are there suggests that really what they thought was if we are worried about the charismatic person, we will bar insurrectionist electors and, therefore, that person is never going to rise. >> this came up in the debates in congress over section 3 where they said, why haven't you included president and vice president in the language? the senator responds, we have. look at the language any office under the united states. >> yes. but doesn't that at least suggest ambiguity? this sort of ties into justice kavanaugh's point. in other words, we had a person right there at the time saying what i'm saying. the language here doesn't seem to include president. why is that? so if there's an ambiguity, why would we construe it to -- as justice kavanaugh pointed out -- against democracy? >> johnson agreed with that reading. any office is clear, the constitution says about 20 times -- >> i'm not going to -- let me

just say, your point is that there's no ambiguity with having a list and not having president in it with having a history that suggests they were really focussed on local concerns in the south, with this conversation where the legislators actually discussed what looked like an ambiguity, you are saying there's no ambiguity in section 3? >> let me take the point specifically about electors and senators, if i might. >> yes. >> that might be important. presidential electors were not covered, because they don't hold an office. they vote. >> i'm talking about the barred office part of this. >> exactly. the barred -- if you want to include everybody, first you have to suppress phi presidential electors. they wouldn't fall under any office. secretary of all, senators and representatives don't hold office either. the constitution tells us that and refers to them as holding seats, not offices. you want to make sure there's no doubt that senators and representatives are covered

given the constitution suggests otherwise. you have to include them. the constitution says the presidency holds an office as do members of this court. other high offices, the president, vice president, members of this court -- >> let me ask you -- i appreciate that argument. if we think the states can't enforce this provision for whatever reason in this context, in the presidential context, what happens next in this case? is it done? >> if this court concludes that colorado did not have the authority to exclude president trump from the presidential ballot on procedural grounds, i think this case would be done. i think it could come back with a vengeance. ultimately, members of congress may have to make the determination after a presidential election if president trump wins about whether or not he is disqualified from office and whether to count votes cast for him under the electoral count reform act. president trump urges this

course in the first few pages to resolve it on the issue of the merritts. >> there's no federal litigation you would say? >> that's correct. there's no federal procedure for deciding these issues short of a criminal prosecution. >> thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> miss stevenson. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, exercising its far reaching powers under the electors clause, colorado's legislature directed courts to resolve any challenges to the listing of any candidate on the presidential primary ballot before coloradans cast their votes. despite this law, petitioner contends colorado must put him on the ballot because of the possibility there would be a super majority act of congress

to remove his legal disability. under this theory, colorado and every other state would have to indulge this possibility not just for the primary but through the general election and up to the moment an ineligible candidate was sworn into office. nothing in the constitution strips the states of their power to direct presidential elections in this way. this case was handled capably and efficiently by the colorado courts under a process that we used to decide ballot challenges for more than a century. as everyone agrees, the court now has the record that it needs to resolve these important issues. i welcome your questions. >> is there an express provision with respect -- that defines what a qualified candidate is? >> no, your honor, there's not an express provision when the colorado supreme court looked at this. they looked at the need to be qualified plus the fact that this part was -- >> what does it say? if it's not express, how do we get to this issue of qualified

candidate? >> what the court -- the colorado supreme court did -- if i could have the standing objection, i want to make the argument you shouldn't review the court -- >> i'm looking at the statute. >> what the court did was to say that we have three important provisions in this section that show the candidates have to be qualified. first, it requires under 1203 that a political party that wants to participate has to have a qualified candidate. the fact that comparable write-in candidates had to be qualified. >> this isn't a write-in candidate. we are actually talking about the participation of a political party. right? we're not talking about the participation of a candidate. >> sure. i think the fact that the right write-in candidate had to be qualified was confirming the political party had to be qualified. it would be otherwise incongruous to read those differently. >> how is section 3 a qualification? >> under the reasoning of the

colorado supreme court -- >> just on the face. >> a candidate must have -- meet all criteria for eligibility. i don't perceive any distinction between meeting eligibility criteria and not being disqualified. i don't see any meaningful difference between those two things. >> thank you. >> you represent the secretary of state, right? >> that's correct, your honor. >> if you are the secretary of state somewhere and someone comes in and says, i think this candidate should be disqualified, what do you do next? >> administratively and what the deputy elections director testified to is if they obtain objective information, the secretary can act on that and inform -- >> the secretary decides whether that's objective, knowable information? >> in some instances. in this case, the challenge was brought before the candidate's paperwork had been submitted and because there had been a challenge assert and put into the proper court procedure. the secretary didn't even make that determination because she didn't have the paperwork. >> in other case where that

wasn't the procedure that was filed, somebody -- maybe they have a stack of papers saying here is why i think this person is guilty of insurrection. it's not big. it happened down the street. they say this is still an insurrection. i don't know what the standard is for when it arises to that. >> anything that even presented that level of controversy about one person having a set of facts that they said would send this to the 113 procedure we use to resolve ballot challenge issues like that. if another elector didn't want to bring it the secretary could bring that action. >> any action the secretary takes that anyone wants to challenge, they can use the is 13 process to do so. i think states have varying degrees of that. they there are other states that allow versions of that.

