: bush v gore was disruptive in court, spent years trying to repair the division on the court itself. to get unanimous decision to reject colorado decision and to protect our democratic values to show the public that the court is divided idlogically. >> joey: makeup of the supreme court, look at bush v gore, 5-4 decision, decision people say politics influenced that. this would be precedence is how we pick our president. >> griff: the clock is ticking. january 4 is the deadline, we're a week away, we'll see what the supreme court does. it was a divisive ruling and this has more at stake because you are talking about the ballot before you get to the election. bush v gore was deciding the election, this is the ballot, beginning of the process. >> carley: the stakes are high. seven after the hour. right now israeli forces are working to wipe out last hamas battalion in northern gaza. [shooting] >> joey: fighting comes at a high cost, idf announcing three more soldiers have been killed. >> griff: trey yingst joins us live. trey. >> trey: good morning. i want to start with the latest out o

jonathan turley was saying that this is the biggest one we have had since bush v. gore. >> bush v.was destructive for the court enemy respects: justices spent years trying to repair the divisions on the court itself. i think that the chief justice is going to try to get a unanimous decision here. i hope that it can speak with one voice. and that voice should be to reject colorado's decision and to protect our democratic values to show the public that the court itself is divided ideologically but they remain unified on these basic values that define us. >> joe: there is a chance here this really doesn't hurt donald trump because, if they go through this process and they have the primary election without donald trump on it, someone else wins and donald trump still wins the nomination, chances are the supreme court will rule on this before the actual presidential election. and at that point he would be back on the ballot in colorado. and they would have just taken any opportunity for really someone to hurt him in a poll because primaries work that way in a sense of. [clearing throat]

if you look back and think of where we were 23 years ago with bush v. gore, they moved really fast, in a matter of weeks, and then they actually decided the case, you know, like 24 hours after oral arguments. so, they can -- they can move fast. but these issues are very, very difficult, and as you said in the opening, phil, they're also already grandparentaling with whether donald trump should be immune as he has argued from criminal prosecution and that goes to the pending case right up there now, that special counsel jack smith has brought. so, they've got two cases of great urgency, and let me go back to your original question on the colorado case, and then we'll get to the other one that's pending, the colorado case, the secretary of state has said, you know, at january 5th they have to already start getting things onto the ballot, and last night's opinion has been delayed until at least january 4th. so that trump's lawyers can get to the supreme court, but as i said, we're looking at things happening every other day between now and early january, a

i mean, this is the biggest court decision to impact national election since bush v. gore. and even though this only impacts colorado, the implications could be national. because here, we are talking about the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. and there's a section of that amendment that bars u.s. officials from engaging in insurrection from holding public office. now when this case, and when colorado it was at the lower court level, there was a trial. they found that trump did engage in an insurrection, but they said he shouldn't be disqualified from the ballot because the judge said, that section of the constitution didn't specifically mention presidents. but, here the state supreme court reversing that, saying he should be disqualified from the ballot, and even any votes that are written in for him shouldn't be counted. >> all right, so the colorado supreme court ruling tonight that trump shouldn't be on the primary ballot, as a result of what you just laid out. but he still will likely be on the primary ballot in colorado. why is that? help us understand

the court's going to have more of an impact on this presidential election, i think, since bush v.0. the only thing any of us know for certain is that we have no idea what's coming in 2024. now for something a little different. a look ahead to next week's special edition of this program. back in 2006, after i has been appearing regularly on cnn usually as a legal guest, the network told me they liked my work but didn't know what to do with me. i think the net work was surprised when i pitched my idea. hosting a weekly book club. we filmed with me at home in philadelphia. that show never made it to air but today, 17 years later, a holiday gift, at least for me, i decided i would speak with five authors of books that made an impact on me this year. david brooks has been an opinion columnist for 20 years. his latest exploring the most important skill for people to possess. greg wrote the coddling of the american mind and with cancel culture wars tearing apart campuses all across the country, he's back with the canceling of american mind. sheila johnson was the nation's first female bl

v. gore case. i'm not sure there's any decision by this court that's going to be widely accepted by the public in the way the bush v. gore decision did. al gore had something to do with that accepting the decision saying he disagreed with it and moved from a peaceful transition from clinton to bush. but we are so much more polarized now than then. so it's hard to imagine the supreme court touching this in a way that's going to unify the country or strengthen the belief in institutions. >> it's a great point. just a completely different time and the way americans look at any decision different. we talk about the words that donald trump uses i know and there's more polling out that essentially finds why voters are okay with it. they're okay with the language used about immigrants and comments about democrats. it often, shouldn't be surprising, tends to bolster support for the president. >> this is the lesson learned over the last eight years of donald trump on the political stage. that he

