supreme court upholding the colorado supreme court. do you disagree with me? >> i don't have any comment on your view, jake. i will just say this, my entire life i have held the supreme court of the united states as an institution with high reverence. and i hold the court today with that same reverence. if the supreme court were to reverse the colorado case, i would still hold the court with the same reverence that i do today. but i do not believe that the supreme court will reverse the colorado supreme court, because based on the objective law, which in this instance is section three of the 14th amendment to the united states constitution, it is unquestionably the case that the former president comes within the ambit of that disqualification clause of the constitution, and that he conducted or engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states. the supreme court justices are bound by oath to apply the constitution of the united states as it exists, without resort to any other extraneous consideration, political or otherwise.

why did the supreme court justices -- i'm sorry, why did the colorado supreme court justices rule when there has been a conviction? he was talking about how they dismissed that claim. that is the argument that the president's lawyers will make when this goes before the supreme court. i just want to read some of the questions from the new york times that the case hinged on. several questions. was it in insurrection when trump supporters stormed the capitol to stop the certification of the 2020 election? did mr. trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to support us beforehand in the speech that morning and his twitter posts during the attack? the courts have the authority to enforce section three of the 14th amendment without congressional action. does section three apply to the presidency? in the lower court decision, judge sarah wallace who made the district court ruling in colorado said yes to all but the last question, because section three enumerates several offices but not the presidency. and because the presidenti -- presidential oath is different than the other off

supreme court, which can review the decisions of a state supreme court. in fact, the colorado supreme court anticipates that possibility, and for that reason, they put their own ruling on hold until january 4th, anticipating that it will go up to the supreme court. the practical consequence as it stands at this moment is that donald trump will not be on the colorado ballot in the race for president in 2024. the supreme court almost certainly will take this up. it's also important to keep in mind, for the broader context there have been dozens of these challenges filed across the country, and 18 or so of them have either failed, been rejected, or been withdrawn by the plaintiff. so this is really an outlier. the supreme court is going to have the final say. the consequences here are, of course, enormous. >> norm eisen, are you surprised by this decision? >> well, wolf, the law and the politics have collided. in this instance, law has won. there's a logic to the decision. the 14th amendment provides that insurrectionists may not hold office. the lower court

and the state supreme courts.are final. that does not mean they aren't necessarily right, but in our system of law, the supreme court of the united states is right because it is final. all lawyers -- and frankly, stephanie, all americans should accept that, whatever their personal views are about the politics of the supreme court. >> all right, then. well, thank you for being here. i really appreciate you joining us tonight. >> thank you, stephanie. >> judge michael luttig. whene me back, a controversial right-wing curriculum is making its way into more classrooms. here is one big problem, accuracy. culture wars hidden in the classroom, you need to pay attention to this when the 11th hour continues. joints, i'm getting into my groove ♪(uplifting music)♪ along with significantly clearer skin... skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. skyrizi attaches to and reduces a source of excess inflammation that can lead to skin and joint

>> so, i think the supreme court is going to take this case, and i think the supreme court is going to reverse the colorado supreme court. i halfway agree with bob. i halfway disagree with bob. i disagree with him on whether the term an officer of the united states includes the president. there's, sort of, linguistic exercises you can do either way. i think it's worth noting all seven justices didn't have a problem with all officers of the united states, including the president. logically, if you're going to have a provision in the constitution that says, anyone who engages in insurrection can't serve for future office, it would be bizarre if the highest office was exempt from that. i do agree with bob though -- yeah. oh. i do agree with bob that we have a serious due process problem here because the 14th amendment itself says that congress, in section v, congress has to pass laws that tell us how this works. who gets to decide who engaged in insurrection? is it a court? is it congress? is it a jury? is it a judge? the only law that's still on the books is the criminal law, criminalizi

supreme court's decision. i have said time and time again that i believe that donald trump incited the insurrection. and also there shouldn't be some loophole in the u.s. constitution allowing the president but no one else to engage in insurrection and then serve in office again. but with that said, i will follow the law in the united states constitution because unlike donald trump i believe that's what elected officials should be doing. and if a court decides that he is on the ballot, i of course will follow that. i swore to uphold the constitution. that is exact lewhat i will do. and i think donald trump when he swore to uphold the constitution should ask himself whether he has been successful in his oath of office. >> and you sound optimistic that you're going to get a ruling on the supreme court on this before colorado actually has to decide whether trump's name is on the ballot, is that correct? >> i am optimistic we'll have great elections in colorado no matter what. we are considered the nation's gold s