then i don't know whether there are others -- i know there are some that do. >> i think we are told there are states that do not provide for any judicial review of a secretary of state's determination. is that incorrect? >> no, no, i think that's right. there are some states that have no mechanism to come to i think justice kagan's point or -- there's some states that don't have any mechanism to exclude a disqualified candidate from the ballot. i want to speak to that for a minute about the actual -- >> wouldn't that be constitutional? if the secretary of state's determination was final? >> i think so under article 2, the elector's clause. states give broad authority to determine how to run their presidential elections. >> could a state enact a statute that provides different rules of

evidence and different rules of procedures and different standards of proof for this type of proceeding and for other civil proceeding snz. >> yes, your honor, i believe it could. under the same electors clause power. >> that issue would be determined under a different provision like the due process clause? >> correct. the balance of the electors clause would include due process, first amendment. >> what's the due process right? does the candidate have a due process right? what's the liberty interest? >> i think it's not very precisely defined in the case law. i think there's a recognition that there's a liberty interest of a candidate and there's some due process interest in being able to access the ballot. >> i thought that was for voters. you think for the candidate, too? it would be taking something away from the candidate? >> certainly, yes. a lot of times you see that in the first amendment context where candidates can have an

issue about being on the ballot. it's a hybrid, often 1st amendment 14th amendment clause discussed today. >> a follow-up to justice alito. these decisions might be made different ways in different states. a secretary of state makes it in one state with little process or a process more like colorado's could be followed by others. would our standard of review vary depending on the procedure employed by the state? >> i think this court has tremendous discretion to decide its standard of review. it might be based on the process that was employed by an individual state. i think you could exercise the independent review that mr. murray talked about. you could give deference where you have a full-blown proceeding like here that had all the protections of rules of evidence and cross examination and things like that. >> you think we should give deference in reviewing the factual record, the legal conclusions?

in other words -- >> i don't think it should did he de novo. i'm amenable to the suggestion that the court would do independent review that might provide greater certainty to states around the country as to what the court's position is on the factual record in this case. >> we could reach disperate results? >> i think that's possible. >> i take it your position is that this disqualification is really the same as any other disqualification? age or residence or what have you? >> that's correct. >> what if i were to push back on that and say, well, this disqualification, number one, it's in the 14th amendment and the point of the 14th amendment was to take away certain powers from the states, number two, section 3 itself gives congress a very definite role which mr. mitchel says is interfered with by the ability of states to take

somebody off the ballot, and maybe number three, it's more complicate and more contests, if you want, why more political, why don't those things make a difference in our thinking? >> i think the trouble with the categorizing the insurrectionist as necessarily more difficult is just an assumption that's coming up because of this case. back to the justice's case, we could have an easy okay where an insurrectionist came in and it was open and shot as to whether that person would shut the qualifications. with respect to your other questions about the 14th amendment, my positions are based on the assumption that under the 14th amendment the states have the power to enforce section 3 just like they do other presidential qualifications. i would defer to the electors

arguments on those points. >> suppose the state that does recognize non-mutual collateral makes a determination using whatever procedures it decides to adopt that a particular candidate is and insurrectionist? could that have a cascading affect so that the decision by a court in one state, the decision by a single judge whose factual findings are given deference, maybe an elected trial judge would have potentially an enormous affect on the candidates who run for president across the country? is that something we should be concerned about? >> i think you should be concerned about it, your honor. i think the concern is not as high as maybe it's made out to be in particular some of the briefs. under article 2, there's a huge amount of disparity in candidates that end up on the ballot in every election. this election, there's a candidate who colorado excluded

from the primary ballot who was on the ballot in other states, even though he is not a natural born citizen. that's just a feature of our process. it's not a bug. with respect to the decision making -- we are here so this court can give us nationwide guidance on some of the legal principles involved. i think that reduces the potential amount of disparity that would arise between the states. with respect to the factual and how that gets issue and implemented, the states have processes for this. i think we need to let that play out and accept that there may be some messiness of federalism here because that's what the electors clause assumes will happen. if different states apply their principls and come to different results, that's okay. congress can act at any time if it thinks it's truly federalism run amok. >> justice thomas? justice alito? >> just one further question. it's along the same questions as

a lot of other questions. we have been told that if what colorado did here is sustained, other states are going to retaliate. they're going to potentially exclude another candidate from the ballot. what about that situation? >> your honor, i think we have to have faith in our system that people will follow their election processes appropriately, that they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th amendment. courts will review the decisions. this court may review some of them. i don't think that this court should take those threats too seriously in its resolution of the case. >> you don't think that's a serious threat? >> i think we have -- >> we should proceed on assumption it's not a serious threat? >> we have institutions in place to handle those types of allegations. >> what are those institutions?

