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 thing that's so hard with donald

trump's prediction there is, again, it's not their role to abide by what the impacts could be in terms of bedlam or the political impact, but also if they were to abide by that, they're essentially giving in to trump. i mean, remember that he is the one that helped cause -- helped fan the flames that led to the insurrection, however they decide, right? and that is still an ongoing threat that people are dealing with, people of both parties, legislated officials, people in the judiciary who are not political at all because of this rhetoric. so it's already happening regardless of how the supreme court decides on this, and i think that's important to remember. >> jen psaki and michael steele, our thanks to both of you. let's do a quick reset at the top of the hour, i'm ana cabrera alongside my colleagues, josé diaz-balart and andrea mitchell. thank you for being with us as we continue our special coverage of the arguments before the supreme court that we brought to you live on air more than two hours long, the justices hearing arguments on whether former

president donald trump can be removed from the ballot in colorado for his alleged involvement in the insurrection on january 6th. >> and the lawyers for both donald trump and the six colorado voters were grilled by the nine justices, particularly on the issue of section 3 of the 14th amendment. however, the justices ruled this is an historic moment for both the court as an institution and our nation. donald trump is the dominant front runner for the gop nomination and the first votes for this primary season have been cast. >> and back with us, chuck rosenberg, chuck, just your -- we've been fascinated by just the way this supreme court asks questions, the way the justices ask questions, and sometimes even kind of interrupt each other, but this is pretty much how the supreme court is run.

>> the dynamics are interesting. the justices ask whatever questions they want in whatever order they want. they can revisit questions. they can persist in their questioning. and of course they try to be courteous to one another and to the litigants, but the justices ask whatever is on their mind, presumably, jose, they've read the briefs, presumably they've discussed the case with their clerks. but you're quite right, the dynamics are fascinating. >> did it surprise you that the issue of insurrection, how it was defined or not defined was not a big part of that conversation. >> it wasn't. it wasn't until justice jackson brought it up that we even heard discussion about it. i thought mr. trump's lawyers response to that was quite interesting. he said a couple of things he said it was a riot, and he said it was shameful. he maintained that it wasn't an insurrection, at least legally. but the focus today didn't seem

to be on whether or not there was an insurrection, whether or not mr. trump had engaged in one. it really took the form of other arguments. do we need congress to enact legislation to give effect to the sh 14th amendment, section 3 and its disqualifying provision. is the president an officer of the united states. that was the focus at least of the trump argument today, and you're quite right about the insurrection discussion, jose. really it was -- well, first didn't come up for quite a while, and second was a bit of a side show. >> let me bring in lisa rubin, msnbc legal analyst. i know you listened very closely as we all did, and i'm wondering if you had a different takeaway than what we've already heard? and if not, what do you think is the time line here on how quickly we might receive a decision? because we know that ballots are going out. super tuesday is less than a month away when a number of states including colorado will

be casting votes. >> ana, let's start from where i think some of our other friends have been. i fully agree with the number of votes i think you'll see to overturn the colorado supreme court. and the moment that i said to myself i've seen enough was when elena kagan point-blank asked jason murray, her former clerk, why is it that you think that one state should be able to decide the presidential election for all states? that was the moment in which i knew that this argument was going exactly where we thought it was. everyone is just searching for something to hang their hat on interpretively or otherwise to get to that place. one thing i also found interesting in looking ahead in terms of what's coming down the pike, this is a court that heard argument today about the 14th amendment and trump's qualification for office while it knows that on monday or before former president trump will ask them to stay a d.c.

circuit's ruling so that he can appeal their decision with respect to his immunity from prosecution. and that seemed to be very much on the justices' minds today, in particular justice kavanaugh searching to understand are there other ways in which barring impeachment, a former president can be made ineligible to hold office and he invoked a particular federal statute, 18 usc 2383, and if you're convicted of that statute, which was not charged hero here by the department of justice against trump, but if you were convicted you were disqualified from holding office. jonathan mitchell made very clear he agreed with justice kavanaugh on his interpretation. of course we're not conceding that because we believe former president trump is immune. justice kavanaugh didn't want to engage in that issue now. that signaled one of the things justice kavanaugh is thinking

