'Appalling!': Historians torch Supreme Court's handling of Trump ballot case
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2024
- MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell discusses the Supreme Court oral arguments on the case dealing with Donald Trump being removed from Colorado's presidential ballot by that state's Supreme Court with Harvard History Professor Drew Gilpin Faust and Yale History Professor David Blight.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc...
Find MSNBC on Facebook: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: / msnbc
#SCOTUS #Trump #Colorado
The Founders did not contemplate the possibility of a corrupt congress and a weak flailing supreme court that would be unwilling to take on the hard questions.
@peziki Why not comment properly, a corrupt SC, trying to hide their corruption behind
flailing activities and comments?
From The Age of Integrity to The Age of the Absurd.
They did not imagine having justices so bought and paid for as Clarence.
"...contemplate the possibility of a corrupt congress and a weak flailing supreme court..."
What do you think the 2nd is for?
This is the best SCOTUS we've had in decades. They actually respect the US Constitution. Sorry to disappoint you and your ignorance.
This is the sickening result of selecting justices for their politics and not for their legal and historical excellence. The case should have been postponed until Thomas was forced to recuse himself. His sitting on this case is a travesty. Expand the court or impeach the incompetent and/ or politically biased.
It has to happen otherwise our supreme court is nothing but a kangaroo court! 💙
Booo hiss/ Thomas
Affirmative action and quota hires aka feminism caused this.
So after hearing the questioning from each Justice, you are not anticipating a 9-0 decision? Maybe circle back and listen again? SCOTUS is rife with incompetence and political bias? If that is true, then removing Thomas would render a 5-3 decision. Seriously... a 1st grader could solve that equation. BTW... you do realize that ANY postponements at this point only helps Donald Trump's campaign?
*100%!!!!!*
Listening to the bits I did hear from the Supreme Court, they didn't sound like very smart people to me.
“When states are democratically governed according to law, there are no demagogues, and the best citizens are securely in the saddle; but where the laws are not sovereign, there you find demagogues."
--- Aristotle, The Politics
And Trump is definitely a demagogue!
Tainted Justice by a tainted court.
Sickening, absolutely sickening. 🤬
I think the court was spot on.
This case has nothing to do with whether or not Trump violated section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It is about a state's right to remove an individual from the ballot of a federal election.
In my opinion, this right should be reserved for congress and it appears like the justices agree with me.
I hear the salt from liberal tears are the best kind.
@@ryant2568Although it is clear to most Americans that the defendant did conspire to commit insurrection, the 14th Amendment contains no clear process for determining an individuals guilt as an insurrectionist. This oversight must be addressed!
What's sickening is the droves of sheep that watch and are influenced by corporate media.
@@j.b.macadam6516 Section 1 requires Due Process.
the unspoken reality is that
money is above the law.
That's why it's the root of all evil.
Republicans wish to keep it that way at any cost.
Amen
And, they've been very successful obviously. Vote Blue!💙💙💙@@markpmar0356
Leonard Leo is the puppeteer.
We are all learning PRECIOUS LESSONS about our nation's history that we should have learned in high school!
“How can we get in the minds of someone back then?” asks the originalist contextualist.
SMH!
I'm not American. I'm English by birth and a citizen of Australia both American long time allies. This court is going to make a decision (already has?) that's going to reverberate around the democratic World. Colorado isn't making a decision for the whole of the USA's 50 states; YOU ARE! This is Constitutional LAW that should decide this not politics or worries about consequences. Sorry about the caps.
@johnhedge..great point ..until you used caps..then apologized for using caps..
..'hedge' ing?
Thank you for the response. Very intelligent
There was no insurrection.
The Jan 6 protest rally was hijacked by anti-Trump people who intended to start a riot to make Trump look bad.
Evidence is finally surfacing. -- FBI involvement.
The FBI is rogue. It's been that way for years.
They tried to frame Trump for conspiring with Russians, right from the moment he was elected in 2016.
They blocked news about Biden's influence peddling corruption, right before the 2020 election.
Now we learn that they were present, stirring up troubles at the Capitol on Jan 6.
I missed when a single person got convicted of an insurrection?
18 U.S. Code 2383
Did I miss it?
Exactly right, except this court is corrupt and out of controlsince its 3 stollen seats by trump. No faith in them doing the right thing, ever.
I am not a historian nor a Constitutional scholar, but listening to the SC yesterday made me sick to my stomach.
Why? Because you hate Trump? Dohhhhhh!
@@ClassicFIHDwe do not hate Trump but we hate that he blatantly violated the oath of office.
@@ClassicFIHDno because the Conservative judges gave softball questions to exonerate Trump.
@@Unionjoint
Softball questions. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha!
@nicholasgreenlee4911 Hunter and Hillary totally agree. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha!
The Supreme Court is throwing away the most perfect opportunity to show that it has a spine.
Huh??? Yeah right.....
They should be ruling if the Colorado court got the insurrection right. The Roberts court is the worst ever.