>> our states, their electoral rules. ed the administrators, the courts that will review the decisions and up to this court to review that decision. >> justice kagan? justice kavanaugh? justice jackson, anything further? thank you, counsel. rebuttal, mr. mitchel? >> both mr. murray and miss stevenson rely heavily on the electors clause and the authority it gives the legislature of each state to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors. that prerogative under article 2 must be exercised consistent with other restrictions. justice kagan alluded to one of those restrictions that might be imposed by the 1st amendment.

there are others. a state cannot use its power to instruct its presidential ee leshthz only to vote for white candidates. that would violate the equal protection clause. nor can it exercise its power in a manner that would violate the constitutional limits. they can use it as an excuse to impose additional qualifications for the presidency to go beyond what the constitution enumerates. the problem with what the colorado supreme court has done is they have in a way changed the criteria in section 3 by making it a requirement that must be met before the can't who is seeking office actually holds the office effectively moving forward in time the deadline that the candidate has for obtaining a congressional waiver. there has been no answer how to distinguish the congressional residency cases where the courts of appeals, not from this court,

but the courts of appeals in applying this have disapproved state laws requiring congressional candidates to show that they inhabit the state from which they seek election prior to election day. there is no possible way to distinguish those from the situation below in the colorado supreme court. mr. murray also invoked the de facto officer doctrine as a way to mitigate the dramatic consequences that would follow from the decision of this court that rejects the rational of griffin's case and agrees with mr. murray's contentions that president trump is disqualified from holding office on account of the events of january 6 and he is covered by section 3 as an officer of the united states. this court's recent decisions held that officers who are unconstitutionally appointed under article 2 and that made decisions under the apa that were attacked as invalid, those were vacated. this court did not use any

variant of the de facto officer doctrine to salvage decisions made by these officers. there is no way to escape the conclusion that if this court rejects griffin's case and also agrees with mr. murray's construction of section 3 that every exertive action taken by the trump administration during the last two weeks in office is vulnerable to attack under the apa and further that if president trump is re-elected and sworn in as the next president, that any executive action he takes could be attacked in federal court by anyone who continues to believe the president is barred from office under section 3. i'm happy to answer any other questions the court may have. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you. >> the case is submitted. >> the honorable court is adjourned until friday, the 16th of february, at 10:00. >> you have been watching live coverage of a potentially precedent setting supreme court case. at issue, whether the state of

colorado can keep former president trump off the 2020 presidential ballot in that state due to his involvement in events surrounding the january 6th insurrection. back now. andrew, let me ask you first, because it seemed to us in listening to this so closely for the last two hours and 19 minutes or so that there was broad agreement across the usual political division lines that there was a lot of ambiguity in this process and that ambiguity would favor keeping the candidate, donald trump, on the ballot. >> i agree with you. my takeaway from this is counting the votes. justice o'connor famously said when she was asked what's it like to bone supreme court, it's about counting to five. here there's clearly five votes,

if not nine votes, that are going to reverse this case. the point that you made about ambiguity was raised by various justices, meaning if it's not clear, shouldn't that favor having somebody being allowed to run and thus our ability to vote for that person? there was a lot of concern about having a state have the power to interfere with a federal election. it's not a state interfering with a state election. should they be able to weigh in on this? then there was an interesting sort of -- across different justices, jackson, chief justice roberts justice thomas, very active in this oral argument, talking about the history of this amendment, talking about how it really dealt with a confederacy and the concern about confederates burrowing in to confederate states and influencing federal elections. it would be anomalous, ironic to

suddenly say, this is sort of -- we should allow states to take this on. it's a reason to have federal jurisdiction here not state jurisdiction. big takeaway is this is i think going to be a win for donald trump and a loss for colorado. >> it was interesting that it was justice jackson that brought up that whole issue of the history of not permitting insurrectionists in a confederate context. >> again, we know so many of these supreme court justices consider themselves originalists. that history piece is important here. >> history played a big role in the discussion today. as a history nerd, i found it fascinating. to andrew's point, you heard a little bit about the history of the 14th amendment. across ideological lines. chief justice roberts said, for instance, that the intent behind