about, in overturning this colorado kour, one of the things he can say -- one of the remedies is that the department of justice can prosecute a former president for insurrection and thereby disqualify him, in the same way congress can by using the 14th amendment. >> in a way they couldn't have planned it this way, but in a way the way history has evolved in the last couple of weeks, the supreme court may be inoculating itself from coming down heavily on one side or the other by siding with donald trump against colorado in this case, if as we seem to be all agreeing they probably will, and then in some fashion either not accepting cert on the immunity issue or disposing of it in a way that still leaves donald trump vulnerable to whatever the justice department -- the course of justice rather in these cases, in these trials if they proceed, and if they are not

further delayed, beyond the election will have their effect with judges and jurors. >> i think that's absolutely right, andrea. i think that we could see the court dispose of both of these cases in fairly short order. they could even do so on the same day because as you noted, this case is now fully submitted. we seem to have at least eight votes, maybe nine to overturn the decision of the colorado court on what grounds i think remains to be seen. but they could very easily refuse to grant cert on the immunity case and allow judge chutkan to move forward with that case preelection and at the same time say it's not for a single state to determine by invoking the 14th amendment, the qualification was of a former president to hold office. either because it's premature as jonathan mitchell argued at one point for colorado to essentially interfere with the constitutional time line or because as justice gorsuch was

flirting with, there is a distinction that removes the presidency from the definition of office and officer of the united states. there are a lot of interpretive off-ramps for them. we'll see which or many of which they take here. but i do agree with you, this has been set up for them as to sort of split the baby with the bath water in a one-two punch. >> chuck, i want to come back to something you mentioned at the beginning of our transmission this morning about judicial supremacy and about marbury versus madison, and i'm thinking the weight of history on this day and how much, for example, the bush v. gore in 2000 that andrea mitchell so brilliantly covered as she does everything among so many, but how much does the weight of history have to do, and what does it play in this argument? >> my sense is that this court and chief justice roberts in particular has an eye on that.

marbury versus madison, afternoon 1803 decision a authored by chief justice marshal stood for the proposition it is emphatically the province of the judicial department, that's what he called it, but meaning the courts. it's emphatically the province of the courts to declare what the law is. that's all we have ever asked the courts to do. the courts nevertheless have an eye on the importance of history. let me give you an example. the 1970s were a bitterly divisive period in our nation's history coming out of the vietnam war and into watergate with an investigation of a sitting president, richard nixon when he was subpoenaed to turn over documents to a special prosecutor, the supreme court ruled 9-0 that he had to comply with the subpoena. four of those justices in the 9-0 decision were appointed by president nixon. it can't be lost on the court the value of unanimity and it

can't be lost on the court that there's a value in people, justices regardless of who appointed them joining in those majority opinions. i think if there is a 9-0 decision out of this court, or 8-1, whether you love mr. trump or loathe mr. trump, that's helpful that people can see the justices put aside politics. you're still free to disagree. we're all free to disagree, but i think they have their eye on history. there are many examples, jose, in our past of justices putting aside politics and reaching unanimity. brown versus board of education, 9-0, sent a very important message to the entire nation in 1954 similarly. >> kenji, that unanimity could be important, but i have to think also there's an issue of just how broad they need to make this decision in order to lay down a new historical marker.

right now there are about a dozen other states that have challenges to the # 14th amendment, or using the 14th amendment to challenge trump's ballot eligibility here. how broad of an opinion would you expect and how quickly? >> yeah, i think that's exactly right, ana. i think that the way things are trending, they're going to want to go at least as broad to take care of that race to the bottom. there are lots of bites at the apple different states are going to take on this. my weather eye is on the self-executing argument. i know that terminology is something jonathan mitchell steered away from. this idea that congress has to get involved. in the absence of congressional legislation the states are powerless to act. >> to chuck rosenberg's point, this court, and particularly justice roberts with all the controversy and criticism of this court would be very much interested in coming down with a less political, less divided decision on this case.

everybody stay here, stick around, ana, jose, chuck, and andrew, and all of our great help here. we'll be back after a quick break with more special coverage of the united states supreme court, the trump ballot battle. when we come back. when we comk with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt.

you know, when i take the bike out like this, all my stresses just melt away. i hear that. this bad boy can fix anything. yep, tough day at work, nice cruise will sort you right out. when i'm riding, i'm not even thinking about my painful cavity. well, you shouldn't ignore that. and every time i get stressed about having to pay my bills, i just hop on the bike, man. oh, come on, man, you got to pay your bills. you don't have to worry about anything when you're protected by america's number-one motorcycle insurer. well, you definitely do. those things aren't related, so... ah, yee! oh, that is a vibrating pain. wanna know how i get this glow?! i get ready with new olay indulgent moisture body wash. it smells amazing and gives my skin over the top moisture! from dull to visibly glowing in 14 days! ♪♪ see the difference with olay.