Well that’s because they don’t have one,,,the Supreme Court liens heavily toward the GOP. It’s a stacked deck in trump’s favor. Judge Thomas’s wife Jenny Thomas engaged in insurrection and her businesses stand to benefit greatly if trump is reelected. Thomas shouldn’t even be hearing the case he should be forced to recuse himself,,,, actually the majority of them should because they all smoke trump’s pe+er they smoke more trump pe+er than Fidel Castro smoked Cuban cigars.
They're going to rule 9-0 in favor of Trump
Because COMMON SENSE
Dippschitt
SCROTUS, out of 9, three were appointed by trump. gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett. 6 others can't speak up. They should all be thrown out. 😡
Someone with standing needs to remind the SC Justices that their legitimate role is to interpret constitutional law as it applies to the case before them, not to create & debate hypothetical public & political repercussions that might occur as a result of that interpretation. The hearing on Thursday was disappointing & patronizing, barely mentioning Trump & Section 3 as it pertains to the Colorado case specifically and, instead, wandered off into questions & discussion of how they could arrive at a unanimous opinion that would be most comfortable for the justices themselves.
Why didnt Justice Thomas recuse himself?
Arrogance.
Why didn't your mom swallow?
There was money in it for him?
I would guess his complete lack of ethics was to blame
@@courtneybrubaker9738 Hubris.
We are doomed by idiocy and Corruption.
... coming from democrats.
Cant wait to see the comments when Trumps president again its gonna be priceless 😅
The two hallmarks of the democrat party
No, we are recovering from idiocy and corruption.
Yes you are. For us non-Americans, looking from the outside in, your 'experiment' has failed and how you go forward from this is going to be very interesting to watch. God help you.
It doesn’t directly impact scotus, so they can let it slide. Even though the constitution says very clearly anyone involved with an insurrection cannot be on the ballot. Begs the question of who’s paying off the justices now?
The uber wealthy Republican oligarchs that are trying to install an autocracy, that's who !
We need to impeach extreme MAGA justices like Elana Kagan.
He didnt incite nor was a part of.
Yet the Democratic controlled govt didn't convict trump of insurrection. Quit letting ur hatred of trump blind u from the truth!
LOL, but the constitution doesnt say that. read blackman and tillman. In fact, if a civilian were engaged in insurrection, he wouldnt be disqualified from running for ANY OFFICE, based on section 3 try getting an actual grip on the law before speading mis information
I think the prosecuting lawyer was stunned into not performing as strongly as we expected because the SCOTUS questions and arguments were all so unserious and weak.
This was so shameful, no respect for the Constitution.
The Constitution is clear. A state cannot enact the 14th amendment.
@@SilverSergeant stop making up stuff, mag-at. Concentrate on getting your GED in shop
JR I'm guessing you're anti guns right? Hate the 2nd amendment but then wanna cry about following the constitution.
talking about yourself?
When do Democrats care about the law? Sanctuary cities are the definition of illegal. They've been illegal and y'all did it first
These judges will decide if they are for America or against America.
Newsflash:they're against.
All Republicans are traitors to America. Full stop.
Yeah, they just decided they're for America. Take your Lexapro, Ken.
Let the people decide in November. For every state that takes Trump off Biden should be taken off too so the election is fair
Seems like they were very much for America with the questions they were asking. I just do not think they want to see mass chaos in our elections, which is what Colorado is doing. One state should not have the ability to dictate to the rest of the nation who runs and who doesn't. They are trying to remove Trump for an insurrection that never happened, and that he was never convicted of. A real stretch. Sorry, but a 4 hour riot is NOT an insurrection. Its the left that's in the process of destroying our country. The Supreme Court is doing their best to step in and stop the destruction.
@@BringBackFreeSpeechToYT Well we don't need the 14th amendment. Lets throw out the constitution. We will make it up as we go.
The audacity of this man (Thomas) to not only stay on the case, but actually question the 14th amendment.
When his own FREAKING WIFE is complicit. It's truly something to behold.
I had been holding out hope that in the end the foundation of our government which is the constitution of the United States would be upheld and admittedly with such a corrupt unethical group I had a little doubt but after yesterday they left no hope on the plate. The people will have to take back our government starting with the Supreme Court of the United States.
I have zero confidence in the Supreme Court. Thomas should've recused himself from the jump.
LOL.
Why? Just because black men can naturally jump higher? Stop being racist
Why is the legal system afraid to prosecute dumpty criminally?
Because he gave trillions of dollars to the most wealthy. If he hadn't, he would have been gone a long time ago.
Pretty much the same as today's supreme court rubbish: fear of responsibility. Hope that with delays and covering every detail it will either be too late for the decision to matter, or so thoroughly dealt with that they can't miss. Lack of courage. Why is the West not doing better for Ukraine? Same thing. The West is in a state of indecision, made worse by decades of easy living and no really important problems to deal wtih. Why did Canada make a constitution that lets a province (read; Quebec) have the right to negate any federal legislation it wishes under the not-withstanding clause. Same thing: expediency and lack of courage.