the 14th amendment was to constrain the straights. the power would be that of the federal government. post civil war. keep the states in line. the notion that you would give states the power to police a federal election to qualify or in this case disqualify a federal candidate would be an opposite to the history of the 14th amendment. you thaerd from chief justice roberts. you heard it from jackson, kagan, and you heard sort of hints of it from justice thomas as well. very interesting historical argument. i agree with andrew, it seems to me the votes are clearly on the side of overturning the decision of the colorado supreme court. >> neil, how did you see it? what were some parts that struck out the most to you? >> i have watched over 400 supreme court arguments. i have done 50 myself. i would it will you, this argument did not go well for the

trump challengers. that's to put it mildly. i probably have other adjectives i won't say on air. the thing i was watching for was any indication anywhere about just how dangerous a ruling to overturn the colorado supreme court was. we heard a lot from the court, particularly the chief justice, justice kavanaugh, justice alito, about how if you affirm the colorado decision, it will empower states to mess with federal elections. to be sure, that's a risk. but what you never heard the trump challengers really get at was the risk on the other side, that this is a part of our constitution forged after the civil war at one of the most difficult times in our nation's history, and yet we came together and said, insurrectionists can't be on the ballot, not just about the civil war, but going forward for all sorts of reasons. there was no discussion of that really.

basically, they allowed donald trump to read the 14th amendment like a tax code, looking for a loophole here and a loophole there. unfortunately, the stakes on the other side were not presented to the court today. i saw only one justice really, sotomayor, who was listening to what the colorado challengers were saying. it wouldn't shock me if even she, when push came to shove and she reads the transcript of the argument, may come the other way. the justices could go back, they could read all the briefs, which make a lot of these points and come up with the other side. presumably, they read those before the argument today and they got no help to use justice alito's word, no help from the challengers to trump today in the oral argument. >> can i ask a follow-up about that specifically? neil, you are somebody who argued before the supreme court. we know the challengers here,

their lawyer jason murray, his first time going before the supreme court. trump's lawyers argued five times before. did you recognize the disparity in terms of their experience there? or did you feel like both lawyers gave their strongest case and strongest arguments here? >> i don't want to chalk it up to experience. as you say, i have had a lot of experience. i will mess up arguments. experience is no guarantee of anything. i don't want to say that. i want to say in a case of this gravity, you need to basically call out the other side and you need to call out the court even. so you need to say about the other side, you are gutting the constitution, donald trump. you need to say to the court, look, for years, you have staked yourself on strict construction of the document, on the original intent of the document. the original intent is to clear

against donald trump. you need to be using their methodology that they have used to say, look, you have to be consistent with what you have said before. we heard none of that today. i'm not sure why. that makes it, frankly, a really easy case for the u.s. supreme court to decide in favor of donald trump. at the same time is percolating this other case about, does donald trump have immunity? which should arrive at the court the next week. you could imagine a world in which the court -- the gravity of the court, the center of the court, that's the chief, justice barrett, kavanaugh saying, look, our principal is to reduce the temperature about the supreme court, stay out of decisions wherever we can. the way to do that, the path forward is to say trump wins, the 14th amendment is not

self-executing because of the technical argument. you need congress to act. we will stay out, basically, of that. won't disturb the finding that donald trump was an insurrectionist. that's one state's court finding. leave it on this technical point about self-execution. then when it comes to the absolute immunity case say, we can't be the court that stops this trial from happening before the presidential election. so we're just going to deny -- >> neil, i'm sorry. we have the former president speaking right now in mar-a-lago. let's listen. >> i'm heading to nevada for the caucus. the caucuses. i think we're going to do very well there. all polls indicate we're in the 90s, maybe more than 90s. we did well in the primary that didn't matter. they voted very nicely. we have tremendous support from the people of our country. they hate what's happening at the border. they hate what's happening just generally. we're not a respected country.

we're laughed at all over the world. they're laughing at us. they hate what's happening. they hate seeing it. they love our country. they want it to come back. we're going to do that. if you think about it, the results of the election, had they been different, it would be nice. we wouldn't have the ukrainian situation with russia. you wouldn't have had -- you would not have had an attack on israel, which was so horrible. you would not have had inflation. you wouldn't have china talking about taiwan. you wouldn't have any of the problems that we have today. you certainly have a broke iran and now iran is rich. they were broke when i left. they had no money to give to are a hamas and hezbollah. now they have $200 million. plus as you know, people don't like to admit it, they control iraq. iraq has another $300 million. you have a very rich group of countries.