court, _ areas of concern, the uk supreme court, why— areas of concern, the uk supreme court, why weunfair... we don't have... the cooperation. we have a plan _ have... the cooperation. we have a plan to— have... the cooperation. we have a plan to implement this partnership and we _ plan to implement this partnership and we remain open to monitoring the implementation to be able to adjust one or— implementation to be able to adjust one or the _ implementation to be able to adjust one or the other element which would be needed _ one or the other element which would be needed to be adjusted. we are committed to the partnership. we want to— committed to the partnership. we want to have a plan for this collaboration.— want to have a plan for this collaboration. ., ,, , ., , collaboration. thank you. we will take one more _ collaboration. thank you. we will take one more question. - thank you very much, vincent here. if i thank you very much, vincent here. if i may: _ thank you very much, vincent here. if i may: as — thank you very much, vincent here. if i may: as has _ thank you very muc

supreme court. i also think what's notable here, the court may a college the opinion that this is a big deal. they know what they are doing. it's historic. and they know there is gonna be blowback. they say, look, we are mindful of the magnitude and the weight of that questions before us. we are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor and without being swayed by public reaction to that decision that the law mandates we reach. and of course, the loudest, biggest reaction from former president trump was trying to frame this as political persecution, which i am sure they could see coming. >> that's right. the trump trump campaign released a statement. we haven't really heard from trump on this. he was speaking in iowa. he did not really note anything. just very quickly, what are his allies saying? >> reporter: one of his allies, his spokesman, his team, they are all framing this as election interference. that is the narrative they have of crafting around the special c

supreme court. donald trump is not qualified to be president. under the 14th amendment section three. therefore, he cannot be on the ballot. that would obviate some of the rush, the need to get some of this criminal trial done before the election. he would be off the ballot i don't see it playing out timing wise that way. and i also think that it's a tall hill to climb for the plaintiffs to win in the supreme court in the colorado case. it's not impossible, of course. but there are eight different legal conclusions that the supreme court would have to agree with that colorado supreme court made. i do think the court will take both of these. i don't think the justices will think, okay, let's give trump a win in one and give him a loss in the other in order to retain their integrity. i think they will look at each case on their merits, the arguments are very, very different in each one. and i do think that, at louis's most of the judges will be trying really to rule based on the facts and the law and

supreme court here. the reason they kbhoez that date is because secretary of state griswold would whom you were just speaking has to certify her state's primary ballot by the 5th. this colorado supreme court is giving president trump and his campaign some time to see things through at the supreme court. but as you know, the supreme court already facing a brief tomorrow from president trump which they have ordered on expeditious timeline to see if they want to grant ser sherori or review of the immunity decision. made the holidays more complicated now that they are going to in all likelihood see a petition for cert on this case from the colorado supreme court over the same time period. >> yeah, and, you know, i want to go back to you, ruth, because if everybody's looking at the screen right now, a whole bunch of us swim in deep legal waters a lot and all the time, but, ruth, you know, your wisdom and your kind of -- your wise words right now are really kind of what i want to go back to, which is the accou

court doubling down on the imperative of the supreme court to take this case up now before waiting forrt to handle it. the question is whether former president donald trump is immune from criminal prosecution for election subversion arising from the 2020 election right as we head into the 2024 election. what he is trying to do here, the special counsel jack smith, is to counter what donald trump's lawyer said yesterday. they said, supreme court, no need to take this case up hastily, and it needs to go to the appellant court first, which is, kate, the normal processes, and yesterday, trump's lawyers said that jack smith had not made a sufficient case on this, but today, in this 11-page filing, special counsel jack smith tries to reinforce how the rule of law is at issue, how donald trump's actions back in 2020 need to be resolved, and here is a line from that case. enforcing federal criminal laws that prohibit such conduct, and this is related to election subversion is vital to protecting the constitutional processes and democracy, itself. what he is finding in the initial filing, kate

supreme court. now trump is fundraising from this ruling. >> the matter of trump being disqualified is up to the courts. backing the insurrection, that is already settled. take a listen. >> i think some things are self- evident. we saw it all. he supported insurrection. no question about it. none. zero. >> he aligned with a key part of this fourth opinion in colorado. the majority writing that trump did not only insight the insurrection, even when the seas was underway, he repeatedly demanded that pence refused to perform his constitutional duty and calling senators to stop the counting of electoral votes. this was a voluntary participation in the insurrection. >> john, great to see you, what happens next in this case? >> all paths are leading to the supreme court. first of all, we have the january 4th deadline that the supreme court set. saying they will put it on hold. his name should not be on the ballot. putting a ruling on hold. if he appeals to the supreme court, he could be on hold indefinite

