someone coming before her car -- court with an argument on the family issues. -- family issues? guest: she has a couple of brothers and a niece. she has a family. her parents have both passed away. host: baltimore, maryland. caller: hello. some of these callers -- i do not know if they realize how discriminatory they sound. she has a family. she did not get here by yourself. just because she is not a mother
does not mean she is an anti- family. some of these fake christians did not know anything about god. obama is doing an absolutely fabulous job. the bright wing anti parties, you will have a real surprise when you realize that you're not speaking over anything. host: a couple of papers today and yesterday talk about the religious side of the court. why is this a fascinating question to some people? guest: since the nation's founding, the court has primarily been made of white protestant males. for the first time, if she is confirmed, there will be six catholics and three jewish members. whether there is any significance to that is debatable. some people may think not. it is a remarkable shifting in a
very short time. host: have the justices talked about this in the past? guest: i think they would probably agree that it makes no difference. i have had several say there was a catholic seat for a jewish seat on the court. now there are justices who happen to be catholic or jewish. they are not chosen because of their religious makeup. host: it she is nominated before the session starts in october, what type of cases will be facing during this time? do we know? guest: there are a few courses it has taken for its next term. there is an interesting case about a subject that protest at a soldier's funeral. the court has taken on that
case. it is dealing with anti-gay sentiments. host: new jersey is next on a republican line. caller: good morning. president obama likes to use the expression, a whole host of reasons why -- can you comment about the political reasons? politically, it isn't it an important part of this selection, 2012 -- is it an important part of this
selection, 2012? and obama is looking for the support of hollywood people such as steven spielberg and some of those, and he is trying to please that part of the democratic party? guest: there is always a question of what role the supreme court choices are affecting presidential elections. there is not a lot of evidence that it plays a greater role. i do not know that this would be any different. host: have the justices themselves said anything about this? guest: i have not heard anything. host: independent line. caller: thanks. good morning. host: ignore what you are hearing on your television.
leave your question or comment. caller: as a fellow new yorker, i appreciate the academic standings of the nominee. i am proud to see that occur. a question is what is happening in terms of the lack of experience? i am in the financial industry. i have a tough time standing in front of clientele and having no actual experience relative to certain situations and being entrusted with a large situation that the nominee is. i am having a difficult understanding of what is going on with that. can you help me understand why we continue to see educated but
not edit -- but not experienced regarding the nominees out there. it is uncertain and it may have a negative impact on the party in november and in the future. guest: the supreme court is made up of lots of justices with lots of prior experience as judges. justice alito 15 years or so on the federal appeals court. justice sonia sotomayor had more than a decade. there was some thought that the court needed a different perspective, and that is what one of the selling points that president obama used when he announced her nomination. there is no question that her relative lack of personal experience is going to be there
and will be debated and lots. host: michigan, democrats won. caller: did any of the other nominees for this position in the past, have they had a wealth of experience? to many people come to this job relatively inexperienced -- do many people come to this job relatively inexperienced? i've heard a comment about somebody same thing will be a redistribution of wealth. it has been that for the past 20 years. if we get some wealth back at the bottom, the economy will take up a little bit more. that redistribution of wealth is a big joke.
everybody knows that. to send that back down, the working-class will spend it, the economy will take off more. guest: the justices have come to the court with a different experiences. the most recent, the current court is a very experienced bench. she would bring something different. people have been talking about that before this nomination and before the vacancy. the president reached outside the judicial monastery and brought somebody in with real- world experience. he is trying to do that. now the question will be whether her experiences would be real world experiences people have talked about or if it will be a
privileged world in which the justices lives when they were federal judges. host: is there a requirement to being a supreme court justice? regarding back education, does it matter? guest: it does not. host: florida. caller:-year guest know if other supreme court nominees fallen to the category of never being married or having children? guest: i think they have to dozen justices. caller: i mean now. guest: justice sotomayor is divorced. i think the other justices are currently married.
caller: why is it we can talk about religion of the people on the court but not sexual orientation, especially given the fact that we know such little about this nominee? guest: people either wish to state or do not wish to state their sexual orientation. i guess that is the answer. host: virginia, independent line. caller: on the internet last night, with her on the court, there would be no protestants.
what are your thoughts on that? guest: most people from buffalo probably would not want to be thought of as being from the tristate area, because buffalo is so far from the city. along the washington, boston corridor, there is no doubt about them being from there. they represent a different range of ideology on the court. host: are their educational backgrounds aligned as well? guest: that all would have ivy league law degrees. the last three nominees did their and a graduate work at princeton. most of the other justices attended ivy league colleges as undergraduates as well. host: florida.
caller: how can we people change the laws were a nominee should at least have five years' experience on the bench before he or she could be nominated for that position? host: why do you think that is important? caller: i think everyone ought to have some type of experience regardless of their educational field. i think they should have some kind of experience on the bench to be nominated. would you hire someone to wire your house if they have a college education, or would you hire someone with the education
in years of experience? guest: we talk about the politics of prior judicial experience. kagan has been a constitutional law professor for many years. she has some experience. the question will be if it is relevant, sufficient. host: new hope, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: us today when i heard the words behind every law, i was reminded that obama believes in empathy. there was an article in the wall street journal when he was anning, so i've looked up word. [unintelligible]
i believe both obama and ms. kagan are working to get through instead of the constitution. how does the gentleman feel about this? guest: last year she said she felt confident she could put aside her personal views on issues. i imagine she will be s and will say the same thing this year. the president has stopped using the word empathy describing his judicial nominees. he has talked a lot about real- life stories and experiences. host: as far as relationships with conservatives, how would you describe that?