as you know, iraq should have never happened. that was a balance against iran. we blew out the balance. now iran has essentially iraq. iraq doesn't like saying that, but that's the way it is. it's a shame. the world is in tremendous danger. we're in danger of possibly a world war iii. we have a man who is absolutely the worst president in the history of our country. can't put two sentences together. he is not going to be able to negotiate with putin or xi or kim jong-un. not negotiate with anybody. all he knows how to do does drop meaningless bombs. they kill a lot of people. cost a lot of money. every time you see a bomb, it's another million dollars. it actually sets us back. we have peace through strength. it should not be happening. the middle east is blowing up. it's blowing up. a lot of people are being killed. it's so unnecessary. i just say that in watching the

supreme court today, i thought it was very beautiful. >> we have been listening to donald trump. we went to mar-a-lago to hear him talk about the arguments that we have been listening to for more than two hours. instead, he has gone adrift, shall we say, and talked about israel, world war iii, iraq, made accusations, unsupported, against president biden. made basically a political speech. we are going to interrupt and continue talking about the supreme court arguments that we heard today. i want to bring in kenji. one of the things we were listening was it took a while to get to whether or not the former president is an office holder, whether a president is an office holder, which is one of the issues that was being argued before this whole case went to the court about what section 3

of the 14th amendment meant. they never got to whether donald trump was aiding or abetting or was involved in the insurrection. did that surprise you? >> it did and it didn't. it surprised me in the sense of that's number two of the points after office holding in trump's beef. they didn't get to it until the very end. at the same time, you can see why they would want to shy away from that issue. if there's any other escape hatch they can find, then they will take that. that's such a hot potato for them. what was interesting about the office holder thing was something my colleagues have mentioned, which is adrift of the liberal justices into making arguments for trump. justice jackson made arguments that favor trump with regard to office. kagan talks about the states' rights and the complications that would arise if the colorado supreme court were affirmed. i kept thinking during that,

that was what puzzled me throughout this argument until i started thinking about what must be on the justices' minds. it devastated a lot of people's confidence in the supreme court. one thing i thought as i listened to the liberals drift over to the conservative side was that they were trying to avoid the 6-3 divide or conservative versus liberal on the court that would make this look like it was bush versus gore at a time when as you have said the legitimacy of the court is at near an all-time low. >> let's bring in former u.s. attorney joyce vance, a legal analyst. you listened in. i'm curious to get your

takeaways. >> i agree with neil and chuck and andrew. this is very likely a decision where donald trump wins. a 7-2, maybe 8-1 majority could even be unanimous. neil made this interesting point that i think is worth pursuing. the court seemed to be persuaded by a series of technical legal arguments that have to do with who would have to set section 3 of the 14th amendment in motion. justice kagan put it down in readily understandable terms when she told colorado's lawyer, look, you have to confront the issue of why colorado can make this decision for the rest of the country. that's a broad generalization, but i think she's right to put it that way. that was clearly on the minds of all of the justices. there wasn't really a response to that sort of a question. the problem that that leaves us with -- i'm interested in what

everyone thinks about this. justice brown jackson asks a question at the end of the oral argument. she's asking, what happens if colorado loses this case? colorado has postured this as an issue about whether trump's ineligibility to hold the office of president means that he is not qualified to be on their ballot. let's say that the court rules he can't stay on the ballot. he has to continue to be removed from the ballot. let's say there's an election. donald trump is elected. does that mean that there's chaos following the election where congress then is scrambling, trying to decide whether or not he is eligible? does that get thrown into the courts? i don't think any of these justices want to end up in that position. i think we will see them search for a rationale that decides the situation once and for all. there's that possibility they might conclude that the issue of

eligibility can't be decided in this moment because congress has yet to act. that's deeply concerning for the future of the country. >> joyce, i was struck by it. i will ask our production team to go to sot 10. i kept thinking about the importance of representation and how people's perceptions of things are. i was struck by her insistence on looking at history. i want, joyce, your thoughts on this. here is what that exchange was. >> i guess my question is, why the framers would have designed a system that would -- could result in interim disuniformity in this way. we have elections pending and different states suddenly saying, you are eligible, you are not, on the basis of this kind of thing.

>> what they were concerned most about was ensuring that insurrectionists and rebels don't hold office. once one understands the imperative that they had to ensure oath breakers wouldn't take office, it would be a little bit odd to say states can't enforce it, that only the federal government can enforce it, and that congress can essentially rip the heart out of section 3 by a simple majority by failing to pass enforcement legislation. here, the fact that states have the ability to enforce it as well absent federal reemgs provides an additional level of safeguards around -- >> i will ask you about the history when i get a chance again. >> joyce, fascinating how there was an overarching series of questions on this matter. >> you know, justice jackson told us that she was a textualist. she made good on that today. what preceded this was an exchange about what was on the mind of the drafters of section