they did it back in 2000 with bush v gore: now they may have the chance to do it all over again. today trump asked the high court to sit and think for a bit. to answer whether he has absolute immunity. that's the jack smith case. jack smith wanted a quick answer. he would not rather wait to find out if he can make a case against him. but will that person be considered immune from prosecution. apparently trump loves a good wait. why rush into getting into a case against you? pretty ironic. his lawyers say the case is so important, so paramount to public importance, his lawyers say the justice moves, it must move in a cautious, deliberative manner.. not at a breakneck speed. that's the immunity question. and the court also gets to decide now the eligibility question. the one coming out of colorado's supreme court decision to take trump off the primary ballot. the supreme court will have to decide whether trump engaged in insurrection or whether the 14th amendment applies to the most powerful office in the country. and those are two really important questions. a few obvious points h

they did it with bush v. gore, back in 2000.they may have the chance to do it all over again or that once in multiple cases involving donald trump. today, trump asked the high court to sit and think for a bit, before they answer whether he has absolute immunity. that is the jack smith case right here in washington d.c.. jack smith, he wanted a quick answer, why? maybe, he does not want his time wasted. a trial supposed to start in march, and he rather not wait to find out and will actually go to try to make a case against them. whether he is immune from prosecution. trump, on the other hand, apparently, he loves a good weight. why rushed into possibly getting rid of a case against you, pretty ironic, right? his lawyer say that the case is just so important, so quote paramount to public importance, unquote. if justice moves, it must move in a cautious, deliberate manner, not at breakneck speed. i'm not sure it's quite breakneck yet, but that is the image of the question. the court also gets to decide the eligibility question, the

in 2000, justice o'connor cast the fifth vote in bush v. gore, leading to george w. bush's election victory. two-and-a-half years later, bush led the u.s. into an illegal invasion of iraq. in 2013, the then-retired sandra day o'connor suggested the supreme court should not have taken the bush v. gore case. and the house voted on friday to expel new york republican george santos over multiple ethics violations, making him just the sixth congressmember to ever be ousted from the house of representatives by fellow lawmakers. the bipartisan vote came as santos is facing a 23-count federal indictment, including fraud related to his campaign finances. he also repeatedly lied about his family, background, and professional experience. santos' parting words as he left the house building, "to hell with this place." a special election is expected to be scheduled in february to fill santos' seat. and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we begin today's show in gaza as israel is expanding its air an

kristie is basically saying that in the end, bush v. gore is going to find a narrow lane. there are consequences both political and otherwise as a result of what the supreme court decides. >> it's a sad state of affairs. earlier this, week we saw the deputy attorney general of the united states speak to the kind of threats that doj prosecutors and fbi agents are receiving. all of this is coming back, can be traced back to donald trump. he frequently talks to supporters. he attacks these judges. he posts this information about the secretary of state on his trump social media feed. many times, his supporters view these things as -- he knows that. it's a sad state of affairs. i want to pick up one other thing that kristie said. harnesses a spot on. the supreme court is going to find some kind of all frame here. but i also, it is not radical for some individuals, and that's not a word that she, is but is not radical for some individuals who suggest that democrats, and people who love democracy, should not be pursuing these options. i think when you stand on the side of truth a

we've seen in other elections, bush v. gore cls comes to mind they can be swayed not necessarily by constitutional texts but the pragmatic demands of the moment. the need for finality in that case. it may be in this case that idea of a patchwork quilt of different ballots all across the united states on election night is something the u.s. supreme court -- i think there will be a lot of different issues. >> before i go back to andrew, can you foresee any -- i cannot imagine clarence thomas being able to hear this case, to be honest with you -- >> you said -- it's going to happen. he's not going to recuse himself in this case. >> unbelievable. >> he's not going to recuse himself in this case. >> unbelievable. >> it is unbelievable and i understand exactly why there's clear evidence that mrs. thomas exchanged text messages with mark meadows during the course of this episode at the capitol but clarence thomas is not bound by any laws to recuse himself by any rules the supreme court's, quote, unquote, ethics code is a paper ti