what jack smith did is he went to the supreme court with this unusual request that the supreme court here trumps immunity appeal before the court of appeals did. it's an appeal to judicial economies. look, this case is headed in your direction. why don't we just cut to the chase and you hear it. out of an abundance of caution, he tells the supreme court, at the same time i'm asking you to hear the case, i will ask the court of appeals for the district of columbia to expedite their proceedings as well. the district of columbia did just that. trump will have a brief -- on the 20th next week to discuss this issue of whether the supreme court should hear this the case directly. at the same time, he's right on the cusp of having to file his brief in the court of appeals. no real gas here on how this comes out. the supreme court could say, well, it looks like you were able to get the court of appeals to jump-start its proceedings. we will go ahead and let them finish up. by the same token, there are good reasons for the supreme court to go ahead and hear this matter. supremeit lands on the

in case the supreme court intervenes.w piece for the nation, legal expert in front of the show, ali mystal, says he believes it's almost certain that the justices will pick up this case. however, he also cautions that the conservative-controlled court will almost certainly rule that trump is allowed on the colorado ballot even if they have to tie themselves into a not to justify. quote, the colorado opinion is designed, at least, to make the supreme court look very ugly and partisan when it bends over backwards to save trump and preserve his ability to threaten the country. that is because the colorado opinion is grounded into things the republicans on the court claim to hold a, or textualism, and states rights. we should note here this is just missed stalls prediction at the moment, we still have no idea whether the court will take the colorado case up for what their ultimate decision will look like. however, there is one thing that is becoming clear, these two cases have said double trump's 2024 campaign on a direct col

to appeal to the supreme court. when that happens, all eyes will be on the supreme court. that's where we start the day with the leading voices. former federal judge michael l. dig. conservatives look to you for guidance, including mike pence turned to you when donald trump was pressuring him. we hearing criticisms. it's worth remembering that it -- judge, why is this ruling consistent with conservative legal thought? the colorado supreme court yesterday decided the most consequential and pressing constitutional issue facing the country. its decision will force the nation to decide, does it believe in american democracy, its constitution, and the rule of law? the supreme court of colorado issued what i characterized as a masterful judicial opinion. it is unassailable and irrefutable in every single respect. as your viewers already know that court head, first and importantly, that section 3 of the four teent amendment does apply to presidents of the united states. the lower cold had held that it did not. in that hold

they say the supreme court, he says the supreme court will try to overturn colorado's own state courtby we have a supreme court when a state court oversteps its bounds not to be outdone, joe. vice president kamala harris had to weigh in with her take. get red yrkts get your dressing. here's another salad. >> you know, every election cycle we talk about this is the most election of our lifetime. lawrence, this one is. this one is we are literally talking about people who are atotalling to divide our country in the most crude, frankly, and profound way. >> todd: joe, two parter here in is the most election of our lifetime and as she seen the division her own party has sown o'er the past three years. >> pain in lawrence o'donnell's face listening face when somebody else is talking, yeah that, was painful to watch. and it's amazing. suddenly kamala harris almost never does any interviews pops up on cable news last night on the friendliest place she possibly could on msnbc. there is not really much to adhere. this is what the democrats will be running on at this point that donald trump is

there was a federal bill all the way to the supreme court, if they do too considering the supreme court is more conservative now than it previously let a key and controversial parts dan. do you think they okay the texas bill? >> this law is unprecedented in the breast. much more broad, even then the law in arizona. allowing state officials to deport people is something that not even arizona tried to do. what texas is trying to do was much broader than arizona, many of the policies arizona was proposing in that law were also struck down by the supreme court. it's likely you will see texas grab even more clearly federal authorities despite what authorities do 10 years ago. you will see the same result with texas being told clearly, this is the federal government's job. >> the law is slated to take effect on march 5th, that is really not that far away. can you realistically get a ruling before then? >> absolutely, we are going to do everything in our power to try to enjoy this law from going into effect by that point. we have to try everything, allowing the slot to go into effect puts a ta

in case the supreme court intervenes.ce for the nation, legal expert in front of the show, ali mystal, says he believes it's almost certain that the justices will pick up this case. however, he also cautions that the conservative-controlled court will almost certainly rule that trump is allowed on the colorado ballot even if they have to tie themselves into a not to justify. quote, the colorado opinion is designed, at least, to make the supreme court look very ugly and partisan when it bends over backwards to save trump and preserve his ability to threaten the country. that is because the colorado opinion is grounded into things the republicans on the court claim to hold a, or textualism, and states rights. we should note here this is just missed stalls prediction at the moment, we still have no idea whether the court will take the colorado case up for what their ultimate decision will look like. however, there is one thing that is becoming clear, these two cases have said double trump's 2024 campaign on a direct collisio