@@rodneysmart9774
He didn’t give them trillions because he doesn’t even have billions and at the rate he’s blowing through money right now he won’t even have millions.
But you are right that he gave them something. He gave them America to plunder.
There is no crime.
Probably because they wouldn't be able to prove insurrection.
It seems absurd that such an important and in depth debate should revolve around whether a lawyer can think quickly enough on their feet; it would seem that the Justices had their questions prepared - why don't the lawyers get time to preapare an appropriate response drawing on experts like those in this interview?
David Blight is one of the top civil war historians. 25 top historians submitted and amicus brief to SCOTUS and it seemed in the court room that nobody even read it
Probably as dependable as th 50 plus that signed a document that Hunters laptop story was disinformation. Pfffttt
historians are legal experts. read tillman and blackman
is that what you think? @@_TheLONEwolf < stupid
The only question has always been how, not whether, this court would find a way to rule for Trump. And how much damage it will do.
Agreed.
The right-wing judges on the Supreme Court are so predictabale
9 - 0.
''''You have a Republic , if you can keep it '' B. Franklin
We almost lost it. These judges saved America.
We had a specifically average run
This court doesn’t give a crap. They are losing because they have no sense of what democracy means. Why follow the law if these people think and act as if it is meaningless? Why should I or any other citizen follow what these people have to say if they are so mindless and bloodless.
Historians, not Judges?@@only2genders02
@@Jorentju_Sedition A republic is a kind of democracy. Go back to civics class.
When the Supreme Court fails, your democracy has already died. This is incredibly sad and depressing.
We should pray lawmakers do the rite thing . What gets me is ,, with all the education of the supremes ,,,and they have doubts of what the constitution means. Appauling and very scary .
So if the Supreme Court Justices took an oath to support the constitution, why would they debate section 3 of the 14th Amendment by the Constitution? Why would they debate that constitutional law that was created after the Civil War? Why would they debate this historical law?
Because that’s their job? Most of what the Supreme Court debates are the language of the constitution when presented with a case that hasn’t already been ruled to apply by SCOTUS, along with precedent based on other rulings like how they mentioned In Re. Griffin.
Hypocrisy? Deceit?
They have to interpret it in a way that benefits their sponsor.
There was no insurrection. Hence, 14-3 does not apply.
@@maharajjinkb7824 there was though.
And wow, “…here we are in the future, failing to learn the lessons of the 19th Century.” Let that sink in.
Exactly
We haven’t listened to and haven’t learned the Lessons of the 20th century Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Edi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong il, And Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Noriega, Benjamin Netanyahu and the list goes on. We Human’s especially those of us with old world ancestry we claim to be the enlightened ones, an yet indigenous peoples from around the world haven’t been in charge of killing our environment quickly in 250yrs, we are stupid and full of hubris.
@@Sweetlyfeobama
@@mikemcdermott1026Really..🤦♀️
@@mikemcdermott1026
What about him?
Did the Supreme Court justices even go to law school??!!??????!!!!
Honest question: are lawyers that present in front of the Supreme Court precluded from pointing out hypocrisy and cowardice on the part of the justices? They all basically said why do we have to decide this. Makes no sense considering they're fine deciding to strip away the VRA, taking away a woman's right to choose, etc.
US Constitution gives only Congress the power to enact the 14th amendment.
It's very generous to assume that the court intended to take the whole thing seriously to begin with.
Who would bother in taking such a sh*tshow as serious? It's an SNL parody! 😂
I know. I was only hopeful because I read the amazing briefs by top legal minds and historical scholars regarding this case. The case is air tight. SCOTUS is moral less.
@@heidistrand320 The case for a 9-0 decision against Colorado is airtight on at least three grounds: Trump has not been convicted in federal court and thus must be treated as innocent; the President is not an Officer of the United States as the term is used in the Constitution; no state court has jurisdiction over 14th Amendment cases.
Agreed
@@user-ee4ft7ff1uI listen to legal scholars and they disagree.
And this historian is worth a listen.
So much bias was evident that it reminded me of an HOA Board meeting.
Bias? How so?
roftlmao
This will be a 9-0 decision. And for good reason: Trump (nor anybody else involved in J6) has ever been charged, much less convicted, of insurrection.
Bias?? LoL. So ALL the judges are biased? Even the liberal ones?? 😂😂😂
If you had a better education and understanding of the laws your mentality would be above HOA level thinking.
Yes! Amen.
Fellow historian I concur completely with my colleagues here. Let us make sure that six hundred thousand plus people did not die in vain over our Comparatively petty differences today.
What?
There oughta be a requirement that Constitutional cases before SCOTUS (only constitutional cases should come before SCOTUS-keep them out of politics) should always have bona fide Constitutional Scholars and Experts before the court to keep the constitutional issues in focus and correctly discussed, rather than relatively historically weak lawyers and the Justices themselves. The Justices interrupt too much and skip around their arguments with interruptions that can trip up a lawyer.