guest: she clearly has friendships with conservative lawyers. i talk to one of her friends who is a conservative. he supports her confirmation. she is not the kind of person that a republican president would choose. she is qualified to be on the court. i think she will see a good bit of support from conservatives that have a personal connection to her from her days on harvard being a student. host: and then again , florida. -- independent line, florida. caller: who through her hat in the rain to get her started in
this processr thising to get in the ring to get her started in this process? if she's smarter than a fifth grader -- is she's smarter than a fifth grader and that is why she is here? guest: 1 justice said to become a federal judge, lightning has to strike. to become a supreme court justice, it has to strike twice. he worked for senator kennedy who was a prime champion. when justice souter was under consideration, another was a good champion of hers. president obama has known her since her days in chicago. she has many prominent friends
and supporters. she was nominated but never voted on for an appeals court judge action the clinton administration. the seats went to judge roberts before the wind to the supreme court. the idea of elevating heard to a judgeship has been around for a while. she has distinguished herself wherever she has been. she has known the president for a good number of years. host: las vegas. caller: the number of justices are not spelled out in the constitution. why is that? why have we settled on nine? it is then as low as six and high is 13. and can you comment on clarence
thomas. i listened to the supreme court arguments on c-span. what is his story? guest: justice thomas had not ask questions in a number of years. he said that he thinks lawyers -- justices are asking too many questions of lawyers. they are not allowing them to finish their sentences before they jump in. he says he gets what he needs from the briefs, which they make up the vast bulk of the record for the justices. he does not find argument that useful. that is what he said.
as for the size of the court, it is not fixed by the constitution. it has changed over the years. host: fort myers, fla., an independent line. caller: they are always worried about who has the most experience. that is what is wrong with most of the people. they have had some in the years to be corrected by an actual system. sometimes it is better those that have not been poisoned. that is my comment. host: what is the plan on
capitol hill? guest: she will start making the rounds of senators. she will start paying the traditional courtesy calls. i do not know how many she will see. she will make the rounds starting this week. host: thanks for your time this morning. it is primary day in nebraska and west virginia. part of our coverage of things along elections. here is an update. >> we are getting an update on the key races in nebraska and west virginia. let's start with the first district and the incumbent there. >> he has been in office for 28 years, 14 times in the house. he has not had a real race in a
long time. he has a real fight in this democratic primary against a state senator. he is embracing the classic strategy when challenging an incumbent. he is claiming that ramallah has gone washington. he is attacking the votes of land to a closing. it also attacking the of call -- health-care reform legislation. perhaps the most damaging critique is against his ethics, challenging the earmarks, the federal money. he has been able to bring back that to this district. that is something that seemed to damage him. not a lot of reliable polling that has been done. we are not sure how this is going to turn out, but it looks
extremely competitive. >> he opposed such a legislation in june. that does not seem to be enough. >> that seems to be a problem for democrats in a lot of districts around the country. many of them were forced to take a vote by the leadership. the democrats vote was going to the slaughter on a vote that it never made it to the senate floor. >> let's turn our attention to nebraska. a republican challenger is facing off. >> he has a challenger from a for some republican candidate. he is a businessman in the omaha area. he is trying to play the mantle of a tea party movement.
i think the incumbent is in more trouble in west virginia than in nebraska. he is always somebody to watch. he has not performed as strongly as a lot of people expected he would. a state senator will be challenging him later. democrats are watching to see how well terry does. they want to see how he is going to do today, to decide how vulnerable he could be going into november. >> when you look at that district, obama won it by one percentage point over john mccain. that district went to george bush before that. what is happening in this district? what is it made up of debt but
that was a very interesting vote. the district is largely suburban. it is in the omaha area which is the most suburban area. it is more white. not a large minority population, but a growing hispanic population. democrats hope to solidify a some sort of base there. another reason democrats are watching is in 2012, it could be eliminated or significantly been drawn. if he is not vulnerable this year, he could be later. >> today is the filing deadline in michigan for governor races
he decided to retire. he will run to fill the seat? >> a local official who had announced her running, before he decided not to run for reelection. she is pro-choice. she was trying to run on this record against the other who thought that the abortion standards were not strict enough. she has dropped out and has not criticized the party. and gary mcdowell seems to have had the support of the democratic establishment.
a former state rep is also pro- choice. there could be a few more candidates. >> thanks for your time today. >> good to be here. >> joining us now to talk about the role of the imf is a senior fellow at the peterson institute. talk about the role of the imf? guest: the imf is part of the financial rescue package that was put together. the greek government needs money, said that is what the
package is about. they want to ensure that greece does many things such as get its fiscal house in order. many expenditure cuts, tax increases. host: how does the imf does this and does crees have the wherewithal to make those changes? -- greece have the wherewithal to make those changes? guest: the imf will go there to see if these conditions have been met. greece has been overspending like crazy over the past met many years. the advantage of that is that it
has a lot of slack in its government to cut. all kinds of savings are being found. that is how expenditures will come down. it will be painful, but it leads to many rate cuts, especially in the government sector. a big deal of adjustment for those that get their pay from the government. huge tax increases and cuts. the hope is that the average greek citizen will have the stomach to put up with these measures and that is how the government will become solvent overtime. host: this is the largest loan of its kind to a country? guest: it is getting up there.