i mean this is the biggest court decision to impact a national election since bush v. gore. even though this only impacts colorado, the implications could be national because here we're talking about the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. and there's a section of that amendment that bars u.s. officials who engage in an insurrection from holding public office. now, in this case, colorado was at the lower court level. there was a trial. they found that trump did engage in an insurrection, but they said he shouldn't be disqualified from the ballot because the judge said that section of the constitution didn't specifically mention presidents. but here the state supreme court reversing that, saying he should be disqualified from the ballot and even any votes that are written in for him shouldn't be counted. >> all right. so the colorado supreme court ruling tonight that trump shouldn't be on the primary ballot as a result of what you just laid out, but he still will likely be on the primary ballot in colorado. why is that? help us understand that. >> reporter: exac

first of all, there's really interesting analogies to the two bush v. gore.ears ago. they had another 4-3 decision by another state supreme court. what the court did is they were uncomfortable with the ambiguous standards being used by florida. this is even more so. when i read the 14th amendment, i see the words insurrection or rebe rebellion. this was neither. this is a riot. most people can see it that way. it's not clear this applies to the office of the presidency. they go through and enumerate offices that notably does not include the presidency. so there's a number of elements here that could result in this being overturned as i expect it will be. in order to get to this spot, these four justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretations at every point in order to make this actually work. i think it's going to collapse in front of the supreme court. many of us are hoping that they do speak with one voice. that they speak with a voice for all of us. with the exception of the people that you just played, that you hear particularly on another network

as we learned back in 2000, in bush v. gore, when the supreme court gets involved looking at a state supreme court, things unexpected could potentially happen. and we'll see what the supreme court does here. this is always an issue that's going to be headed for the highest court in the land. >> earlier efforts to get trump removed from the state presidential ballot failed in minnesota, in new hampshire, in michigan, and right now in colorado. it's going forward to remove him. alyssa, how do you expect trump and his team to react to this stunning news? >> truly stunning news. i expect this is a five-alarm fire, even to the fact of dave chalian's point that this doesn't change the map for donald trump. he's not necessarily playing for the 10 electoral votes in colorado. but it's the precedent it sets and the mindset it signals to voters, which is, for the first time in history, he is unfit to appear on a ballot for the presidency. and of course, there would be implications if the supreme court upheld this. i think you're goi

it should be an expedited appeal because it's not like bush v. gore where it's about the election. it's about a pending criminal indictment where jurors have already been called. and i do think -- >> well, it is about the 2024 election, too, in some ways. there's the thinking that the american public should have some conclusion to all this. >> absolutely, those arguments as well. but also i do think there's a decent argument that we're going to have to see the briefing and how judge chutkan rules, whether she can even proceed now with the case. >> and i want to talk about that because there are sort of parallel hurdles here. there's the ultimate question of whether or not he has immunity. but, mark, there's a question of whether or not trump can grind everything to a halt. i think it was very interesting judge chutkan moved forward with the jury selection process. i think the letters went out end of last week, almost this week as a signal of hey, look, the work is starting. the machinery of justice is cranking along. what do you think the likelihood is that a stay is granted here a

it moved very quickly in 2000 in bush v. gore. certainly the stakes are as high here. there are a number of cases involving donald trump piling up on this cert docket. surely going to have to be resolved by the court in some fashion. so they need to get through all of these. so i think the big question here, maybe a big factor in how quickly the court addresses this question whether it will grant cert in this case is how many cases are going to be piled up and how they all relate to one another and this broader question of january 6th and how it will impact the 2024 election. >> and, dave, the supreme court now, obviously, becoming the battleground to be in in 2024. my question for you, how do you think that the just uses going to try to avoid appearing partisan? i ask that question with straight face. i know what we think about the current makeup of scotus. for example, you look at trump, he is putting lawyers on his legal team, one clerked for the late antonin scalia, one helped brett kavanaugh in his confirmation process. >> yeah, chief justice roberts wants us to b

v. gore when it comes to an election. so, they have particular procedural outs they might be able to take that, sort of, kick the can down. so, for instance, i brought up colorado and due process arguments and the like. or they might go and say no, actually we're going to follow the one, you know, appellate court opinion there is on this, which is from the 19th century, which basically takes the position that congress has to implement it. even though, as i agree with shan, the language of the 14th amendment certainly doesn't lend itself to that reading. >> i'm glad you brought up that case, bush v. gore, because obviously that was one of the most consequential if not the most that they've decided when it comes to a modern election. i mean, shan, that case, when it made that decision, that hurt the supreme court. it damaged their standing in some voters' eyes obviously who didn't agree with them. is that something that they would take into account when they're making this decision if they