the supreme court said no.preme court said, we are going to let the appellate court here at first. so, this is the brief that jack smith has filed in the d. c. court of appeal. and he has made all of his arguments about how trump's claim to absolute immunity, anything he did in the office while president, he is immune from prosecution for, and jack smith has pushed back against that as expected. but what i think the supreme court may be thinking is, we are going to let the appellate court consider the issue first. and they have set a very expedited briefing and argument schedule for this. they're going to hear this argument in mid january. and if the supreme court, or the majority of the supreme court fundamentally agrees with whatever the d. c. circuit says, they may just decide not to take the case in the supreme court, and just let the district of columbia appeals court opinion stand. and that way, the supreme court will not have to actually render the ultimate decision on this case. they can just declined t

because even after losing -- before this supreme court, before this conservative supreme court, republicans in alabama are doing everything that they can to avoid creating a map with two opportunity districts for black voters. now, asked if it was ok for alabama to disobey, to disobey federal court orders, one alabama congressman responded with three simple, unequivocal words. quote, by all means. by all means. now, you don't have to look too hard to see the shameful similarities between george walz refuse -- wallace refusing 60 years ago to admit my late sister-in-law to the university of alabama in the wake of the brown v. board of education decision and today's refuse albie the state of alabama to grant all citizens basic voting rights and equal representation. despite these challenges, i'm confident that at the end of the day, alabamans will soon see a fair map. and alabama is just a preview, it's just a preview of what's to come. as a result of this landmark decision, many of our ongoing lawsuits, including all of our section 2 challenges, are moving forward with renewed momentum. in o

supreme court has reversed the decision of the florida supreme court. there we go. >> several of the justices take the time to write separately. there's a descent from justice breyer. there's a separate dissent from justice ginsburg. there's a separate dissent from justice souter. so, it will appear that the 5 to 4 vote that we have seen all along is holding. it does appear, as i look through here, to be a 5 to 4 opinion. >> the entire reason we, as a country, and then of electing george w. bush in the very first place was a 5 to 4 vote by the supreme court, a vote along ideological lines, with five conservative justices ruling in a way that handed bush the white house, and four liberal justices dissented. and now, today, even more conservative supreme court could again effectively decide the 2024 election. there are two issues headed imminently towards the court, ones that could set the playing field for the 2024 election. number one is how the court responds to yesterday's ruling from the colorado state supreme court, the one saying that donald trump

and they go to the state supreme court and they say this and the state supreme court agrees with them. so then the, losers, the republican committee brings it to the u.s. supreme court and they say, and i'm sorry, this story is long, but i think it's a helpful one for understand interpretation. and they say that state courts like the north supreme court have no business in federal elections. and the claim they make is based on the elections clause, which says the times places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives. shall be proscribed in each state by the legislature thereof. so the rules for federal elections shall be proscribed in each state by the legislature thereof. and so the republicans say this says the legislature thereof doesn't say state court. so therefore, it only means state legislatures. now, those of you with legal training know that or those of you who've dabbled in this know that sometimes texts have to be understood with reference to context. a rule that says, you know, no vehicles in the park doesn't exclude babies, strollers. you know, so

supreme court. for more on this development, loyola marymount law professor jessica levinson joins us live tonight. and you thought you were going to have a restful evening. wow. haha bombshell a what does it mean? >> well, it means nothing right now because the colorado supreme court stayed its decision in till january 4th. they know that there will be an appeal up to the u.s. supreme court. the supreme court is going to have to act quickly. and i think the supreme court is going to have to take this case. they don't want a patchwork of different rulings from different states. they need to say here's what the 14th amendment says. and here's one it applies. and here's what it doesn't. >> the one of the big questions, of course, and the kind of made reference to this in his. his statement about this ruling today about a liberal judges, all judges on the supreme court, colorado reported by democratic governors. but it was a 4 to 3 decision, right? so 3 democratic appointed judges did not concur with t

the colorado supreme court's decision is historic and its own right regardless of what the supreme court of the nine states does with respect to the 14th amendment question. it remains to be seen whether the supreme court will take up this particular case, but it certainly might. as you say, there are two essential critical issues for the interpretation of the 14th amendments disqualification clause that the colorado supreme court decided resoundingly decided. it was a masterful opinion of constitutional interpretation of the disqualification clause in the 14th amendment to the united states constitution in every single respect. it is unassailable, as a matter of constitutional law. as you noted, the colorado supreme court reversed a lower court's decision that section three does not apply to the office of the president. the lower court had held that it did not even though the lower court, as you know, had held that the former president engaged in an insurrectional rebellion against the constitution of the united states. the colorado supreme court, and what is unassailable interpretation