this is one of the biggest ever and that the imf has lent to a country. host: discuss the banking system in europe and their role or lack of it. the european central bank has more of a role in this. talk about that regarding the banking system? guest: i was unhappy with the greek program. when a government runs out of this and becomes insolvent, many people have to get the fiscal house back in shape. the people have to take a hit, because the services are cut. they make a contribution. the international taxpayers make a contribution by putting money in the imf.
all of this was predicated on the assumption that the financial institutions, especially the german and french banks, who own greek debt, they would be paid full and take no hit or suffer any loss as part of this adjustment efforts. i found that a little bit of and billing of the financial institutions. in the u.s., we have this big problem of filling out all of these financial institutions. a lot of political trouble has resulted. what happens if you consistently bailout reckless behavior? it is repeated in the system becomes much more fun since -- unstable. my problem is that those banks were not being asked to take a
hit like the others. the europeans have come up with a big package for other countries. that continues this process of protecting banks and financial institutions from the previous reckless behavior. host: does the united states have a role in what is being spent to stabilize greece as far as the imf contributions? guest: about $40 billion comes from contributions from other countries. the united states is one of the biggest contributors, about 17%. all countries contribute but the biggest contribution is from the united states. host: adair intended consequences or unintended consequences -- are there intended consequences or unintended consequences for being part of this package?
guest: hopefully things will panelled well -- pan out well. one does not anticipate any real problems with it. with argentina, it becomes so insolvent it cannot pay back the imf. there was a lot of uncertainty. few countries have actually not paid back the imf. in the case of the imf, the other consequences being such a big player, it is able to prod the europeans in action -- just before europe got this big package into order. i think there was a long talk with the german chancellor.
there was a threat that this could spread within europe to the other countries and possibly into the united states. to keep that from happening, the u.s. exercised its leadership. host: we will talk about this issue until 9:15. please call the numbers at the bottom of your screen. you can also e-mail us or send us something on twitter. because of this move, the stock market in europe shows signs of growth according to the "wall street journal." does that mean this plan works were will give us the confidence that those financial institutions in europe will see
those things? guest: the immediate impact is confidence in what the europeans have done. for the first time, one could say the european governments stayed ahead of the curve and took action to prevent it from spreading. if you notice what happened to the euro, by the end of the day, it was down. whether there is confidence in what europe did remains to be seen. this package creates a moral hazard. does it take pressure off the government's to get their fiscal house in order in the future? now the loans are guaranteed, they denied any pressure for markets to discipline themselves. the other issue is these financial institutions have been
bailed out, what does it mean for the future? for these countries to recover, they will be bought. and greece and portugal and spain grow out of their fiscal problem -- only then, can they repay the loans, get new tax revenues, and create a more sustainable fiscal situation going forward. host: what evidence is there that they have the ability to do that? guest: germany is growing. that is good news for europe. these external conditions are becoming favorable. the bad news is greece and spain and portugal do not have an exchange rate vis-a-vis germany. to achieve that, they must have massive wage cuts and price
cuts. that is a very expensive way of achieving competitiveness. unless spain and portugal can grow, it will not work. host: we are taking your calls. minnesota, democrats line. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. is the imf, who finds it? -- funds it? >> it is funded by countries around the world. it is like a credit union. each of these countries put in money. the amount of money depends on the size.
the u.s. is the world's biggest economy, so it puts in the most amount of money, about 17%. every country, europe, china, brazil, europe, everyone contributes. that money is lent out to countries that are in trouble like it is now doing to greece. host: florida, republican line. caller: the united states help the economies of germany and japan and china's development with engineering and technology. in detroit, homeless shelters are full.
what are we talking about financial monetary investments? -- why isere's not there so much talk about the stock market and debt? show more concern for citizens here such as hitting clean water and other things for citizens here? guest: in order to be able to make all those investments in infrastructure like you are saying, it needs a certain amount of basic government stability and for the financial situation to be in order. if the government does not have the money, you get a lot of
inflation or uncertainty in financial markets. that makes the investment in physical infrastructure much more difficult. you are right that ultimately, wealth is created by investing in physical infrastructure. to get there, you have to have a basic amount of a financial stability, which is what this whole business is about. what happened in the fall of two dozen eight in the u.s., credit markets were jammed up. nobody was lending to small businesses or companies because they were very fearful. we need to get past that in order to focus once again on the things that really matter to people for wealth creation. host: the federal reserve plays a part in they are doing something with a slumping program.
can you explain what that is? -- swapping program? can you explain what that is? guest: they made available dollars to other countries. it means that if there is a shortage of dollars anywhere in the world, that could lead to panic in the financial system. what happens in those situations, the dollar is what everyone wants to hold. if there is not enough, the system freezes up. the federal reserve said we will not allow that to happen. if anyone wants the dollars, they can give them their own currencies, and we will give dollars and eventually get them back. in times of crisis and panic, we need more dollars. by making that available, you ensure stability. host: the foreign governments
requested this or the reserve offered this on their own? guest: this happened in the crisis of 2008 into a dozen 9, when countries like brazil, -- 2009, when countries like brazil and singapore turned to the federal reserve, and it said we will make available dollars, just as it is doing now for the european governments. host: if the european government is offering this stabilization program and europe is sliding at the same time, it does not one affect the other? guest: that is a sign that people did not have confidence in the euro and they want to keep other currencies such as the dollar. the federal reserve is making it available is a way to stabilize currency markets. host: buffalo, n.y., independent
line. caller: if the american people let private banks control the issues of currency, the banks and corporations would deprive the people of all their properties until children went up homeless on the continents that their forefathers discovered. it should be taken from the banks and restore to the people with whom it properly belongs. can you defined the field at currency -- define fiat
currency? >> the jefferson quote is interesting. you need a financial system that works for the people rather than the other way around. the financial system cannot be the tail that wags the dog. do cannot run an economy without a financial system. we need one, because it allows a lot of the investment to take place. it takes savings from people who stayed in front the most efficient ways to invest that savings. the problem is we do not want the financial system that becomes far too powerful and one
that becomes very inefficient and sex entrepreneur were shipped from the economy. -- sucks entrepreneurship from the economy. we need to revisit nand see what it shoull and should not be doing. that is what the debate's now taking place discuss. the question about fiat money. the point about jefferson, because of those concerns, we have created a federal reserve in the united states. that is supposed to and does run and control by the people through the political process.