here you go. is there anyway to get a better price on this? have you checked singlecare? whenever my customers ask how to get a better price on their meds, i always tell them about singlecare. it's a free app. accepted at major pharmacies nationwide. before i pick up my prescription at the pharmacy, i always check the singlecare price. it's quick, easy, and totally free to use. singlecare can literally beat my insurance copay. you just search for your prescription, and show your coupon in the app to your pharmacist. i just show you the coupon and i get this price? that's right! go to singlecare.com and start saving today. things have gotten better recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other

bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e. i'm daniel lurie pand i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. is it possible to count on my internet like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data.

moaire dida twoo? your data, too. there's even round-the- clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. hey billy, how you doin? with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. thanks. it's happening. get started for $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $1000 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today!

17 past the hour, we are back with our special coverage on whether former president trump should be removed from the ballot. donald trump is fighting back against the assertion his name should not be on the ballot. the former president speaking a short time ago at his mar-a-lago club in florida. >> i'm a believer in our country, and i'm a believer in the supreme court. i listened today and i thought our arguments were very strong. can you take the person that's leading everywhere and say, hey, we're not going to let you run? you know, i think that's pretty tough to do, but i'm leaving it up to the supreme court. >> joining us now nbc's garrett haake in washington and nbc's vaughn hillyard who's in las vegas. they both cover the trump campaign, and we'll talk to you, vaughn, in just a moment. there's a caucus happening in nevada today. donald trump's hoping to walk

away with all the delegates there. what else are we hearing from the trump campaign about this issue before the supreme court today? >> i think you can think of those comments as a little bit of working the referees here. he and his legal advisers were very pleased with how things went today in the supreme court. i talked to a couple of the folks who advised him on legal matter who is think this will be an 8 to 1 or 9-0 decision in his favor. they know his attorneys are going to be back in front of the court in terms of the immunity case. you have a politician who's never been shy about criticizing judges or courts when he thinks they're doing wrongly by him. but here with nothing but positive things to say about the supreme court, which in many ways holds his political future in his hands. at the same time, trump also kind of linked this case with all the others against him arguing that these are all election interference. he tries to make the case that these are all brought by the biden justice department or being used by democrats to

defeat him. we know that's not true based on the nature of how this case bubbled up through colorado. within minutes of his remarks after this hearing was over, his campaign was sending fund-raising appeals focused on the fact you have this effort to get him removed from the ballot urging people to send his hard earned cash to the trump campaign to allow him to keep campaigning. >> vaughn hillyard, you're in las vegas because there's a caucus there today. there are 26 delegates to be awarded. none are awarded with the primary two days ago. donald trump is positioned, you don't have nikki haley on that ballot today. he's positioned to take away the majority of those delegates, if not all of those delegates, and that also gives him more strength, at least in the delegate math. >> right, absolutely, and if, in fact, the supreme court rejects the colorado supreme court's decision, of course donald trump will continue to appear on the ballots across the country. after today, still only 3.78% of

the delegates nationally will have been allocated after these first three voting states. i think it's important what we heard from donald trump down in mar-a-lago after the supreme court's oral arguments today. it goes beyond just the actual question of whether he can appear on the ballot or not, but it also hits at the heart of what a future donald trump presidency in the white house come 2025 could look like. what you heard from his remarks there at mar-a-lago was one. talked about the insurrection, he placed the blame on nancy pelosi. there's no evidence she had any involvement in any of the security measures taken on the day of the january 6th attack, but for donald trump it is about a justification of his actions leading up to that day and on that day. there has been no acknowledgment of any wrongdoing. instead he has justified his responses in those hours after, and when we talk about the appeals court in their ruling this week that he does not

have -- did not have presidential immunity, donald trump was asked an important question by our colleague dasha burns who was down there at mar-a-lago, and that was the extent to which a president is bound constitutionally from any actions that he or she chooses to take from the oval office, and his answer was very striking. he said that a president should be allowed to do whatever he or she sees fit, and even included, quote, he can do really bad things for our country. so on one hand, donald trump is justifying his actions on the january 6th -- the day of the january 6th 2021 attack while also making the case that future actions, whatever they may be be justified. today i think these oral arguments are important outside of just the past, but also potentially what a donald trump presidency could look like in the future, andrea. >> i have one quick point on the politics of this january 6th, pelosi was not in charge of security at all. donald trump was the person and his secretary of the army did