I'm beginning to believe that SCOTUS is representative of our under-educated society. As a body, their responsibility is to interpret the law and apply it, not speculate as to what might happen if they rule in one way or another. Unfortunately, they seem to lack historical perspective.
You obviously lack any knowledge of the history on this.
The Constitution is clear. A state cannot enact the 14th amendment.
I wonder how some of these people got through law school without being able to read.
If they give Trump, "TOTAL IMMUNITY & ELECTED IN 2024," he will be able to do anything he wants! There will be no more state courts or judges to stand in his way! Trust me, this country will run exactly like China does today, "Strict, Orderly With Unquestionable Power & Authority for their Leader!" Got Rice? Putin, Chi and Kim Jon will be present at Trump's Military Parade / Inaugural Ceremony in Wasington D.C. Wooot!
Maybe he is the Chosen One? LOL
@@SilverSergeant people are disqualified all the time by individual states. Cenk isn't on every state's ballots because he's not a natural born citizen.
The absolute absurdity of the SCOTUS even trying to act like, The OFFICE of the President doesn't make you an OFFICER of the government is abhorrent. The article is plain as day; if you participate or aide an insurrection, you are disqualified, period. Not sentence one today was on if he did or didn't commit or aide in insurrection as the lower courts affirm. They just side stepped the issue completely. This is not a states rights issue anymore than it's a states rights issue that someone under 35 or foreign born can't run for office is. Those are the federal standards we have in place on who is / isn't eligible to run for office. The article is likewise clear on who can't; insurrectionists or those who aide them.
Cry some more 😂😂
Dude, that was the goofiest "insurrection" in American history. No guns? Security guards opening doors letting people inside? People livestreaming self guided tours gandering at artifacts amongst the chaos of political provocateurs? People stealing laptops and cool leather upholstered chairs? Members of Crowds On Demand performing artistic theater? What happened that day was a testament of American culture, as well as possible subversive activity from security and media personnel. But regardless, let us not forget that the very essence of the political American citizen is to uproar and flip tables in the face of perceived oppression. It always has been. Your voice and my voice WILL BE HEARD, correct?
But people regurgitating mainstream rhetoric that Jan sixth was some horrible insurrection by extremists is just off the wall hilarious to hear. If it was democrats and progressives who stormed the capitol, the justifications for doing so would, of course, be endless. The grounds for arguments on insurrection is about as relative as the size of my house to my neighbors. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
@@OnlyintheER You will be crying when the SC decide that Trump has no immunity against criminal prosecution lol!
you are correct, the 14th ammendment is VERY clear, it specifically and clearly does NOT include the President of the United States, and it also requires someone to be found GUILTY of insurrection for us to even start talking about this ammendment.
kinda need an insurrection first, don't you think? nancy pelosi's jan 6th riot that she masterminded doesn't seem to apply here, as everyone is aware......well, those with common sense, anyways.
Worse the historians already answered during the debate of the amendment, when it was asked if it covered the office of President. The answer accepted by all present was that it did include the President because he was an officer of the United States.
Thank you for giving experienced law professors a voice. The public needs to hear it.
MENBC "experienced law professors", now that's funny. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha!
The voting public needs these trials to be quickly determined so they can know whether or not to vote for someone who has been judged of breaking laws or not. No delays.
They seem to have no trouble getting into the head of the founding fathers on the 2nd Amendment!
YES! No problem with THAT one! 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Almost like they wrote extensively and thoroughly on the topic.
I think they are afraid of what trump will do or have done to them if they boot him off.
If you actually read and understand the entire 2nd amendment and 14th amendment, you guys are wrong on both
😂
Right!
To deny the basic application of the constitution makes me angry and fear for future generations. Thats the making of another insurrection.
The “disqualification is against democracy” argument was also very angering, because the whole point of the insurrection was to override democracy. Barring someone who can’t accept a loss and tries to overturn it-that’s not anti-democratic, that’s protecting democracy.
I’ve felt nauseated every day since the chump made his 2nd descent down that escalator into the counterfeit staged celebration at the bottom. Very symbolic of our nations descent into the virus the chump has been spreading to destroy democracy.
@@paradoxmoYou’re anti democratic. I never heard any of you complain about Hillary’s anti-democratic dossier and the whole left wing morass mobilizing to destroy Trump’s candidacy and presidency from 2015 to 2021. And it’s been going nonstop ever since.
If you think it’s bad for Trump to say he doesn’t believe he lost the election in 2020, you should feel the same about Hillary doing that, right?
And if you feel Trump tried to steal an election in 2020, do you also admit Hillary tried to steal the election in 2016? Nope, I know you don’t. I’m sure those were veeeerrrry different things, right?