we have a system that is respectful of what thomas jefferson said many years ago. fiat monoey is a way of saying people believe in a currency because -- not because it has intrinsic worth. in the old days, gold and silver traded as currency, because they had value inherently. he used to buy gold -- by camels with gold. these days, we deal and give paper for camels. paper is more dalia itself. it has value because it is backed up by the government in one way or the other, fiat. that is why we call fiat money. host: what are the strengths of the economy? guest: this has not been very
productive in the last years, that is a hard question. many of these agricultural products -- greece is not a dynamic industrial economy. the government is a big part of the greek economy. it has a source of vitality and strength at the moment. the united states is dynamic. it is a big issue going forward. it has to grow its way out of the fiscal problem that is has found itself in. host: that has to change the way it thinks about its economy. guest: the wage cuts is a prerequisite.
you have to be cheaper than someone else whatever you do. now you are competing not just with europe but these other countries brazil, china, india. you have to be competitive with those as well. host: democrats line, virginia. caller: it seems a couple of weeks ago and they had the same derivatives problems with the big banks and all of that. they want to cut the social programs of people, when it looks like the same derivatives problems that america had on wall street. it is a big problem, but now it is a social problem. their social welfare is astronomical.
i am trying to see that disconnect between these things i honestly believe that if wall street could have done seven things in america, that could've happened. because we are a superpower, that did not happen. guest: there is a big difference with what happened in greece and what happened in the u.s. much of it was because of this complicated things that wall street is doing that no one understood. some of it was incompetent. some was dubious. greece is a much simpler problem. the greek government for about 15 years has been living beyond its means. if you look at the greek debt, it is about 120% of its gdp. in united states before the crisis, it was 40% of gdp.
the europeans had set a benchmark of about 60% of gdp. greece was way beyond that. that is because the government was living beyond its means. it was spending way more than it was collected in taxes. the banks were not doing all of this funny frivolous stuff. the government was living beyond its means. these banks were willing to finance it. that is where that comes in. they were happy to go along with it in finance this, even though the situation was getting out of control. the greek government said, if they get into trouble, someone will bail grease out. that is what has happened. when greece got into trouble, the european taxpayer, the imf, europe, they got together and that started this, which means
all of these banks that are part of this reckless behavior on the part of greece to not pay the cost. host: eastern, pennsylvania. caller: how can they spend $38 billion? many of these countries including the united states has an outstanding deficit already and has a problem is spending. i am wondering -- part of my question is, is this going to hurt our country by sending money over to greece? is this a time or will there be a time when gold will become the new dollar?
>> and actually accentuated the divide between germany and the we. host: durham, new york, you are next. caller: sir, earlier you defined the word, banks taking a hit. i am wondering if you could define that earlier, and give me a brief why the world has drifted to the top of the pyramid. guest: what i mean banks taking a hit, it's simple, many of the banks own greek government bonds. now so when greece gets into trouble, they keep getting the money that they lent to greece. so taking a hit would mean if
they lent a bank $100 to greece, a part of that whole package would be that bank would only get $80 for the 100 lent, and suffered a loss of $20. that happened help the problem with greece with a situation and not have to impose a hardship on its own people by wage cuts, and those problems. everyone constitutes the problem and that's what i mean the banks taking a hit. and why at the bottom of the pyramid, that's a good question. and it has to do with two
things, let's talk about the united states and the world. it's happening in the us for two reasons, i think. one, they got too powerful, and that's a lesson from the crisis, that all of these fancy instruments that they thought would improve the way that the economy is run. a risk would be spread. it turned out this is just a giant casino, but guys on one part of the casino are making a lot of money. if you look at the situation in united states, part has to do with guys getting more and more of the economic pie. and that's one reason why the wealth has gone to the top of the m pyramid. and the other reason has to do with technology and this superstar phenomena. the difference between someone who is very good and someone who is very, very good, their salaries diverge a lot. because people want to pay for
superstars. so if you take even sport or entertainment or anything you see, the difference that the very top people make and the people that below that make has increased enormously. and that's wawhhat we see aroun the world, the superstar effect. and in technology it favors those who have certain skills. and those who have those skills benefit from technology proportionately, and those who don't have the skills are left behind. this is why i think that wealth floats to the top of the pyramid. host: we hear that greece doesn't have to pay for this now but will move down the road. guest: i think that's true, if
greece government does raise their taxes and this may not come to pass. but if greece believes they will be covered by europe and the ins, and then the incentive to undertake that doesn't change. and the banks and the financial institutions, their bhiefr doesn't change -- their behavior doesn't change, so what we wrote could happen. caller: gentlemen, i was thinking of turkey, it seems more stable than the countries that belong to the europe union. and what basis are they pertaining to the europe union
guest: first remember that turkey has long wanted to get into the european union, but europe hasn't accepted turkey. that's a big political debate going on in europe for years, whether to allow turkey in. if so, under what conditions and when. and i think this crisis will setback any new country joining the european union. because the whole whether we have the european union and whether we well look like what it does now and whether one currency. all the debates will happen. and the turkey question is more
complicat complicated result of this. if you look at turkey, they had a program with the international fund, because their economic situation was touch and go. so it needed foreign assistance to insure that the economy remains stable. now turkey is growing and coming out of it, and now relatively a better position. now the irony is that turkey is in a better position but greece with a long conflict with cyprus, that country is in trouble. but turkey is doing reasonably we well. host: what is the question of whether it's doing better? guest: it's two questions, and it will settle down and greece and these countries will grow and it will be hunky dory. host: europe will be stable.