the supreme court in bush v. gore said, no, no, no, this wouldn't be fair to george w. bush.ll violate his rights, lets george bush's president. you know, these principles yield to result that the majority wants to. and i expect that's what will happen. >> i have to say, just to act with, that not only do they say no, it will violate this. it will violate those rights under the 14th amendment of the u.s. constitution, which we have now found a novel interpretation of the equal protection clause that this violates, though, it's only good, said novel interpretation, for this decision and no more. >> this ticket is for this train only. that was about card of bush b gore. >> so, everything aside, i think the one difference, it's a very different court than the one under bush v. gore. this is a quote goes legitimacy and called into question numerous times over the last three years. this is not the court that was in 2000. and i think that has to weigh on them as well. i don't know that it will necessarily lead to a different outcome, but it may shape the way they get to that outcom

the supreme court me, we all remember bush v. gore it took them a day to issue an opinion on that. is there any chance, march is said june if the supreme court decides to take this up and i assume that's the expediting calendar. >> that's normally when they come down with their decisions. look, this is a different scenario. this is an interlocutory appeal. there is an indictment pending, there's trial calendar set, there are jurors. even a partisan supreme court, even a partisan justice, if they have any shred of institutional respect for the court system has to recognize that this isn't something they can wait six months on, i don't think. it should be an expedited appeal, because it's not like bush v. gore where it's about the election, it's about a pending criminal indictment where jurors have already been called. >> it is about the 2024 election as well in some ways. some people say the american public should have some conclusions as well. >> there is that argument. i think there's a decent argument that we will have to see the briefing and how she can even proceed with the cas

the supreme court in bush v. gore said, no, no, no, this wouldn't be fair to george w. bush.ights, lets george bush's president. you know, these principles yield to result that the majority wants to. and i expect that's what will happen. >> i have to say, just to act with, that not only do they say no, it will violate this. it will violate those rights under the 14th amendment of the u.s. constitution, which we have now found a novel interpretation of the equal protection clause that this violates, though, it's only good, said novel interpretation, for this decision and no more. >> this ticket is for this train only. that was about card of bush b gore. >> so, everything aside, i think the one difference, it's a very different court than the one under bush v. gore. this is a quote goes legitimacy and called into question numerous times over the last three years. this is not the court that was in 2000. and i think that has to weigh on them as well. i don't know that it will necessarily lead to a different outcome, but it may shape the way they get to that outcome. >> and i also

. >> so she i know she key votes on things like partial birth abortion and the gore v bush recount in florida. is she old school in the sense that that she really didn't lean too far left to right. it feels like now you're you're one of the other. >> so i think that she certainly was right of center. but if you compare her legal ideology to the current court, certainly we would place her much closer to the center. we would view her as a moderate. she's frankly somebody who would not be selected and in i think in this particular climate she was the swing vote for a number of years. as you said, looking to the left, looking to the right, trying to find practical solutions. the kind of criticism in support of her was always that she didn't really have a doctor that she had here, too. her guiding principle was what will be the practical effect of these particular decision to talk about reproductive choice. we can talk about affirmative action, obviously she cast the deciding vote as well in bush v gore, as you mention, i think we will remember her as a pragmatist as a moderate as somebody

when you discuss the opinions, i don't think we should fit bush v. gore. that's the court that decided the presidency of the united states. >> andrea, stay with me because i want to continue this discussion, but i also want to bring in presidential historian don meacham now who's joining us by phone. john, as we remember the life and legacy of sandra day o'connor who just died at the age of 93, what are you thinking about? >> i'm thinking about her biographer, our friend evan thomas, who titled his book "first." she was the first woman in the history of the american republic to serve on the supreme court, appointed by president reagan in 1981, was part of the campaign promise, governor reagan at the time had some problem with women voters and he thought that would help, and as andrea remembers doubtless, when sandra day o'connor graduated from stanford law school, she went to interview for a law firm and had a conversation with william french smith who became the attorney general of the united states, and william french smith is said to have told her he'd