not call out the national guard and stop the insurrection with the riot or whatever you want to call it from continuing. >> garrett haake and vaughn hillyard, thank you both so very much. i want to turn back to our panel of experts, chuck rosenberg, katie phang host of msnbc's the katie phang show. katie, i just want your thoughts on we were speaking with laura and with ari that they were inside there as well and what they sensed, what they saw, and what they were able to perceive from in there. your perception of the way the supreme court justices and the different attorneys dealt with each other? >> reporter: yeah, so that's really important. there's been exquisite legal analysis from some really smart people for a while now about the law, but there's the component we always need to remember, right? the justices are still people, and they went into the oral arguments today having an idea already in their minds about where they were going to go.

each justice was looking for an argument that could be articulated by any of the attorneys that were appearing on behalf of donald trump and the other parties to be able to justify or maybe bolster a counterargument for them to be able to come to a conclusion. as you heard, regardless of whatever side of the aisle you want to say that a justice has been appointed to this bench, there were concerns about procedural issues and concerns about substantive issues. we heard something today that i think is the biggest slogan that can go into the campaign, which is the framers intended that you cannot trust oath breakers. that really wasn't the legal argument. that was really the policy argument. and i think at the end of the day, the justices may have the off ramps that we've talked about for days leading up into today as well as what happened today, but the justices also have in the back of their minds the import of what this decision is. one uniform decision it will apply to all jurisdictions across the united states and the lasting impact that the decision will have for decades to come. >> and andrew weissmann, i want

to ask you about justice sotomayor's questioning about the insurrection. one of the fundamental facts is that the 14th amendment specifically says someone who aids, abets, participates in an insurrection cannot take federal office, presumably the presidency, but jack smith never charged donald trump with inciting or abetting an insurrection. >> absolutely. i think this is going to put a lot of spotlight on the department of justice and why they did or did not make that decision and what their thinking was. so they did not charge a criminal insurrection, which is 2383 in the current case. one thing you could expect to hear from the department of justice is that is a sign of how apolitical they are because the insurrection criminal case has -- if it was charged, has built into it upon conviction

the person is disqualified. as you've talked about, that came up in the oral argument because people said, you know what? if this had been charged and there had been a conviction, we would have had the federal congressional approval of that result. it wouldn't have been colorado, you wouldn't have had this crazy quilt, the chaos you've been referring to, but you did not have the department of justice charge it. i suspect one reason for that is that that statute has not been charged in over 100 years. the idea of reaching back and having the case look political because, you know, this would have been the first time in over a century that somebody had been charged, and so this was let's go for more core charges that have been routinely charged. there would have been an answer, however. the answer would have been we've never been in this situation where a former president has engaged in this kind of conduct, but they elected not to do that. there are consequences today to that decision, but i do think

that for people concerned about the politicization of the process, this is an example of doj not being political. >> chuck, we came into today's argument saying this is not an issue that is black and white here, do you feel like after hearing the arguments and the answers, the questions and answers, there's more clarity? >> this reminds me of my first year in law school. i would read a case that was assigned, and i would think the majority had it right, and i would read the dissent and i would think the dissent had it right. i think i'm just as impressionable now as i was then. they will make a decision, it may be unanimous or near unanimous, but people will still vehemently disagree with their reasoning, and that's fine. i think that the -- for instance, the question about whether or not the 14th amendment is self-executing is a hard question. it's a truly hard question. parts of the 14th amendment are, and maybe parts are not. we'll have to wait and see to

the opinion. i'll tell you, i don't know that we're going to necessarily all agree, even if the justices do. >> interesting. thank you. >> i want to thank everybody here, our thanks to chuck rosenberg, andrew weissmann, kenji yoshino, all of the experts who joined us today, ari melber of course and laura jarrett. thank you all for joining us for our special coverage of these historic arguments before the supreme court. >> and just a programming note for everybody, join rachel maddow and team tonight for more analysis of these arguments and what it means for this presidential election that kicks off at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> chris jansing continues our coverage of this historic day after just a short break on "chris jansing reports." reak on "chris jansing reports." ♪♪ whoo!