guest: yes, and then the other scenario that greece's situation is too bad and it doesn't get growth and the problem remains and resurfaces. and then you have to ask the question, look do these countries that are relatively weaker, do they need their own curren currency. because they need to be able to grow. if you devalue your currency your exports increase. so the fact that these countries don't have their own currencies, is that a problem for them to manage their economies and grow over the long-run. if you have the same currency as germany, and they are consistently more productive than you. you are going to be importing more and more and exporting less and less. and that's what happens is
happen in europe. germany is an export powerhouse and all the countries are importing. host: it's a drag on the system. guest: it's a drag on the system and these smaller countries can't grow fast enough and in the long-run that may not be sustainable. to have a common currency, you have to have a prerequisite. in the united states with one c currency, it survives because regions can move easily, and if one reegsz stops being well, people migrate. they stop and move. in europe that's more difficult. so that's not easy. so some of the preconditions for having one currency. people are rethinking whether europe has those conditions. host: miza, mississippi.
currency is still a problem. the ounce of silver and gold and still 40 years later it's still an ounce of silver and gold. but that dollar bill is not connected. there is a disconnect. and people producing raw materials like farmers and miners and manufacturing are not getting paid. guest: you know, i think in the old days, if you remember william jennings brian made the same speech, which was basically he did not want the gold standard because he felt that because of being, because of gold being the currency and dollar linked to gold. it was imposing hardship on many parts of the united states, especially the fashl community. y -- community. what we have learned from the great depression. if your currency is linked to gold, it's very difficult to manage economies and you get deflation and depression like we did during the 1930's.
so you need some flexibility and that's what having a fiat currency does, giving you more flexibility to run an economy. host: arvind subramanian thank you for joining us. and coming up we will hear from stephen hadley, and first this news update from c-span radio. >> it's 9:16 in washington, d.c. and in the headlines that bh with that sunken drilling rig in gulf of mexico and will be asked why risk a cat as stroppic resulture. the vp's appear on capitol hill today on two senate hearings and the executives are trying to shift responsibility from each other. live coverage starts at 10 this
spill. president cli president clinton is assuring that afghan president karzai and he is welcomed to the state department to kick-off closed me meetings and to discuss a strategy for eventually ending the war. president karzai is to meet with president obama on wednesday and wind up his visit on thursday. in the wake of the time square bombing, michael bloomberg is in london to discuss the security cameras on that system. there are 12,000 cameras on london's system, and mr. bloomberg has expressed interest. those are some headlines on c-span radio. >> the cameras were in the courtroom, the american public would see an amazing, extraordinary event. >> elena kagan is president obama's nominee to replace justice stevens, find her history online, watch what you want, when you want. >> "washington journal" continues. >> host: guest currently serves as senior advisor of international affairs of peace. and formally the bush advisor.
stephen hadley, welcome to "washington journal." could you give context of president karzai and what is going on in afghanistan. guest: president karzai is the elected leader of afghan and he will be the representative. and the president will treat karzai as that elected leader and give him the respect he deserves and build a personal leadership. they face great challenges and personal leadership matters and this will be a candid meeting for them to build a stronger relationship.