and in his petition to the supreme court, jack smith reminded the court of just how quickly the supreme court is capable of working. quote, the district court overseeing one of the watergate cases had scheduled trial to begin on september 9th, 1974. on may 24th, 1974, the special prosecutor sought certiorari before judgment following the district courts denial of former president nixon motion to quash a subpoena seeking oval office recordings. the court granted certiorari a week later and set the case for an argument on july 8th, 1974. the decision issued 16 days later and the trial began in the fall of 1974. jack smith showed the supreme court in that example that the nixon case, one of the reasons they acted as fast as they did, was to preserve the criminal trial schedule of the watergate defendants in washington, d. c.. jack smith asked the supreme court and appeals court today to expedite their appeal to help preserve the trial date, currently scheduled for march 4th in this case. rule 11 of the united states supreme court says that an appeal can bypass the court of appeals and go d

federal supreme court decides. what they say here, though, is that obviously, this ruling will stand until then and so donald trump will be on the ballot. what we don't know is obviously what the federal supreme court will do. it's almost certain that they're going to want to review this. a reminder, erin, that colorado votes in early march. that's when the republican primary is set to happen in colorado, and so the supreme court, the federal supreme court has until then to make a finding. >> thank you very much, evan. there's a time to print a ballot and logistical issues that goes with all of that, as well when you talk about voting by mail. i want to go to eric olson. he's one of the attorneys who argued this case for the plaintiffs and i appreciate your time. as i said, we knew there was going to be a decision and i don't know many people expected it to be quite like this and maybe you are one of them. the court did not rule in your favor, it was 4-3. what was your reaction what you saw this? >> i was thrilled

those were all nixon justices, almost half the supreme court, was a nixon supreme court. nixon thought he had a pretty good chance because he said i appointed those people and they should be loyal. what happened? the ruling came down late summer of 1974 and it was 8-0 unanimously, three nixon justices and the rest of them all voted that nixon should have to give up his tapes, which, of course, led to his resignation. one other thing from history, there was one recusal, william rehnquist, who was a justice at the time, said i shouldn't vote because i have a connection to this case and my connection is that i was appointed to this court by richard nixon after serving in his justice department. you see where i'm going. >> yes, i do. >> here we are 2023. is this going to be a partisan vote or are they going to interpret the 14th amendment exactly and also, will someone like clarence thomas, whose wife looks as if she was quite involved in the insurrection of 2021, will he recuse? >> what a time to be alive. this is why you need to have a historian friend or two, because it's

supreme court? he doesn't think that it has anything to do with politics for some critics of the supreme court who think that. he thinks they will prevail here. do you believe that that's likely at all? >> no, actually, i don't. i think the only people who have found that donald trump committed insurrection have been his political opponents. i think that's pretty dangerous for the country and not a real incentive for the u.s. supreme court to rule that way as well. the deference of supreme court cases is always to let the voters decide. making rulings knocking somebody off is not what they have done before. granted, an insurrection charge and everything that's gone on with donald trump is, as elie pointed out, unique in our history. >> ben, one of the best voices to talk about this. elie, thank you for your analysis and expertise. thank you both. more to come on this breaking news. >>> we will get reaction from a key figure in the watergate era, john dean is here. also, we will speak to a former top

, i want the supreme court to weigh in as fast as possible.only had one objective which is to be free from prosecution and the legal prospect that that entails. you and i both know that trump has multiple objectives. he wants to keep this going to a point in which there is no decision or conviction. and yet, he can be reelected and get rid of this case. and at the same time, he knows that these litigations are politically advantageous for him. they are a fundraising juggernaut. so, why turn off that spigot if you can continue to grift? >> i guess the point that i'm gonna try to put a sharp point on, i understand why they want to delay. but it also makes me think that they're not that confident in their immunity arguments. >> no, of course they're not that confident in their immunity argument. one of the things they say in this brief, that i think is kind of laughable, is that there wasn't that in our 234 year history, we've never had a prosecution against the president despite ample motive and opportunity, it's because everybody resumes that y

court level or the united states supreme court level as you say.reme court is capable that, you know, you go back in history, almost half a century when the supreme court decided the u.s. v. nixon case and did so really i think a matter of 3, 3 1/2 weeks. can the supreme court move quickly? absolutely. do they need to do so here? absolutely. so i would hope they take this case and hear it fast because to your point, willie, ballots are being printed, and soon people will be going to the polls and we need a single rule, and we can only get that from the united states supreme court. >> so as we saw after that colorado ruling, former president trump's 2024 primary opponents quickly came to his defense following the maine decision yesterday. in a statement to abc news, nikki haley's campaign said, she feels the same way about this ruling as about the colorado one. she would beat trump at the polls. ramaswamy didn't like any decision to remove his name from the ballot. here is how the florida governor responded last night. >> the idea that one bureaucra