♪♪ light work! ♪♪ next victims. ♪♪ you ready for this? ♪pump up the jam pump it up♪ >> woman: why did we choose safelite? we were loading our suv when... crack! you ready for this? safelite came right to us, and we could see exactly when they'd arrive with a replacement we could trust. that's service the way we want it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos

to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. growing up, my parents wanted me to become a doctor or an engineer. those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message. good day, everyone. i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. today's supreme court arguments

lasted only a few hours, but they'll decide the direction of the campaign and the country for months, if not years to come. in fact, an entire generation has passed since the supreme court saw a day this consequential with questions of democracy, states' rights and the constitution all taking center stage. for donald trump, it's a fight for his political life. his attorney trying to fend off colorado's attempts to boot him from the ballot. and many of the justices questioned whether a single state should have the power to, in effect, change the course of a national election. the former president himself weighing in calling it a, quote, terrible thing to watch, and we'll have more on that coming up. but we start in washington, where the u.s. supreme court over the course of that two hours and nine minutes heard arguments with implications far into the future, including on the critical question of whether donald trump can even really run for president and get on all the

ballots. the justices saving some of their toughest questions for the attorney representing colorado voters, they're the ones who want trump removed from the ballot. here's justice kavanaugh pressing jason murray on whether that would be fair to the american people. >> your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree, and should that be something -- does that come in when we think about should we read section 3 this way or read it that way, what about the background principle, if you agree, of democracy? >> i'd like to make three points on that, justice kavanaugh. the first is that constitutional safeguards are for the purpose of safeguarding our democracy, not just for the next election cycle but for generations to come. and second, section 3 is designed to protect our democracy in that very way. the framers of section 3 knew from painful experience that those who had violently broken their oaths to the constitution couldn't be trusted to hold power again because they could dismantle our constitutional

democracy from within. and so they created a democratic safety valve, president trump can go ask congress to give him amnesty by two-thirds vote. unless he does that, our constitution protects that from insurrections. third, this case illustrates the danger of refusing to apply section 3 as written because the reason we're here is that president trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million americans who voted against him and the constitution doesn't require he be given another chance. >> so today's debate centered on how justices interpret section 3 of the 14th amendment, which essentially argues that engaging in insurrection is disqualifying for any former officer of the u.s. who's looking to get reelected. but as we heard today, that wording is key. for example, does the president count as an officer of the united states? what qualifies as an insurrection, and does section 3 give states the right to disqualify people from the ballot. i want to go to the supreme court now and bring in katie

phang, nbc legal correspondent and host of "the katie phang show." jeffrey rosen is president and ceo of the national constitution center. and with me on set, msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin. lisa, you listened to those words. this is something with impact for generations to come. one of these times when it's hard to overstate the importance of the decision that these justices are going to make, what did you hear today that's key? >> i think there were a lot of conversations, chris, today about some -- what my mother would have called picky yunish constitutional interpretation. for example, justice gorsuch fixated on what is the difference or distinction if any between the meaning of the word office and officers of the united states. but at the end of the day, it was the quiet parts out loud that carried the day. i can't recall another supreme court argument in which the end result was such a driver in the conversation. i had that moment of i've had

enough. i've heard enough, when justice kagan said, as you noted in your opening, why should colorado be able to in effect decide this election for the entire country? and that sort of let the floodgates open for other justices to ask similar questions. if we do this, we uphold colorado, what will happen to the other candidate, that was a hypothetical from justice roberts. justice alito asking what happens to us, if we say colorado can do this, will we face future litigation from other states that reach different results on essentially the same facts or even different factual records because their state courts function differently. there was a lot of what ifs, and sometimes what ifs are used to illustrate the idiocy of a particular position or how far an advocate is willing to go. the s.e.a.l. team 6 argument at the d.c. circuit is one of those where i would say taking a hypothetical far to see how far the argument really will stretch is one reason judges or justices

posed hypotheticals, but they also do it to see what will be the impact of this ruling, and i think these nine people were very focused collectively, what is the impact on our democracy, on the other candidate, on our nation, and on us. >> so katie, what did you glean from the way the justices were reacting, the questions they were asking. we're always trying, right? especially those of us who are not lawyers, who have not sat in on supreme court cases, what are they talking about? seems like sometimes they're trying to lead the lawyers in one direction, maybe help them. maybe go after them. tell us what you heard and saw. >> reporter: yeah, so chris, courtesy of the trump administration and donald trump himself, we've all become lawyers, right? we don't have to go to law school anymore because we all know about the law. but to your point, the importance of what happens behind me at the united states supreme court is underscored by how those justices got there. we're talking about nine people to lisa's point, that maybe already had their mind up.