host: you use the word candid and stronger relationship, is it that their relationship is not strong in your opinion? guest: it's been a bumpy relationship and there are public reflections and doubt about karzai's leadership and not fighting corruption. and to make the hard decisions and it was unfortunate that was such a public issue. a rule of thumb when you deal with allies is to praise in public and criticize in private. early on in the administration it got that reversed. but i think they have taken some good steps and i think that president obama is right to have him come for this visit. it's an important visit. and it seems clear that the administration is going out of their way to put their best foot forward and to turn the page on the last relationship and get a
firm footing going forward. host: as far as that firm footing what are the implications of the neighbor pakistan? guest: there are tough issues that need to be worked through. there is a coming operation that will be important for the military dimension. president karzai had reservations about it. and president karzai has talked about reconciliation and having meetings with broad spectrum perhaps with representatives from taliban. i know that the u.s. government has reservations about that. it's important to have a common exchange and how to approach the reconciliation. there are tough decisions that both countrys have to make, and
be made with a good understanding and coordinated approach. host: what do do the events of what happened here in the united states and the connection to pakistan? guest: we have been worried about the tribal areas of pakistan. it's a witch's brew of al-qaeda and afghan taliban and other groups. and it's a source of threat to obviously pakistan and across the border to afghanistan. and also as we have seen potentially to the united states as well. and i think in a way the administration has been lucky. because with this time square attempt and the christmas bombing attempt going into the airport in detroit, we had two wake-up calls. two terrorist efforts that did
not succeed because of failures on part of the terrorist. it's been useful to help the administration relook at our processes and procedures to counter these incidents and strengthen them. and in the process, no one died. two wake-up calls and no one died, that's a good thing for the country. and it reminds the country and administration that terrorism is still in the country today. host: is it a weakness to describe? guest: it's one thing that you can get better, this is an enemy that does adapt and use new methods. and people say it's the truism in preventing terror, you have to be right 100% of the time. if a terrorist, you only have to
be right 1%. host: what is changing? guest: in response to the christmas bombing there are improvements of the watch list. i think that's improving ensuring when the watch lists come out from the government and the airplanes put on their list and use it as part of their screening processes. every time you learn from this, you can learn and improve the system. and that's what the administration is doing. host: we will here until 10 o'clock, with the lines for democrats and republicans and independents to call. the e-mail is c-span.org, and our first call is from jupiter,
florida, go ahead. caller: hi, i wanted to ask about russia's recent offer to destroy the poppy fields that make the opium, and i guess the u.s. declined saying it would disrupt the local, agriculture income and we have to protect that. i found it curious when the taliban ruling that poppy growing was not allowed, it was against their religion. and it seems we are giving the impression that we are supporting the poppy fields. and we all agree that this money is funding the terrorists. and if we take a strong position on the terrorists, we should take a strong position of getting rid of the poppy fields. guest: you are right, the length between poppies and the
teroffists and the illegal funding is right. and it's an enormous problem. the government has been working on that problem, the united states government in close coordination with the afghan government. but obviously we have not made nearly the progress required. and part of the problem is the issue of how to attack the problem. there are a number of things, you want to interdict those taking the poppy and trading it on the black market and making the profits. and you want to interdict the livelihoods of the farmers. and there is a big issue of the eradication and the united states has pushed under the bush administration to use airplanes and to spread chemicals that would kill the poppy. that's very controversial in the
afghan context. many americans believe that's the best way to approach getting rid of the poppy. the afghan government is very reluctant because of this issue, and that's a huge problem, we have to get it under control. and quite frankly under two administrations so far the efforts have not been up to the task. host: memphis, tennessee, go ahead, delores on the democratic line. caller: good morning, i was calling in to ask him about our national security. how in the world can we stop someone who is willing to blowup themselves and willing to hurt others. you don't know when it's going to happen. it's people out there ready to destroy us. and there a reason, i want to know why everyone hurts americans. you know why?
america is stepping in everyone's business trying to control other countries. people in their country like like it and when they explain insurgents. they are the angry people over there like the black people are angry how they were treated in the 60's. and we need to stop these iraqi, pakistan people, innocent people are getting killed by our so-called drones. that's the reason the people are angry. guest: there is obviously a lot of anger in the countries. i think we have to recognize the reason we are in afghanistan, because afghanistan under the taliban was a safe haven for al-qaeda. and they mounted the attack on 9/11 that killed 3000 people in
this country. and president bush gave them the opportunity to shut down the camps and taliban did not take opportunity and why we are in afghanistan. and you need to be allied with the common people with the problem. the afghan were not happy living under the taliban, it was a brutal form of existence. women were discriminated against, it was a brutal regime. and we tried to do it with others in the afghan context. so it was the afghans with our help that were liberating themselves from a brutally, oppressive taliban regime. and we have tried since them to work
with the afghan people to help them establish a political structure and a more viable economy. so that the afghan people can have a more prosperous and hopeful future. you can't do this kind of thing as an adversary of the afghan people. it needs to be working with the afghan people to empower them to establish a better life. that's what we are trying to do under the administration. host: when you hear of the afghan government to reach out to the taliban for a compromise or stability, what do you think? guest: i think you have to distinguish between the hard-core leadership of the taliban that's been on reasserting power and probably can't be reconciled. and those people for perhaps economic
reasons or other are banning with the taliban in local areas. and i think that commanders believe that the lower-level people can be brought out of the insurgency. that's the counter of the insurgency, to win the population and split the insurgency. to bring those who are willing to come out and accept government and giving them an opportunity to return into society. but in any insurgency there will be a hard-core of people that are really not going to be reconcilable and you will have deal with them with force. host: turning to president karzai's meeting and
administration? guest: it's part of the notion to help the afghan people to establish a government that is democratic, serves their interest and brings them a better life. that has to be support in the afghan people. and regrettably the corruption that has plagued the government is undermined by the support of the people. that's why we make something out about the corruption, that the afghan government need the support of their people and why it needs to be addressed. host: west virginia, john on the independent line. caller: first i need to make a statement before i ask the question. i was extremely disappointed in president obama joking about the immigrants coming over recently
at his correspondent dinner, and i think that the main weakness of terrorisms is our own borders with mexico. and i don't think that we understand the severity, they may look like workers and that 2% are coming over for reasons besides working in the fields. and i wonder if your government could tell shouldn't we be trying to tend our own borders as our number one priority? guest: we should, and obviously if you cannot defend your own borders you will have a problem keeping the terrorists out. one trick is to defend your borders to keep the terrorists out and allow normal people to
come through with as minimal interruption and allows the goods to go back and forth. it's important for the economic health of united states and mexico. the trick is to defend your borders and to keep terrorists out and allow interaction of people and the flow of commerce across that border. mexico has a huge challenge in the provinces in the northern part of the country on the border. it's a combination of terrorists and narco-traffickers and it's an extremely serious situation.