"WAHWAH i'm afraid of democracy WAHWAHWAH"
@@paradoxmo by preventing voters from voting for the candidate of their choice?? that's so democratic bruh
I also felt appalled at the kinds of questions the justices were asking. It almost seemed as if they just came out from under a rock and didn't know this has been an issue brewing for years already. However, to be fair, you really cannot read the justices by the questions they ask, because they are eventually going to need to draft the opinion of the court, and will need to hear ALL arguments, even the marginally stupid ones, before doing that. The hearing of arguments is just a feedback session.
Not the first time there has been an appalling court.
"Appalling" was the exact word I used when I heard the audio.
I honestly believed that the SCOTUS was supposed, as one of its duties, to interpret the Constitution. If they don't know, then what good are they?
I'm telling you, a bunch need to GO! Thomas should be impeached for that matter!
They know...👈😁...non-attorneys
don't..
Here come the crying liberals. First off he didn't participate in the insurrection, he was not charged or convicted... You people cry so much about the constitution when it fits you, but then are anti 2nd amendment through and through.
Maybe you are raising the question rhetorically but I'm so upset, I'm gonna answer it anyway. They are no good at all.
I’m gonna trust a “bipartisan” decision by Supreme Court justices over you or any leftist bent on the destruction of Donald Trump. Unless you just want federal elections to be a contest of how many states remove political opponents from the ballot. Is that the place you want to be?
‘……appalling consequences…..’ yeah, like justice for instance. Absolutely terrifying.
I can't get over one glaring fact. According to US law, "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Since the government has not charged anyone, let alone Trump, of breaking this law, no one can legally punish people due to participating in an insurrection. If there was an insurrection, and it is all on video, start charging people. If Trump was participating in an insurrection, certainly he should be formally charged, and it should have been a long time ago. If not, the 14th Amendment simply cannot apply.
If the Supreme Court doesn't believe they're there to interpret the "minds" and words of the framers, what do they think their role is exactly?!
To protect Trump, because like every other fool who traded their humanity to service him, they stupidly expect to be rewarded by him.
"If the Supreme Court doesn't believe they're there to interpret the 'minds' and words of the framers, what do they think their role is exactly?!" - And notice how that seems to apply to only this specific case. They had no problems interpreting the minds and words of the framers in the Dobbs case, in second Amendment cases, etc.
They didn't mind interpreting the minds of the framers in many other cases
@@nomore6167To interpret dictionary meanings of words.
@@nadjabrownrigg5798 an alarming number of them don't know what "no" means.
Call it what it is. Corruption. Who benefits from Corruption.
The corrupt
Kind of like how Biden is getting away with compromising classified documents?
Until they realize that their empire has fallen. Then they regret
The corruption started with the original court case even being heard.
Democrats?
The founders never in their wildest dreams imagined the president would be the insurrectionist.
Legal hipocracy of lawyers and judges
Justice Thomas should have never been on the bench in the Supreme Court EVER.
Thats racist
Calm down, Karen.
@@deadlyta wrong.
Anita Hill will always be one of my hero's. She warned of the monster on the horizon, and the swine that would feed from the same trough.
@@tnbrfller she's saying a black man shouldn't be on the Supreme Court
How is that not racist ?
Best BEST news Lawrence, a great ❤ of reporting, time traversing via the minds of Historians, GOD BLESS THEM ALL; keeping us humble, reminding us that knowing who we are is not a time stable process, but a traversing on old shoulders of those who gave a sacrifice enough to offer themselves for the realized future they dreamed so very vividly for.
We stand on shoulders, it would be honorable to show a little humility whilest Supremely and Courtly there we stand. Unalienablely, soul to soul there to know, just as we would, one human to another on any other day..
Lawrence and BEAUTIFUL HISTORIANS, you are profoundly inspiring,
Thank you!❤
Great panel. Bring them back. Need historical context more than ever.
I know what I was feeling. My blood pressure was slowly rising during the Plaintiff's statements as it seemed the Justices were hostile to counsel.
Ok Drama!
My ears have been ringing as my blood pressure, normally low, soars whenever I hear the hypocritical crap regarding the fascist takeover happening right now!!
100% Professor Blight. Political twisting is the obvious goal in many cases; and their “timidity” hiding behind their superficial arguments is sickening.
Well said.
I think you loss and you can't take it
@@curtistay8307 Oh like you guys did on January 6th? If a self professed dictator becomes President, we ALL lose, including you , sunshine.
No, political twisting, that went by the LAW, that argument is a old Demoncratic trick superficial n sickening, like you said. Pathetic!
Indeed! What is the point of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, if the SCOTUS is too lily-livered to apply it, hiding behind rhetoric such as "can CO unilaterally keep someone off the ballot?" Better to just erase this section, and lay the blame for it on the current justices of the SC.
I wonder how many phone calls Trump made to the judges ?
Intelligence is not what rules the world right now.
Which is why a lot of intelligent people are self-medicating during most of our waking hours.
Intelligence and biden
Administration is an
Oxymoron. Biden rules for me rules for thee. Biden, Clinton, Obama, ok
To take classified documents just not trump. Msnbc fake news.
I know. Biden is so stupid. He said a black man invented the light bulb😂 not Thomas Edison. How is he leader of the free world
I don't think it ever did. Money rules and always had throughout history.