3 when it was taking place. the lawyer for the colorado group repeats the story we heard now about how there was an exchange between some length lay tors about whether or not the president was included in this provision. the legislator who said, it doesn't say president, was persuaded that the president was included as part of this conversation. that decision never arose again. justice jackson responds very powerfully. she says, it's clear that they were thinking about keeping former insurrectionists out of state office, preventing them from retaking hold of the union by infiltrating state government. the fact that they did not use the term president in this clause was very persuasive for her. i think when this opinion comes down, even if it is unanimous or close to unanimous, we will see

concurrences with different justices focusing on different aspects of the argument. she may well be the justice here who crosses over and sides with some of her more conservative colleagues. >> that is so interesting, joyce vance. joining us now from outside the court, msnbc chief legal correspondent ari melber. and laura jarrett. laura, i want to ask you, what struck you? we have all been talking about how there was surprising unanimity on the fundamental fact there was ambiguity in the statute -- rather in the 14th amendment and that should favor donald trump staying on the ballot. >> what struck me similarly is that all nine of them seemed to be looking for a way out of this. they seemed to be searching for a way to say that colorado got it wrong.

how they reach that ultimate conclusion, i don't think i'm in a position to predict that. they seemed to be bristling at the idea of a single state being able to disqualify the republican frontrunner in a national election. all of them really hammering that point. justice kavanaugh at one point saying that it would be essentially voter disenfranchisement to a significant grief degree. chief justice roberts, calling it a daunting consequence. justice kagan hammer rg home the same idea. all of them seem troubled by that idea, which is amazing if you think about it. that's not an argument about the text of the 14th amendment, about the history. that's an argument about consequences and political consequences, which for a court that for in many instances tries to sort of look at the original interpretation of things and focus on those types of aspects, they seem more focused today on the fallout of this potential decision.

>> ari, i'm wondering, were there surprises for you in listening to these arguments? >> i don't know if it's a surprise. but we saw a real emphasis on pragmatism, as we heard. at one point you had justice jackson citing justice kavanaugh. we saw some cross agreement there that's interesting and could be a good thing for the country any time the court can substantively and in terms of perception be understood as doing something other than raw partisan politics, trying to decide who benefits. i will say it was very clearly a bad day for the colorado side and a very good day for either candidate trump or if you want to put it differently, any candidate who would rather have a more open access to the ballot. that was that other point that i think came through and is one of the headlines out of this. beyond text on history and you can go through history about

what is the office and all that stuff. there was a real awareness that you could have a retaliatory year of this in different states with different judges doing different things unless the court comes through. it's very tough to do predictions based on questions. but based on the questions, it seemed like there were at least seven votes against colorado and for ballot access for candidates. >> laura, listening to this was fascinating. learning so much. listening to it. you were inside. there was at least two moments when there was audience reaction to comments, questions that were asked. what were the dynamics like inside? take us inside there. >> it's interesting. we wondered whether the former president would show up himself. his presence was certainly felt. i found it fascinating that it wasn't until 11:00 a.m. that we started actually talking about the insurrection or attempted insurrection.

we were not there for a very long time, even though really at the end of the day, that's what this is all about. the only reason they kicked him off the ballot was because of january 6th and leading up to it. we wouldn't be here but for january 6. we were not talking about january 6. it was interesting in the room, jose, you had lawmakers, you had the colorado secretary of state, you had obviously supporters of donald trump like yeah son miller and others. it was an interesting mix in the room even though the former president himself was not there. >> i would echo that and say it was fascinating to be inside the supreme court hearing room as always, a press teen and special place in the halls of american government. it has different rules than most other parts. you don't have a c-span camera in there. we come out with our notes. at the same time, i would remind everyone, this is the first time that these aspects of the insurrection and donald trump's alleged conduct and whether he did or didn't incite that violence has come up in this

hall. we are looking into a camera at you guys. but we are across the street from the capitol, which was stormed, where a sedition has been convicted against others. this is all where it went down. this is what happened. while colorado may have in one sense be on the path to skeptical questioning if not a wide loss today in their effort to invoke what happened as a means to bar him from the ballot, this is the first and probably not the last time that this court is going to deal with those related issues. it's all very much physically right here in the attack that was across the street, in the justices thinking about this and the wider concerns, how do we go forward as a democracy honoring the rule of law when so many issues are legally and for the voters not resolved yet? maybe resolved in november if that's one of the things people vote on. >> i would just add, it was interesting to hear the justices

on several different occasions bring up the fact that the former president hasn't actually been charged with inciting an insurrection. there's a disqualification clause for that, too. if the prosecutors had wanted to charge him with that, they could have tried that. there would be no question he would be disqualified. they went through that and said, wait a minute, there's another part of the law at issue here where you could try to disqualify him. but prosecutors haven't charged him with that, much less convicted of that. they were trying to use that to say, look, there is another avenue here to disqualify him. you haven't chosen the right path. >> i think andrew wants to jump in on that. we were talking about that before this all began, andrew. the fact that jack smith did not charge him with insurrection is legally important. also important he did not, to laura's point, he didn't show up