mexico is a close ally and it affects mexico. in addition to dealing with our side of the border in the bush and obama administrations have been active in trying to help the mexico government dealing with the challenge presented by the terrorists and the narco-trafficicki narco-trafficicki ikin narco-trafficking. host: our republican line from maryland. guest: i don't think that (inaudible) knows what it's doing when it comes to the foreign affairs. for instance we ask to get rid of (inaudible) and then we are less stable in pakistan in a diverse nation like afghanistan, we need a strong man to be that
country, not democracy and for trouble and nations and i like to hear your comment. guest: well, we tried very much to get a reconciliation between mrs. buto and president rashir. and tragically buto was killed by those elements in the northwest territories. and it was a great tragedy for the pakistani people. president rushar made some serious political mistakes and it was clear that he had lost the confidence of the pakistani people. we supported him in the steps he took to transition from the military regime to a democratic
structure. he courageously set elections. took off his uniform and lifted the state of emergency and resulted in an election of the current government, i think it was a tribute to president rashar and president bush's compromise and i think that it could be a problem to the neighboring india and could put extremists in control of the nuclear weapons in pakistan's inventory. this was a very difficult time for the people of pakistan. and i think that president rushar acquitted himself well. and we are lucky that it was to
a democratic government and not the chaos that could have occurred. host: the story of iraq's attacks and to the extreme groups across the country despite a wave of arrests and including two commanders of iraq. could you give a sense of these occurrences still happening in iraq and what it says for their security? guest: it's a huge challenge for that country, and you notice that of the article some attacks were in sunni areas but most in shiite areas. and most agree that for al-qaeda and iraq to do what they did in
twoo 2005 to attack shiite and prevent the chaos. i was reassured by iraqis that they won't respond to violence in this way. but it's an indication that iraq has not fully stabilized. it's an transition from election to unity government and that's what they need. and the formation of that government is taking a long time. and it undermines confidence, gives a sense of instability and opens the doors for these kind of terrorists attacks as they try to destabilize them in this
period. the solution is for one, the iraqis to settle this process and get a government that involves sunni's and kurds and the people can get the economy moving and do those other kinds of things that will bring a long-term peace and prosperity. host: what is your sense of the iraqi trained forces as well? guest: i have not been in this, but out for a year, but the impression i have is it's a much improved security force. remember the united states in a draw down of forces in 2007 and 2008 have gone from over 170,000 to now something like 100,000 and will go to 50,000 by the end of the august in this year.
the fact we can do that despite the incidents is to the iraqi security forces and the way they maintained order. the election they had was fairly free of violence with the iraqi security forces. i think that's been a real success. as we found with terrorist incidents here at home, it's very difficult when people are coming to try to kill your people, and in case of iraq, have an objective to destabilize the political system. it's very difficult to have zero incidents. it's a troubling development and more needs to be done. host: our guest served for president bush and serves as
senior advisor in international affairs. kentucky you are next for stephen hadley. caller: good morning, it's very scary that mr. hadley is serving on an institute of peace since he instituted two wars and i have two questions. do you agree that we have had double the problems, double the terrorists because of your war in iraq? and i want to know my question second is, why did you allow mr. cheney to manipulate the intelligence that took us into iraq. and do you repent of the damage you have done? thank you. guest: i would say three things, the caller used the phrase instituted two wars. of course one was afghanistan
and we talked about earlier on the show, it was response to the attack on the country on september 11 and to reign in al-qaeda. and in terms of iraq, it was a war of last resort after iraq had defiled the community and supported terror and invaded neighbors and violated the cease-fire arrangements concluded at the end of the gulf war. obviously wars are terrible things and particularly terrible in the countries of which they occur. but in both instances there was no alternative. i think it was not manipulation of iraq or whether there were stocks of mass destruction.
there turned out to be no stocks of biological and chemical weapons but it wasn't the case of manipulating the intelligence but that it was wrong. it's the same intelligence that every service in the world that shared the judgment that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. president clinton constructed air strikes and it was on the basis of that intelligence the change of iraq, and bottom line not that intelligence was manipulated but it turned out to be wrong. and saddam hussein had been asked to account for the weapons of mass destruction that we knew he had at the end of the gulf
war. and he failed to do so. and the war in iraq was not our decision but saddam hussein's decision to defile the international community and not do what everyone asked him to do. was to destroy the weapons of mass deinstructistruction or sh. caller: the countries will never quit fighting, we are bankrupting our nation, and we trade with no one. and we need to align ourselves with candidates and denounce these
clowns in congress or senate that won't do the will of the people. thank you. guest: thank you, i think there is more hope in terms of the sunni's in iraq. if you look at the last election overwhelming they turned out to vote and turned against violence. the big sunni providence in the western part of iraq, it was the sunnis that turned against al-qaeda and freed the providence of the control of al-qaeda and terrorists. and this was the sunnis coming forward to reputeiate terror and there is an element in iraq that is a sunni-based terrorist
group. what i think is ironic that overwhelming they have been rejected and they are trying to work together in the history of iraq and for the first time in the arab world, where you have sunnis and kurds to work together for the common peace of the nation. and it's too soon to tell, but we hope this will happen so that taliban will come out of the insurgency and be willing to live peacefully under the afghan constitution and bring peace to this land. host: we have a few minutes left with our guest, stephen hadley. our independent line.