Your right. Joe biden is so stupid. He tried to say a black man invented the light bulb not Thomas Edison😂. How is he leader of the free world
There are times where I think people like the justices make the Constitution much more complicated than it was ever meant to be.
No it not as easy as it may seem cause their decision will affect the future and all
Agree, much like most Democrats, Liberals, Leftist Etc.. I mean really how hard is it to understand oh say for instance what the 2ND Amendment says, The Right To Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Pretty simple to understand that no?
@@Bryan-yq9pz democrats only take constitution that word by word for what fit them
@@Bryan-yq9pz You forgot the 1st part of the 2nd Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
@@Bryan-yq9pzAnd when you look at history you will now find 20th century Republican reasoning of that amendment anywhere
If during the writing process of the amendment, things were added then removed from the final version. This shows clearly that anything that was considered and then removes, was removed due to a conscious decision that it shouldn't be there.
Term limits need to put in place for these clowns. Especially Thomas, Kavanagh, and Robert's.
Textualists who go out of their way to ignore the plain meaning of the text, originalists who ignore the history & clear intent of Congress in writing the amendment & states rights advocates who wring their hands over the thought of allowing the states to act independently - could it get any more ironic? SMH
Everything you just wrote is wrong. Colorado cannot subvert Democracy and neither can you.
this. These are pure ideological warriors. They have long shown their true colors.
Well said.
The mental gymnastics involved are indeed pathetic and unworthy of the Constitution, the Court and this moment in our history.
@@barrywebber100 🙏
What really stunned me is when one of the justices (I don't remember which one) brought up the point that if we agree to let Colorado remove him from the ballot, then any other state can do it as well.
So anybody can removed from the ballot simply because of the 14.3 clause, but the fact is that the law specifically speaks of insurrection...The justice seemed to infer any state could simply remove someone from the ballot thus concluding that chaos would surely ensue.
Thing is, nobody has ever, nor probably will ever, do what Trump has done. (i.e.; incite an insurrection).
is this a joke? Biden sent people to go against multiple states to try to facilitate child trafficking to affect the voting.
NOBODY has ever acted like Trump...and this SCOTUS knows it. Gutless. They will choose a man who will destroy America over their duty to the country? THEY will not be looked on with respect
It’s ironic that they want abortion to be states rights issue, except when it came down to the fact that people voted differently than they wanted them to now they want abortion back at the federal level so they can ban it.
@@elleaubry3772 What?
When did a single person got convicted of an insurrection?
18 U.S. Code 2383
Has a single person even been charged?
What about the alleged pipe-bomber who may be a capitol police officer? Has he? Why didn't they let the local police identify him?
That "bomb" was less than 10 feet from VP Harris... Then they let a group of young girls walk right passed it just feet away...
Seems like a crime... We should investigate.
Not sure why Colorado should be worried about SCOTUS opinion - they should just ignore an unfavorable ruling the same way that Texas does
Don't the judges know bad from good?
_“Let not anyone pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”_ -John Stuart Mill (1867)
Voting in America is like driving a car: if you want to go _forward,_ select *“D”;* if you want to go _backward,_ select *“R”.* You won't get to a destination, by staying in neutral.
Well said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The Supreme Court lost the small amount of credibility they had left. Texas doesnt even respect them anymore and ignored their decision on the border so can Colorado do the same?
gotta point.
How did Texas not respect them? Dohhhhh!
@@ClassicFIHD they ignored their decision. Keep up
@@RobertTrey-ov1lz
NO! They didn't! Read it! Dohhhhhh!
@@ClassicFIHD whatever you say Homer Simpson
I absolutely love Lawrence's style, class and tact! His comentary is always spot on.
I didn’t expect anything else from the Supreme Court we are stuck with.
I was deeply saddened and appalled by the lack of seriousness the Supremes displayed in consideration of the 14th Am. Sec. 3.
Hey Mr. RUclips Lawyer, you should probably read the 6A. It's been around a long time.
They truly dropped the ball on this one, and the rest of us will deal with it at the ballot box. We go after SCOTUS next. 😊😊😊😊
@@michaelWNY Very good amendment, that 6th! The privilege we afford citizens to run for office isn't a "criminal prosecution", my man, so I'm not sure how you think it applies to his application to be a candidate.
Did they just render the 14th Amendment Article 3 moot? They essentially saw no path to use it when warranted.
A lot of commenters know NOTHING about the US constitution. Step away from your Trump hate and you will see that the only Congress can enact the 14th.
It was obvious to me that SCOTUS needed a remedial reading seminar, either that or they didn’t have the intent to seriously address the issue.
My faith in America has become that much more dim...
Just another step in the downfall of a corrupt empire.
We are here already. What are you smoking? 😂😂😂
Well No. 46 is really the corrupt president
Who appointed these judges ? Who appointed the person that appointed these judges ? Who put the person that appointed these judges at the helm ?