they knew where they wanted to go, but they were searching for the clearest path to get there. all nine of them do not have to agree, but it does seem that regardless if you want to label them a conservative or a liberal, they had definitive concerns about the impact of one state on the entire united states. when you're watching or listening, i can't say watching, because it would be great, chris, if we had cameras inside that courtroom to be able to look at the body language. there were points in time that were very tense between the lawyer representing the colorado voters and some of the justices like gorsuch and alito. when you listen to what is going on, you can hear that there are questions that are being asked because there are answers that are already in the justices' minds, but they're searching for a rationale, an analysis, something that's going to allow them to find the justification. the biggest red flags that i picked up on during today is the following, which is there's a reason why this case is here in the first place, and i think

that there's a big ignoring of the realities. you want to talk about disenfranchisement, you heard the lawyer for the colorado voters say trump attempted to disenfranchise 80 million votes. i understand justice kavanaugh having a concern about colorado dictating what happens to the rest of the united states. we kind of cannot forget how this ended up here in the first place. there is a reason why there is a section 3 of the 14th amendment. there's a reason why the framers contemplated an idea that oath breakers cannot have another chance to have a bite at that democracy apple, and that is what the biggest concern is going to be that if the supreme court today decides that ultimately colorado doesn't dictate what happens, it's the federal government, it's congress that is going to be involved in this, we're going to have a decision that perhaps can invite even more insurrection. >> jeffrey rosen, you are the expert on the constitution and what struck me as i was reading in on this over the last couple of days was it's essentially section 3 a paragraph, right?

we counted it. it's 110 words. the implications of the decision, again, that the justices are going to make is so huge. talk to me about the constitution and why we're still debating individual words, individual phrases, and of course always with the supreme court an interpretation? >> you put it so well. it really is remarkable that the whole nation is parsing words, the difference between office and office holder between engaging in insurrection and inciting insurrection, and in a sense, it's sort of inspiring that we're now lawyers now. every citizen has the ability to read the text of the constitution, to learn about history and make up our own minds. it's true, it was very significant that the justices were converging around the idea that a single state should not

be able to decide something like insurrection for the whole country. it was so significant when both chief justice roberts and justice kagan expressed concern, well, what if a state -- a republican state goes after the democratic candidate and suggests that, for example, president biden committed an insurrection with his immigration policies. should they be able to decide the election for the whole country, and that sort of center of the court between the liberals and conservatives convering around that danger was very significant. we also saw some really interesting agreement between justice gorsuch and justice jackson about whether or not the president is covered under section 3 of the 13th amendment, and justice jackson suggested the core meaning of the civil war was to ensure that state insurrectionists couldn't couldn't to foment revolution. they just weren't thinking about the presidency. it's an invitation to think about the meaning of our history

and civil war. we're now polarized in america more than at any time since the civil war. like then we're seeing violence on the streets as we did on january 6th, and the question is to what degree does the constitution protect democracy against those who would overthrow it, and although all of the supreme court justices were attentive to that question, they did seem to be converging around the idea that that's not the job of a single state. it's not even the job of the supreme court ultimately congress will have to decide that question. >> well, let me go back to that. indeed, one of the biggest questions was whether upholding the colorado decision would give an undue amount of power to a single state. let me play part of the arguments today. >> why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation. >> because article 2 gives them the power to appoint their own electors as they see fit, but if they're going to use a federal constitutional qualification as

a ballot access determinant, then it's creating a federal constitutional question that then this court decides and other courts, other states, if this court affirms the decision below determining that president trump is ineligible to be president, other states would still have to determine what effect that would have on their own state's law and state procedure. >> well, i mean if we affirmed and we said he was ineligible to be president, yes, maybe some states would say, well, we're going to keep him on the ballot anyway, but really it's going to have -- as justice kagan said -- the effect of colorado decidings it's a national thing because this court will decide it. you say we have to review colorado's factual record with clear error as the standard of review. so we would be stuck, the first mover state here colorado, we're stuck with that record and, you know, i don't want to get into whether the record -- maybe the record is great, but what if the

record wasn't. >> okay. so you have heard and you have seen, jeffrey, so many of these arguments over the years. you've read i wouldn't even want to guess how many supreme court arguments you've heard over the years, can you hear in what those questions were, in what the entire argument was where they're leaning? >> i have to say i thought back today to bush v. gore and i remembered very distinctly being in the courtroom in 2000 when the court stopped the election on a 5-4 vote, and all of us were wrong in our predictions about what the court was going to do. i was sitting with great supreme court journalists and we thought the court wasn't going to get involved. that's given me great caution about predicting what the court would do, especially in these high profile cases which are unprecedented.