caller: good morning, after 9/11 it seems that chasing bin laden wouldn't cut it. we needed to go over and get the attention of the whole middle east people. and my question is, what do you think that china and russia and europe not helping us, if they would have happened with soldiers and everything, this whole thing could be wrapped up by now. and to give a shout-out to george bush, and others hated us because we are the world's policemen. guest: if you look at the coalition in iraq and afghanistan, most european countries with the exception of russia, france and germany and a
couple of others, remember overwhelmingly with us in iraq and on the ground with us in iraq. and in terms of the afghanistan, the military mission is done under the nato umbrella. and it's all the nato countries, 26 at last count, and a number of european countries. the european countries are standing up and there are questions about performance. and questions of effectiveness of our performance. the important thing is that the europeans have been with us in those two fights and are with us today in afghanistan in a big way. russia and china are different case, russia because of its history and identitying power in
afghanistan wouldn't work on the ground and they facilitated it and it's positive. and china is beginning to get active in iraq and afghanistan in developing iraqi oil and in some reconstruction activities in afghanistan. that's a good thing and should be encouraged. i think one thing that is many times missed is how much both iraq and afghanistan have been an international effort, not just the united states going at it alone. host: the "washington times" report that is general mcchrystal is assisting iraq in afghanistan and do you agree? guest: we did see the iranians getting active in western part
of the country. i think, i think what i would say is this. iran has had conflicted view towards afghanistan, in 2001, and 2001 they were involved and we have seen training and arming of folks in afghanistan. and in some sense iran is trying to play both sides of the street. to have ties with the afghan government. and to provide some development and assistance to the afghan government. but at the same time hedging their bets and maintaining some ties with the terrorist groups. i am a year out-of-date. my guess that is what is going
on, and general mcchrystal is saying we see that but not a significant factor. and i accept his judgment on that. host: we have steve joining us. caller: thank you for taking my call. and i usually feel that c-span does a good job of balanced account of issues. but the issue the wars, i don't think that c-span is offering the counter opinion to the wars in the middle east. and i am disappointed in that. and i don't feel that the wars have anything to do with our national security. i don't feel they are making us safer, and i like your guest to explain how that does make us
safer. and if you look at civilians and there are casualties in afghanistan that tend to get overlooked in the media. i go to bcc news and they are covered there. guest: you are right about the civilian casualties and particularly in iraq. the burden that the iraqi people have suffered from this war is enormi enormous and they had an enormous burden under saddam hussein that turned violence against his own people and used chemical weapons against his own people. and you are right that what civilians had suffered and that's the case in iraq, under saddam hussein. very difficult in this wartime period, and what the iraq people
hope for and made clear in their turn-out in the recent election. they for the first time in a long time may have the prospect of building a peaceful, prosperous future. there are casualties and one thing that general mcchrystal has done under president karzai is try to reduce the civilian casualties. but we have to make clear that the reason there are these civilian casualties, regrettable though they are, because the united states and other coalition forces are going against terrorists whose strategy has been to kill innocent civilians to destabilize the government. that's the strategy of the terroris terrorists. to kill innocent civilians. so we obviously want to minimize our own casualties but it's the
casualties that occurred in the course of going after a terrorist group. i would say these wars have made our country safer in each case. the reason we are in afghanistan is because of 9/11, what happens under a regime like the taliban can result in a killing of thousands on a single day. and the concern of the administration, if we cannot stabilize the situation, the taliban may return and that may mean the return of al-qaeda, which could give them a staging base of attacks on the united states. and as we saw in the times square attack, there is still an effort by the terrorists to strike out and kill americans.
similarlily i would say that the middle east is a safer place today because of an iraq that does not have saddam hussein. we do not have a regime supporting terrors as saddam did, and to have a potential and a past history of developing weapons of mass destruction. that's a better middle east for the iraqi people and we have an interest as a nation in a stable middle east. i would say as difficult as both wars have been for both people of the two countries and for our men and women in uniform and the enormous cost to our country. at the end of the day, the world is a better place and a safer place for what it's done.
host: the international recourse committee takes a hearing and we will go to that hearing when it starts, we have virginia next. pete on the republican line. caller: hey, guys, good morning. i would like to make a couple of quick points. i think that unfortunately americans and the lady from kentucky are too driven by what the media says. if you look back to the obama campaign everyone wanted to blast this guy because nationality and whether born-american and i didn't go there because we didn't have those papers to prove this. and as far as the wars over there, i support them but i stand certain that it doesn't make any muslims happier. and third and most important part to the point, the problem in the united states with this
immigration/terrorist ability to get in our country issue, they need to be completely separated. because terrorists can flow over 3,751 mile border of canada. they can flow easily in there, and immigration and illegal immigration have to be something separate. and these middle eastern country are anger at us. host: we will leave it there. guest: i want to make a point, immigration has been one of the great strengths of our country. and one thing that we have to do as a caller said earlier, we need to find a way to keep the terrorists out and still allow for the free-flow of commerce about our borders and to still permit legal immigration. and at the same time we got to do something about the problem of the illegals that are in
country. president bush tried to do that with grants of immigration reform and working with the republicans and democrats in the congress. we got close but i think that the senate vote today down. i think that was a great tragedy, that was the time to solve this issue. and i am pleased to see that the president is willing to take this back on. host: we have sam on the independent line, we are just about to go to an event. caller: i feel there is a war going on that we don't hear enough about. and that's the war on the innocent people by domestic crime. host: ok. guest: absolutely right. and obviously one of the first