supreme court, where this case is absolutely headed. i think it's interesting that this court made the decision both on the fact of law, finding that the former president was an officer. that is not necessarily the outcome that we would think the court would absolutely obtain. i mean it's a questionable decision on that point. then also that the former president engaged in the insurrection itself even though he hasn't been charged. so two really significant findings of law by this colorado supreme court. >> right. the district court judge in this case ruled that, yes, he did incite an insurrection, but that section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the presidency. the colorado supreme court said, actually, yes it does, even though it doesn't explicitly say presidency under section 3. carrie, we mentioned the trump campaign says it will, quote, swiftly file an appeal of the decision tonight. if you would just explain how that appeal process will work with the supreme court and what the stay that's involved in this means for trump

supreme court. it will make the traditional route going through the d.c. appeals court first. even that has been fast-tracked. the judge of the arguments early next month. alex? >> aaron gilchrist at the white house, thank you so much. >>> joining me michigan secretary of state jocelyn benson. welcome, you have been all over the story. you have a lot to ask about. before we get into the developments in your state of michigan i do want you to weigh in on the supreme court decision declining to fast-track trump's immunity claim. is this a win for trump? or might the appellate court move swiftly if it is possible? >> i think, thank you for having me, i think that is really going to unfold in the weeks ahead. in all cases, and i say this as a former -- law school constitutional law scholar, we want the court to be by the book but also move judiciously. we see that happening with the upcoming -- in the circuit. i hope the supreme court will recognize the urgency of clarity on all of these fronts. and as

then the supreme court becomes a much smaller court. it becomes like the courts in actually may other parts of the world. you don't hear about the supreme court thinking about the policy unless you are a lawyer, but we don't ask that often. what does the supreme court think? in england, which is the model of parliamentary democracy, they have parliamentary supremacy with the legislature gets to decide everything. we could have had a supreme court like that -- we could not have had a supreme court like that if there was never a marbury versus madison. >> back to the civic in you. civics could predict the vote of the supreme court on any major ideological issue. prof. yoo: i think that has been true in things when we talk about roe, abortion, race and affirmative action. i don't think it is true in a lot of cases that will become important but are not, that first tier. so for example, in the criminal justice cases, in the law that will apply to new technologies, i think you see an unusual combination. for example, the court has actually b

and in that case, the supreme court, in this case, the supreme court of colorado concluded that that force was used to disrupt or obstruct or impede the joint session of congress in its constitutional obligation to count the electoral college votes for the presidency of the united states. so finally, to your question, where might the court come down if it takes this case? >> it might not take this case. if it didn't, it might well use the reasoning that under the constitution, the states have the power and the obligation to determine which candidates are on the state primary ballots. if the supreme court were to invoke that reasoning, which would be legitimate, ali, then it could deny -- review of the colorado supreme court case. but if it does not, and it certainly needed not, then a court, i would expect, won't grant search and take review of this colorado supreme court case, ali. but >> i -- it's rare to speak to people who are so learned about this who can make it make sense to those of us who have not studied law for a day. i am grateful for both of you, this whole journey, wher

can appeal to the maine supreme judicial court and then to the united states supreme court.f or the us supreme court, | an appeal made in colorado, or the us supreme court, an appeal made in colorado, they could issue a ruling that could be determined in may. and i as secretary of state will follow the law. always. i want to ask about some of the criticism of this decision already. what do you say to voters in your state who cast their ballots for donald trump in 2020? more than 40% of people in maine and believe the decision is disenfranchising them. i am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on section three of the 14th amendment. but i am also mindful no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. the events of january 6 were tragic and unprecedented. and the evidence presented in hearing before me that i was duty—bound to roll upon indicated january 6, 2021, was in fact in insurrection and mr trump did in fact engage in that insurrection. what about what the former president himself has al

supreme court right now.hould the justices agree to an expedited review of donald trump's claim of immunity for prosecution for crimes he allegedly committed while in office. let's go o evan perez. there's a new filing from jack smith on this matter. how is he pushing back on the trump team's arguments? >> well, wolf, jack smith is saying that this is an urgent matter. this is something that the public has an interest in finding out what the resolution is. and obviously, the election is ahead. he doesn't directly say that, but that is obvious what is behind this. i'll read you part of the filing where he says, quote, the public interest in a prompt resolution f this case favors an immediate decision by the court. the charges here are of the utmost gravity. one of the things the special council does is site the 1974 united states versus nixon case. a case that had to do with the then president's claim of executive privilege over the white house recordings, the nixon tapes. that case was heard just like the way