today. on this issue, the former president was listening to legal advice. he was well represented by jonathan mitchell today. it would have been potentially devastating for him just in terms of the optics and the solemnness of the argument if he tried to do what he did in some of the federal and state courts. >> i had the same reaction as laura with respect to the absence of a federal insurrection criminal charge coming up and the most notable thing when mr. mitchell, donald trump's lawyer was asked about did conceded that if there was that federal charge and a federal conviction of it, that that could lead to disqualification. the only caveat he put on that is the decision that the supreme court is going to have next week about immunity. that's the key -- i thought that was a key concession.

>> speaking right now is one of the plaintiffs from colorado. 91 years old, politically active. let's listen. >> this is very personal to me. i lived a hell of a long time. i have gone through a lot of presidents. this is the first one that is trying to destroy the constitution. i thank you for being here. >> are you optimistic? >> questions at the end. go ahead. >> i'm chris dekfer. i voted for donald trump in 2020. i'm a registered republican. i watched with horror on january 6th as someone who took an oath to the constitution worked to subvert that oath, had for two months pushed a false and dangerous narrative that

fomented violence, inflamed a crowd, that attacked the building that is near us. i was once a congressional staffer. i know who it's like to be in that building. i cannot imagine that somebody who had taken an oath of office would go back on that oath, foment violence against the very people that he had worked with. as a republican, i believe in rule of law. i believe in our constitution. i believe in its very plain words that said, you cannot take an oath of office and then subvert that oath and foment violence, foment insurrection. i am so proud of all of us who are here today. i'm so proud to stand with norma and anderson, who represented my district when i was young in colorado. she is a great leader. we have so many great people on this case who have come forward

to say, this is the line. this is the line. you cannot foment insurrection. you cannot foment violence. you cannot do these things. they knew about this back in the 1860s. that's why they put this into place. today we are proud to stand by the constitution, by the rule of law, to say never again. i hope that this court -- i know they take it very seriously. we watched as they asked very hard questions. that they take their role very seriously in upholding the constitution. i can speak for all of us that we are so proud to be here today. on behalf of the american people, on behalf of our democracy and on behalf of our constitution. thank you. >> one more speak. then a few questions. >> we were just listening in to those two women who were among the six petitioners, both voters

from colorado, republicans and two interests were the voters who brought this case in colorado. the first woman we heard from was norma anderson. a republican. i spoke with her lawyer just yesterday who told me that this is about democracy, this is about the constitution for norma. she takes it so seriously. she reads the constitution almost every day. she has a pocket constitution in multiple places in her house, in her purse, next to her chair where she watches tv, next to n that is at the heart of why they brought this case. that just gives you a sense of how important this case is in their mind and this is, again, a precedent setting case that we are now seeing through colorado but has implications across the country. >> indeed it does.

really it's no other way to say it but it's really unprecedented what we're living through, this is history in the making, basing itself on history indeed. i want to go to colorado secretary of state jena griswold who urged the supreme court to keep trump off the ballot. she joins us from just outside the supreme court now. thank you so much, secretary, for being with us today. what's your reaction and what's your take on how the justices were asking the questions and some of the answers by the colorado solicitor general and the voters? >> first off, thank you for having me on, and you know, i think ari was right in the last segment when he said it's really hard to tell where justice wills go from their questions, but i can say this is a grave day for democracy. we are feet away from the united states capitol where congress people ran for their lives, where the united states constitution came under assault because of donald trump's

actions, and honestly, to see trump continue to lie about his role in the insurrection, to continue to urge that he has endless immunity, that the constitution does not apply to him is incredibly troubling. i hope the justices see through his lies and that they uphold a state's right to keep off of our ballot an oath breaking insurrectionist. >> and secretary griswold, it's andrea mitchell here. i mean, it was very striking to hear 91-year-old norma anderson who said she was born four months before fdr speaking to this and speaking to the importance of democracy to her, but from your takeaway, as an attorney, it did seem like a majority of the justices, if not, you know, all of them, had serious questions about colorado being able to make this decision for all of the other states, and they were concerned the chief justice among them, about the chaos among state ballots if colorado is sustained here.