v. gore other times she was with the liberals writing the landmark decision on using race in college admissions, one that was laregly gutted just last term. >> the very heart of this country is equality of opportunity and respect for all individuals. >> reporter: as a moderate, she searched for consensus on a bitterly divided court, particularly on abortion rights, joining a decision reaffirming roe v. wade in 1992 while later upholding state restrictions on abortion the first woman on the court also the first mother she had three boys with her husband john whom she left the court to care for in 2006 when he was diagnosed with alzheimer's. later she too was diagnosed with the disease. she also battled cancer reflecting at one point on what that fight taught her. >> i think i learned from it to appreciate and treasure each day, because you don't know how many you'll be given, so make those that you have count. >> reporter: sandra day o'connor was 93. laura jarrett, nbc news >>> in 60 seco

v gore decision, essentially deciding the 2000 election and it really cause a crisis of legitimacy for the court. in this case, i think it would be even worse for the court because nobody's voted yet. that doesn't mean it's legally inappropriate. it means i think they're aware of the fact that they don't want to look like the court that took the right to vote away from the electorate. >> all right. this is a probably a vast oversimplification, but every state the secretary of state or the percent that ahead of elections has criteria, which is which is laid forth in the constitution. essentially, you have to be a u.s. citizen. you have to be of a certain age. you can't be it. a 10 year-old, you know, president the united states. and there is a provision there that you can be a sedition assist. it seems fairly simple if i mean, if you're just going by the letter of the law, doesn't it? >> legally, frankly, i think the colorado supreme court did make the right decision, but we've never been here before. and there are still some questions. so one, do we really consider this an insurrection

>> it is a bombshell decision and it is bush v. gore on steroids. this affects all 50 states. that was late in the process, what votes should be counted in one state. this is whether states, which under the constitution regulate, the time and manner of elections, have the right to determine eligibility, based on this somewhat vague language in section 3 of the 14th amendment. colorado supreme court says yes, missouri supreme court says no. u.s. supreme court will have to come down somehow quickly on this thing. the implications is that everyone is saying are incredibly broad because it -- if the colorado decision stands, then supreme courts in other states or election officials ratified by their supreme courts will have the right to decide whether or not this -- president trump is eligible based on the fact that he, i think admits he engaged in insurrection. is he covered or isn't he covered by this third part of the 14th amendment? last comment i make is that in a kind of strange way, here we have this supreme court making the dobbs decision, throwing the abortion decision, t

v. gore. other times she was with the liberals writing the landmark decision on using race in college admissions gutted just last term. >> the very heart of this country is the quality of opportunity and respect for all individuals. >> reporter: as a moderate, she searched for consensus on a bitterly divided court, particularly on abortion rights joining a decision reaffirming roe v. wade in 1992 while later upholding state restrictions on abortion. the first woman on the court also the first mother. she had three boys with her husband john whom she left the court to care for in 2006 when he was diagnosed with alzheimer's. later she too was diagnosed with the disease. she also battled cancer reflecting at one point on what that fight taught her. >> i think i learned from it to appreciate and treasure each day, because you don't know how many you'll be given, so make those that you have count. >> reporter: sandra day o'connor was 93. laura jarrett, nbc news. >>> in 60 seconds, the weekend

v. gore, and that is going to loom large in their head. i do not think they are going to be the ones to decide this issue. >> remember when hanging chads were the biggest story of the political year. it has been a minute since that. >> exactly, exactly. >> caroline polisi. >> we don't want the repeat. no hanging chads. >>> and new numbers this morning from the u.s. border patrol, and progress being made to stop the influx of the migrants. >>> and demolition happening on the idaho house where four college students were murdered but nout without objection from the families of the victims. >>> we are getting new video in from gaza in the location where israelis have told people to evacuate immediately. >> all right. these are the life pictures of what was the house in idaho where four college students were stabbed to death. you can see it. it has been torn down. it all happened over the last few hours here. some of the victims' families had begged, begged for the school which is tearing it

and you go back to look at the nation's history and say bush v.ore where the country was somewhat shocked that the united states supreme court would get involved in quote, unquote deciding a presidential election and that is one case. now as you have noted, we have six, seven, eight possible cases going up there. it is a safe bet, they won't take all of them, but at the same time, they will take one or two of the case, and particularly that colorado case going up to the supreme court. they understand that every time they get involved in the political fray, there is somewhat of an institutional price to be paid for it. they will be cautious, judicious, and take some of the cases, but certainly not going to take all of these cases. >> it is great to see you, tomment thank you for coming in. >> thank you, kate. >> interesting conversation, kate. great. >>> coming up, did you stay up late to catch the last meteor zha shower of the year? i can answer for both of us, no, we did not. so we can now look at the unbelievably beautiful pictures of the heaven