You're not an empire. You're not in downfall. Some people might be corrupted. By themselves or by the culture they landed in ? Now think again.
I am shocked that the USSC took the position that they did. You could feel their desire to dismiss this argument and the clause. This was a reimagining of the US Constitution. 😮
rodwillis4080, with a 6-3 Conservative majority on the bench,they handed tRump a solid victory, and they were laughing in our faces as they did it. It was a walk-off for tRump. He didn't even have to show up; in fact, he was wise to stay away. He got to gloat afterward, anyway.
The fact you call SCOTUS ‘USSC’ tells me you have likely never read a Supreme Court brief or opinion in your life. I would be surprised if you even knew how the Constitution is composed or how it became ratified originally.
@@pablolasha238 God Bless you!
@@rodwillis4080 so my assumption is correct lol. It’s a shame too because these are some of the best jurists this court has ever had. You don’t even understand what they are arguing about man.
Trump has not been convicted of anything...what's wrong with oyou idiotsticks?
Oh no, I guess we'll have to let the voters decide now.
The fact that Thomas is even allowed to sit on the bench for this case, when his wife helped organize and fund the insurrection, shows that the SCOTUS had no intention of ever taking this case seriously.
The same reason a judge is sitting ruling on a Trump case who has a wife actively promoting against Trump in various ways publicly.
@@waynedavis936Wayne The spouse you refer to is exercising her 1st Ammendment Right (freedom of speech) in the open. I hope you support her right to do that. Actively trying to subvert or overturn the People's right to free and fair elections is NOT a protected by the Constitution
You are another left-wing Communist that has ruined this country. . .
The "Roberts Court" has ZERO ethics -- they will not even create an enforceable set of ethics rules for themselves.
@@banderson8444 Right back at you. They wanted Clarence Thomas to recuse himself, due to his wife's "first amendment" activities. Why the double speak and standard by the left? Huh?
The supreme court must have terms. They're so out of touch with current issues.
You want gender reassignment for kids. That's not exactly a current issue. You want mass illegal imagration. But won't say who's paying for it. You out of touch, homie.
Wow, prof. Faust's last words nailed it.
Geez…it’s the coroner and the librarian on set together!!!
I was really disappointed in the very shallow, imprecise, and offhand way the Supremes spoke. They didn't want this case, and sure enough they didn't consider it.
It is clear that Colorado has tried to subvert Democracy.
True. Sad that they should treat the people with such obvious disdain and disinterest.
Hmm.. probably because there was no insurrection? Lol
@@krisjones4051the whole witnessed the insurrection and it's ongoing.
And they were aware of the public listening to every word they say and therefore afraid of threats by lunatic members of the public.
There is a reason to keep courtcases closed off from the public. There might have been an other outcome if it was not broadcasted.
I think almost all of government elected representatives are losing their marbles! I think the American citizens see it clearly. Sheesh.
The subject here tho is the unelected Supreme Court!
Yes, we do see clearly, but how do we remove justices who have been placed in their seats by Trump to do his bidding, and put honest justices in their place? This is a very sad time for America. Mitch McConnell should have voted honestly during Trump's 2nd impeachment. Justice would have been served and we wouldn't be going through this cancer in our country.
CORRUPT CORRUPT CORRUPT
The judges are already erasing it!
Thomas refusing to recuse himself when he and his wife was part of Trumps legal adviser group leading on the coup attempt is mind blowing.
Corrupt court…
The court acted like it was a hot potato. Cowards not to rule on the actual question of disqualification !
Lawyers having a ball, and making a fortune at the same time!
According to the Constitution of the United States an amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
Nowhere does it say that the Supreme Court has the power to arbitrarily ignore or amend the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution is clear on Disqualification of Candidates from holding Office... It doesn't say "might be", "could be", or even "should be"... It says SHALL BE !
"§2383. Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, SHALL BE fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and SHALL BE incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Exactly, It's very clear on the matter, way too many people are trying to add confusion
Well that lets Trump off the hook. He said "Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard". He never set foot, offered any assistance, gave any aid or comfort to any would be Insurrectionist. Never cried out "Storm the ramparts boys, and brook no quarter".
So let's say, hypothetically, that Trump steals the next election with about 20 million fake ballots. Would that be considered a rebellion or insurrection? Im curious what the total vote count will be - it usually increases by 5M every presidential cycle so it should clear 160 million this year
We live under our constitution ❤if we want to save it then we need to start voting for real people who are willing to defend it .
That is what the republicans are doing. Democrats tried to remove Trump for insurrection but the problem is Trump never committed an insurrection. Even the FBI said this. That is why trump was never charged for insurrection. So yes we must save America from this corrupt democrat party that is destroying our democracy be choosing who can and can not run for presidents simply because they dislike Trump and knows Trump will win in 2024.