>> well, andrea, the court, several of the justices definitely focused on that and i would say states affect each other in elections all the time, if states like texas, georgia, decide to pass restrictive laws, that affects colorado and other states across the nation in the composition of the senate and the presidency, and of course congress. so i personally think that that is how our federalism works. states are endowed with the ability to set up our elections, and to take a step back, we are only here because donald trump broke the law, incited an insurrection and tried steel the presidency. he has already incited a violent mob onto congress. he has already assaulted our constitution, so when i worry about chaos, i worry about what donald trump already did, and

there's nothing in the united states constitution that gives him a second chance to do that again. >> secretary, this is ana cabrera, i'm wondering why you think the justices didn't focus more on whether it was an insurrection that took place on january 6th. >> well, it's clear as day that it was an insurrection, donald trump through his rhetoric incited that mob. to hear trump to say even if he was found guilty of the crime of insurrection he has immunity is troubling for the entire country. now whether the justices will dive into that issue as they make their opinion, we'll have to wait and see. but something, again, if the justices were to accept trump's arguments that he is fully above the constitution, that insurrectionists deserve a place

on the ballot and potentially an office, that will be a grave day for this country and a danger to our longevity as the united states. >> and secretary griswold, let's talk about scheduling and timing. what is it that has to happen or not happen in the state of colorado? >> well, believe it or not, our ballots already went out for overseas and military voters, and ballots for all other active coloradans who will be participating in the primary go out next week. now, the colorado supreme court when they disqualified trump from the ballot ordered that he was put on if there was an active appeal, and we're in an active appeal outside the supreme court. coloradans will be receiving their ballots in the coming weeks, and we urge the supreme court to stand with states' rights, stand with democracy and urgently answer this question so colorado voters know going into the presidential primary whether a vote for donald trump will

count. >> thank you so very much, jea griswold, the colorado solicitor secretary of state. and with us now, michael steele, former republican national committee chair and co-host of "the weekend" saturday and sunday mornings on msnbc, and jen psaki, former white house press secretary, and host of "inside with jen psaki" sunday and mondays on msnbc. if you could take us behind the scenes on how you believe that democrats across the country and also judge luttig, a well-known republican conservative legal scholar who really originated this movement to take the 14th amendment and make this the ballot issue, how do you think they're reacting to what we are inferring from the questions, which is that the court was pretty determined not to uphold colorado's decision. >> well, i don't think that's surprising to anybody sitting in

the biden campaign right now or sitting in the white house, and i think most democrats who are running these campaigns arenot making a bet on the supreme court doing something they've never done in history. today is so important not because of the politics, but because it's just a reminder of we're in this unprecedented moment of the supreme court because of the unprecedented actions of the former president and the person who is in all likelihood going to be the republican nominee. and while it wasn't a major part of argument as you've been discussing in the courtroom today, the brief that was filed by trump's team and also trump's comments afterwards reiterated something that is clearly a part of his argument, which is basically this revisionist history version of the insurrection didn't take place, and he wasn't a part of it, and that is quite telling too. i mean, in that brief, anrea,

his team argued it was only three hours, not a lot of people were armed. and he seemed to argue a version of the same things when he went out publicly. that tells us a lot about what we may hear from him more. >> michael, how politically polarizing could this decision, whatever the outcome be, for the american electorate, we are already casting ballots. >> we are already casting ballots. the last eight years have been politically polarizing. this is just one more level of that polarization that now directly involves the supreme court. i think in the main here, you saw the, quote, liberal justice ketanji brown jackson move into the conservative camp on this, around the idea of one state deciding for all states, who should be on the ballot for the presidency. that doesn't sit well, and actually, that for her and those like her is constitutionally consistent. politically outside the courtroom, people are going to bounce back and forth on this, ana, and the reality of it is,

it is great soup for donald trump to do what he does, continue to stir it, continue to poison it as much as he can, as jen just noted with the kind of rhetoric and the kind of nonsense that's not related to the case at hand, and that's going to create further political confusion. but i think the court at the end, my bet is going to be 9-0 against colorado. >> public confidence in our institutions is at an all-time low. according to the latest nbc news poll, only 28% of americans view the supreme court very or somewhat positively. 40% view the court very or somewhat negatively. can the supreme court do itself any favors with this decision one way or another? >> probably not with this decision because obviously either way people will be displeased by what happens. i think the key thing here is that they can't politicize it or

think about the political impact. that's what gets them into trouble. their entire purpose is to do exactly the opposite of that. the origin of the 14th amendment was to protect people's voices and are protect people's right to have those voices heard. it wasn't about predicting the political impact. i would disagree with one thing michael said, it's not about one state. there are many states where there are these court cases working their way through on whether or not donald trump is eligible. so yes, i think this may not be it. they might help themselves if they actually had an ethics agreement and a release of -- a transparent approach to this i thinks that was more than a toothless one that they approved a couple of months ago, that might be a good step for them. >> and jen, donald trump has been arguing that there would be chaos and bedlam if he's kicked off the ballot. a number of the justices agreed with that for different reasons, but they thought that constitutionally, this would be a bad decision. >> right. look, and i think, andrea, the