>> well, the colorado supreme court gave the u.s. supreme court until january 5th to effectively take action on this. and so i expect the supreme court will accept the case by then and issue a stay by then. and that will effectively keep this on hold until the supreme court speaks. >> steve: andrew, thank you very much for getting up early chaos at the border. 12,000 migrants encountered in a second day. new study shows nearly three in five illegal families are on taxpayer funded welfare. a live report ahead. >> steve: and switching things up a little bit. chick-fil-a christmas? that's right. that florida mom goes viral with her christmas party appetizers. >> lawrence: i love that. >> steve: that's chick-fil-a-ish. >> carley: there is nothing not to love about that. she is going to show us how it's done coming up ♪ the weather outside is frightful the fire is so delightful, since there's no place to go ♪ let it snow, let it snow, let it snow ♪ doesn't show signs of stopping i couldn't get my hair done. ♪ then my joints started hurtin

supreme court will reverse this decision by the colorado state supreme court. so this is something that we're seeing, we have seen it throughout the year with every indictment and every criminal charge leveled against the former president. and this of course a different type of case, but the reaction is very similar. republicans are saying that judges should not make the decisions. but take a listen to just a sampling of what the republican rivals have been saying about this ruling. >> i think he should be prevented from being president of the united states by the voters. >> we don't need judges making the decisions, we need voters making the decisions. so i want to see this in the hands of voters. we'll win it the right way. >> reporter: so as of now, a lion's share of republican voters at least suggest that donald trump would be the nominee. we'll see what happens. no one has voted in this race, but he has a commanding lead without question and time is running out for his rivals to make their case. but they are indeed making their cases as they campaign throu

supreme court. it means the trial of donald trump that was supposed to start march 4th will not certainly start on march 4th. >> that is huge. >> joan, what we are talking about here is this is now going to go through the normal appellate process, it will go to the court of appeals. the process will play out. maybe michael to the supreme court after that. for all intents and purposes, this is a legal log jam and the way of that march start date as you were saying. >> absolutely true. jack smith, on behalf of the federal government has said supreme court you need to resolve the sooner rather than later. please come in now, to this quickly the. the court has said, no. as i said, no explanation. obviously the implication is jack smith, the federal government, they're gonna have to go through the usual hoops of the lower court. that is what is standard procedure. what's the special counsel had tried to argue was that this case was so compelling, so important, to have a former president held accountable

will the supreme court, the majority of the supreme court, be obviously interested in that? word, engaged, that the constitution uses. >> there's two arguments on from the descendants, the opinions they disagreed with the colorado supreme court majority. and trump's people are saying it's a 4 to 3 decision really close against trump but two of the three justices who dissented, lawrence, dissented on state law grounds. they they said colorado state law doesn't permit this kind of action. that's irrelevant when it comes to the united states supreme court. united states preen court cannot second guess the state supreme court on the meaning of their own lock. so that leaves only this other argument that andrew has mentioned, and that you're asking me about, which is, as trump had enough process to be adjudicated and insurrectionist? it's a little ironic the donald trump is saying that today because for the last year, more than a year, he's been trying to delay any criminal investigation into his january six behavior, and now he's trying to delay his two trial dates in georgia an

court, mired in scandal. >> right now what is the compensation of a justice of the supreme court? >> oh, goodness. i think it's plenty. a [laughter] >> new reporting on the money was of clarence thomas and just who has been lavishing him with gifts. >> i feel like i should quit while i'm ahead. >> when all in starts, right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. we have a stunning bit of unprecedented news out of the state of colorado tonight. it comes at an unprecedented time, with an unprecedented presidential candidate, donald trump. tonight, the colorado supreme court ruled that the ex president cannot appear, even appear on the republican primar ballot in that state because he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office under section three of the 14th amendment to the united states nstution. that clause reads, in part, quote, no peon shall hold any office, civil or military, under the united states, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of congress, or as an officer of the ipad states, to support the constitution of the united states, shall have

suppose they upheld the colorado supreme court, that means the supreme court's blessing this interpretationthe 14th amendment and they would be the supreme court that would disqualify donald trump -- not just in colorado but throughout the entire country. i don't know, this is now getting into judicial politics, but i have a hard time seeing chief justice john roberts, the one who wants to keep the court out of politics, leading the supreme court into eliminating from the ballot a guy who is leading by 50 points in the primary states or 50-30 points in the early primary states and could well be the nominee of one of the two major political parties. that would be to me going deeper into presidential electoral politics than bush versus gore. which if you recall was the court saying the state of florida's courts were using and consistent standards in how to count ballots from county to county. one issue. the second issue -- here's where everybody -- i think that the court, too, will grant certain. suppose you don't know how the court will book. suppose you're worried there might be five votes