I hear about Democrats voting? I see all the blue hearts over posts? But did you know that MORE REGISTERED RepublIcans voted in the midterms than REGISTERED Democrats? ALL TALK NO ACTION. THAT is how Trump got in in the first place. If I was on life support I would be lining up for this election. I HAVE NEVER NOT VOTED. if Democrats are serious ...the better make sure NOT A SINGLE one of them sits on their sofa Election Day.. thinking 'someone else will do it? I am only a single vote?" 100.000 Democrats might be thinking the same thing. Boerbert won by 500 votes last time?
There will NEVER be a more important vote in America than this one............................ For America AND the rest of the world
There was no insurrection. It was another myth, similar to Trump-Russia collusion.
Rand Paul.
😂@@rolandwoltman7835
Harlan Crow owns the SC. He bought it,he owns it.
I have been voting for 40+ years. I’ve always held the SC in esteem, prior to recent years. Frankly, I’m still adjusting to the disappointment. 🇺🇸💙
How does a Supreme Court member not prepare so negligently like Thomas in this case? He doesn't know about, nor the provisions within the General Amnesty Act of 1872? How could he even understand this case? Like a man going in to perform brain surgery who just got out of mechanics school. WOW!
I guess you are upset about the fact that they don't agree with you 😂
@@groovytunes2 No matter, the SC WILL agree with the DC on the issue of immunity soon and then Trump will stand trial for his crimes anyway. He is toast, whichever way you look at it, just a matter of time! TICK TOCK.
The donors that paid for his lavish lifestyle didn't pay for him to understand but to vote they way they want him to.
@@kizzmiaz Exactly. And the three stooges that Trump put in are doing just what he put them in there for. IF he gets into power they MIGHT be well rewarded but he does have a history of not paying his debts. If Biden remains in power, they will be going to prison for the rest of their lives.
Watching liberals lose their minds because they don't understand the US Constitution is one of my favorite things about not being a liberal 😂😂😂
My God. Stop Trump please. It's crazy.
Move.
Maybe Pray to G-d
I agree it's a frightening thought.
Please relax. Chump is a proven loser, assuming the Democratic screamers don't succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, as they did by running HRC in 2016.
Chump is a Traitor to his country and an enemy of the people.
MAGA - Mindless Anarchists Gone Apeshit
GOP - Government Of Putin
Ima stay right here, Comrade, and fight it out with you Russian traitors. My advice to you, Boris, is go back to Moscow while you are still able.
Chump is a Traitor to his country and an enemy of the people.
MAGA - Mindless Anarchists Gone Apeshit
GOP - Government Of Putin@@cryptsub
SCOTUS punted.
This kind of reckless behavior by the Court leads to public violence.
Bring. It. On. PLEASE.
Yep, same way they punted on the election fraud cases from 2020.
The responsibility of proving historical reasoning does not land at the desk of the justices. It is the responsibility of the lawyers arguing either for or against the measure at hand. Secondly, I find it entirely disingenuous of the host and guest to solely target the conservative side of the court when questions and concerns of the liberal justices were similar. It’s segments like these that prove the intellectual dishonesty of tv news networks, host and guest.
Thomas participated in January 06, indirectly theough his wife. The other justices dont want to start pointing fingers, to keep the court from imploding.
theres no such thing as indirectly participating. haha. language matters. The 14th amendment says "engage" in insurrection. Trump was not at the capitol. He did not engage in insurrection. Incitement is not in the 14th amendment
To incite the event does not qualify as engagement? Haha, language matters.@@stephenjansen9475
@@stephenjansen9475 most judges except the Supremes abide by the demand to avoid any appearance of bias or impropriety. No, Thomas didn't participate as far as we know, but there are plenty of emails showing his wife did. His hands are potentially not clean and shouldn't be involved in decisions that may impact his wife or her/their friends.
Incitement and Aiding and Abetting Insurrection are BOTH "engagement", Comrade.
We all know how difficult English is for you native Russian speakers. How's the weather today in Moscow, Boris? Got vodka? Drink!
Chump is a Traitor to his country and an enemy of the people.
MAGA - Mindless Anarchists Gone Apeshit
GOP - Government Of Putin@@stephenjansen9475
Thomas, more than any other justice, has NO Moral Compass whatsoever. Thomas is the best argument available for the damage done to America by Affirmative Action. Equal Opportunity does NOT in any sense confer Equal Outcomes, which are based on Merit, NOT skin color.
Thomas is a living, breathing insult to Justice Thurgood Marshall and was only elevated to SCOTUS Justice because of his skin color. Other than being Black, he has repeatedly demonstrated his incompetence to be a Justice on SCOTUS. Being Black is clearly not a qualification for an Associate Justice.
Chump is a Traitor to his country and an enemy of the people.
MAGA - Mindless Anarchists Gone Apeshit
GOP - Government Of Putin@@origamimambo545
Seems to me the justices absolutely believe they can get into the heads of the framers, when it suits them.
Isn’t that how they’ve framed their interpretation of privacy rights, and gun ownership rights as well? But not here where it’s spelled out plainly?
Give me a break.
When a Judge or Attorney asks a question about something like they don't know they actually already know the correct answer.