that said, this oral argument seemed to show more consensus than many, and the fact that liberal and conservative justices were converging around the idea that a single state should not be able to are remove someone from the ballot suggests that there could be grounds for unanimity, which chief justice roberts likes and tries to achieve, and you can imagine a short decision by chief justice roberts suggesting that a single state cannot enforce section 3 on its own. but i really caution to say anything could happen, and with the supreme court surprises are much more common than predictions, and it's possible this case could be decided on different grounds. >> on that day of december in 2020, i was on day 36 in tallahassee, the immense pressure that everybody felt in that moment, kind of like what we're feeling now. jeffrey rosen, katie phang, lisa rubin, thanks to all of you. appreciate it. coming up on "chris jansing reports," the man at the center of today's oral arguments publicly pleading his case to

stay on the ballot. we've got that next. e ballot we've got that next. ♪i'm hearing different ways for me to screen for colon cancer.♪ ♪it's time to use my voice,♪ ♪i've got a choice, more than one answer.♪ ♪i sat down with my doc.♪ we had a talk. ♪knew just what to say.♪ ♪i asked for cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪ (♪♪) we come from a long line of cowboys. (♪♪) when i see all of us out here on this ranch, i see how far our legacy can go.

(♪♪)

what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com. ♪♪ whoo! ♪♪ light work! ♪♪ next victims. ♪♪ you ready for this? ♪pump up the jam pump it up♪

outside the supreme court today, supporters and opponents of donald trump making their own arguments about what the justices should do. >> they can't take him off the ballot for something that he's not been proven guilty of, plain and simple, in my opinion. >> this guy tried to overthrow our government, and for three hours he sat and watched while they were yelling hang pence, hang pence, and he did nothing to stop it. if i'm part of a gang and i did nothing to stop the murder of somebody else, i'm responsible. >> and minutes after the arguments ended, donald trump was in front of the microphone. >> i thought the presentation today was a very good one. i think it was well-received. i hope it was well-received. you have millions of people that

are out there wanting to vote and they happen to want to vote for me or the republican party. >> nbc's vaughn hillyard is covering the trump campaign from las vegas. i think he's going to be there tonight. rick tyler is a republican strategist and msnbc political analyst, carol leonnig is national investigative reporter for "the washington post" and an msnbc contributor. welcome all on this very big day. all right, what else did we hear from trump today? what are you hearing from trump world, vaughn? >> reporter: right, chris, trump is somebody who over the course of the last two years has attacked the u.s. supreme court, and in these preceding weeks before these oral arguments had openly expressed concern publicly that the supreme court justices would rule against him on this decision to kick him off the ballots in an effort to look fair and unbiased. of course we watched and listened as those oral arguments went forward here today, and you heard from donald trump upon walking out of mar-a-lago shortly after the conclusion of

oral arguments expressed that he felt like they went well, and he tonight will be here traveling to nevada for a victory watch party here at the caucus. he's going to walk away with all the delegates. he is the only one participating. nikki haley is not, but let's also be very clear here. donald trump is not only justifying, as he did in mar-a-lago in his remarks to cam ras thereafter, his actions on january 6th suggesting that, in fact, he was in the right with the words that he spoke that day and he bears no responsibility. i asked him on the anniversary of january 6th just last month whether last month whether he had any regrets about his actions that day. he did not answer my questions, and so we also heard from him, though, talk about presidential immunity and we expect his team to appeal the decision from on tuesday to the u.s. supreme court. and so when we talk about the oral arguments and their direct impact on whether he appears or not on the presidential ballot here going forward, there's also the conversation that has to be

had about 2005 because donald trump is suggesting that there would be justification for a president to take any actions that he sees fit even very bad actions in his own words, and so for donald trump, it's not only awaiting the ruling from the supreme court on this decision but also its impact on how he could serve in the white house moving forward. >> so today's debate included, of course, is trump an insurrectionist and ultimately if he is, what are the consequences. there was a new national poll. it asked voters if trump was guilty of illegally attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. 58% said yes, he was, but then when they were asked whether he should be removed from the ballot, only 41% said yes. do you want to take a crack at that difference and why it is? >> well, first off, polls are really tricky, but the first question, which is is he guilty of trying to overturn the results of the election, as far as i'm aware, there's no statute