supreme court.t court disqualifying the former president from the state's ballot in a 4-3 ruling. this is a first of its kind decision in a case brought by some republican voters. the court says trump engaged in 2021, and that disquafies him on constitutional grounds. the majority writing in part, quote, we do not reach these conclusions lightly. we a mindful of the magnitude weight of the questions now before us. we are likewise mineful of our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions the law mandates we reach. joining us now garrett haake in washington, and here with me, nbc's vaughn hillyard and msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin. garrett, the court has stayed its own decision until january 4th. walk us through this ruling and what it means. >> that's right, and colorado closes that ballot out on january 5th. what this means is that donald trump will stay on this ballot basically unless and until the supreme court acts. and there's

s supreme court, which often looks that judgement spots supreme court. so other countries, i think they should also take a look at best judgment given by our under the supreme court. to stop loving us in the united states were constantly calling for a discussion between india and pakistan over the issue of jo, moving push lead once and put all this chapter is clause. it is a matter which has an internal matter of india well settled, the reintegration of the state in full under a common set of laws under the indian constitution of more details on this developing story, you can visit our website the all to cell. com, the as well as on flow to ongoing that had spread across the anti and clay if it the know says face with leslie's shelling, with a job aliya refuge account coming under repeated fire local a full time loc. move sub reports from the ground. the smoke grenades a launch either this central digit ballet camp. it's in its end by the occupational i'm going to displace people. again, these are really tongue, so still advancing towards the develop acc

300 federal judges and three great supreme court justices. that was a big deal. we appointed over 300 federal judges and three great supreme court justices. i got it done. and it's thanks to the three great supreme court justices and others on the court. >> his fate may likely rest with those justices, including neil gorsuch, whose only words were quoted in the majority opinion of the colorado supreme court's decision to kick trump off the ballot there. trump's very first pick for the supreme court had ruled as an appellate judge that states can, quote, exclude from the ballot. candidates who are constitutional prohibited from assuming office. trump's campaign says he plans to file on appeal before the high court imminently. but in another case, trump is in no rush to put his fate in the hands of the very people he gave lifetime appointments. just today he asked the supreme court to hold off on the issue of presidential immunity that special counsel jack smith asked the court to expedite. >>> in california, a number of democrats are pushing f

supreme court. i think these are fascinating questions that are incredibly important, and i think they are just beginning to get attention. >> one question i think is raised by this -- i'm sorry, deeper question than if congress can change rules of precedent. of course, if the rules of precedent are common-law rules, it may be that congress can change the rul of precedent and create these suctures. of course, they are limited. they cannot create special rules for certain kinds of cases, but i don't think it is clear if you agree that precedent rules or common-law rules that come from the structure of the constitution's power, that does not necessarily mean congress is disabled from getting involved. >> they were common-law rules in 1787. dithey get baked into article three in 1788 so that they are no longer common-law rules but now constitutional ones? >> i don't think so. there were hearsay rules, all sorts of rules and rules of evidence, and i'm not sure they were baked in. they had the unusual po

doesn't mean the supreme court will take it.ink this is the one that's squarely the hot button issue right now. i think this is going to be a live issue. we're out the next year. >> major allies of president biden, they point to a couple of things, and why they feel confident in his reelection, and one of them is this case. the supreme court will be ruling on it in the middle of the campaign, making abortion front and center once again and will help president biden win again. that's what they believe. laura jarrett, thank you very much. >>> coming up next, what the plo is saying about president biden's criticism of benjamin netanyahu. is it enough? and how the markets are responding to the fed's decision to hold interest rates steady. he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ announcer: try tide power pods with 85% more tide in every pod. wh

supreme court looks at this. in the situation in colorado, it was the supreme court of colorado.he highest court in that state looking at basically holding a trial to determine trump was an insurrectionist in their view and also determining they had the ability to take him off the primary ballot under the state's law. now, in all of the other states including in maine, there is always going to be a question before the supreme court. can these people even do this? can a secretary of state make this sort of decision in party primaries related to who voters can cast their ballots for. whenever this goes to the supreme court, it's very unlikely at the beginning right now where we're still in this primary process, this first emergency application is before the u.s. supreme court that the supreme court, the nine justices in washington, d.c., that they're going to be making a call on whether trump is an insurrectionist or not. they're very likely going to be looking first at the sort of thing the colorado gop wants them to look at, saying you can be the can't remove the ability nor vote