in the u.s. criminal code that says attempting to overturn the results of an election. there are much more precise crimes by which donald trump is charged by the special counsel's office, so that language feels fuzzy to me. if i'm a member of the public answering that question, i see in front of my face all of the ways he tried to change the actual results and hold on to power. i mean, let's go through the long list, but let's make it quick. he tried to get a new department of justice attorney general inserted who would agree with him that there was fraud in election and it was rigged. he tried to get state electors to alternate fraudulent state electors to come forward and make submissions to gum up the works of actually certifying the election before congress. and finally, he pressured his vice president over and over again to not agree to certify those results and send them back to the states.

so people all know, who pick up the paper or look at their television screen, whichever screen they choose, they know that those things happened, but taking him off the ballot makes people uncomfortable, and i think, chris, you and your show have really done a good job showing how uncomfortable it made so many supreme court justices. for factual reasons, originalist, textual reasons, but also, the politics cannot be very far back in their brain as they consider this, the idea that one state could possibly decide whether or not someone can run for office. >> well, rick, our reporters have been speak to go voters in early primary states. their opinions are all over the map. let's listen to a few. >> the whole insurrection thing was definitely a red flag for me. >> i don't believe it was an insurrection. donald trump was still speaking when they entered the capitol, so how can that be an insurrection on him?

he told people to go home and be peaceful about it, and they did it. >> the january 6th thing was an insurrection. i can't believe that they're coalescing around trump after all the things he said. i mean, i got to be honest, it's crazy. >> you can ask people almost any question about donald trump, and you're going to get diametrically opposed opinions, and many of them extremely entrenched but if you can, help us put what we saw today and where we are in the context of our politics in 2024, rick. >> yeah, remember, 41% is still a plurality. it's not a majority of voters who would like to see donald trump removed from the ballot. i just don't think, i would put this on two tracks, the court does not typically like to deal with cases of political magnitude. they want to leave that to the political branches and i've herd them talk about off ramps. i think they're definitely going

to find one here. the colorado state supreme court gave them what i think will be an easy out. i think it will be a 0-9 decision. i think it's far from over because you do have the criminal aspect of what trump has been accused of, which is an ongoing investigation by prosecutor jack smith, and i think the court is much more equipped to deal with that kind of decision, which of course is embedded in politics, but it's a whole lot clearer. the other thing that is troubling me is particularly with the main secretary of state is, i'm not sure the courts have a right to take away a party's ability to nominate who they want. now, parties might have every right to nominate someone who ultimately won't be qualified for the ballot. but donald trump, remember, a lot of people went to jail over the january 6th -- i call it an insurrection because that's what ted cruz called it, and he's a

smart guy. he's retracted that since. i don't know if it's any other definition. it was an attempt, as botched as it was, and meaningless as it was, if they got in and stopped the proceeding, which they did initially, it wasn't going to change the outcome. joe biden was elected. dually elected, found to be dually elected. donald trump was the one who called all the people to washington, and you cannot get to what happened on january 6th without donald trump initiating his action, that action. and we have been looking at these new pictures, new sketches from inside the supreme court. the monumental decision facing the justices. vaughn hillyard, rick tyler, carol leonnig, thank you to all of you. the 91-year-old, how she turned her pocket constitution, how she turned to her pocket

constitution when rioters stormed the capitol. stay close, more "chris jansing reports" after this. e from rsv in people 60 years and older. it's not for everyone and may not protect all who receive it. don't get abrysvo if you've had an allergic reaction to its ingredients. a weakened immune system may decrease your response. most common side effects are tiredness, headache, injection-site pain and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about abrysvo today. a few years ago, i came to saona, they told me there's no electricity on the island. we always thought that whatever we did here would be an emblem of what small communities can achieve. trying to give a better life to people that don't have the means to do it. si mi papá estuviera vivo, sé que él tuviera orgulloso también de vivir de esta viviendo una vida como la que estamos viviendo ahora. es electricidad aquí es salud.

>> woman: what's my safelite story? i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, i chose safelite. they replaced the glass and recalibrated my safety system. that's service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

i found a cheaper price on my meds with singlecare. did you say singlecare? i use singlecare. whenever my customers ask me if there's a cheaper price on their meds. i always tell them about singlecare. i found a cheaper price with singlecare! i know. download the singlecare app free today. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box

at thefarmersdog.com/realfood xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' get 50% off your first box xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs. with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win.