not since the bush v gore decision in 2000 have we had the supreme court in the middle of an election race. you look at the timeline that we have ahead of us, the former president has until january 4th to file an appeal. we don't anticipate he will do that for a few days, but we think he will go to the supreme court, because january 5th is the deadline to certify what names are on the primary ballot. the primary voters in colorado go to the ballot box on march 5th. so somewhere between now and then, we anticipate that the supreme court will speak, will say something about whether they're going to take this up and review this decision by the colorado supreme court, and possibly maybe render a decision. of course, jake, you know they're also taking a look at other things, as well. so one of the things that is really striking about this, is that we have a number of these 14th amendment challenges that have been going around the states, from michigan and minnesota, new hampshire. all have failed. this is the first state supreme court that has now said that the former president is an insur

public education case, and the bush v gore case.he stepped down from the court in 1996 to care for her husband john because of his alzheimer's. >> it is taking a staggering toll on the families and the caregivers. i can certainly attest to that. >> reporter: in 2018, o'connor revealed that she, too, had been diagnosed with dementia, and withdrew from public life. the retired justice was grateful, she wrote, of the countless experiences, including to break the glass ceiling. >> it was not too many years before i was born that the women in this country got the right to vote, for heaven sakes. in my lifetime, i have seen unbelievable changes for the rights of women. it is very important for women to be represented and it is not all male governance as it once was. >> sandra day o'connor died just today. our breaking news for you this morning, but we have plenty of breaking news happening right now, especially on capitol hill where we are going back to in a little bit where the bill to expel george santos is about to be under way. >>> an

for example, bush v. gore. we had a dozen fear, right?ad justices off that supreme court who disagree. i didn't hear a single conservative side that opinion somehow it didn't have effect. it's also important here, the colorado supreme court has stated its ruling. and if the former president stakes scotus review, supreme court review, which he does, they've also -- they fully understand the significance of the ruling. there are not trying to somehow subvert the role of the american people. but again, the law matters. and the constitution says what it says. and what i tend not to here is anyone challenging the premise that a former president engaged in insurrection, purposely, had people engage in violence against our constitution. i don't have any defense of that. here people have an issue with process, we can talk about. that but this is majority opinion. it's over 200 pages. it's thoughtful and i think the american people really have to struggle with the idea and i think the january 6th committee already frankly prove this in front of th

v.t's an important to raise. that was destructive for the court in many respects. many of the justices spent years trying to repair the divisions on the court itself. i think the chief justice is going to try to get a unanimous decision here. i hope it can speak with one voice, and that voice should be to reject colorado's decision and protect our democratic values, to show the public that the court itself is divided ideologically, that they remain unified on these basic values that define us. >> kayleigh: it would be a great day for democracy indeed if it were 9-0. professor turley, thank you for your brilliant analysis as always. turning now to a different legal issue facing donald trump. the doj case surrounding januare appeal courts consider the eighth claim of presidential immunity. but that has not stopped special counsel jack smith from filing motions. just today he asked the court to bar trump from criticizing biden, his possible 2024 opponent, of course come over political inter

she talked about bush v. gore. gore, they served in, stop counting, we will look at this and expedite the review. which is to say, this is all volitional. >> for sure, the supreme court is fully controlling it. i think that they are, then panda law clerks will be fully considering they wide-ranging possibilities here. they will be considering the particle implications. they may not put that on paper, but i guarantee you that they are thinking about what happens next, what decision they will make here. >> okay, i want to ask you one more question, but i'll save it for next time. rig means bit because abortion case sinc it overturned crow what it could mean for abortio rights and what it means for america next >> it's been a year and a half since overturning roe v. wade, we've seen a consistent theme in abortion politics on the rights. no matter how much republicans claim to penn middleground, actions that the republican party in the conservative movement are committed to criminalizing every abortion, everywhere in t

v gore. that's how president george bush became president of the united states because the courts ruled in his favor. there were other supreme courts that want to leave it to the voters but the reality is, the supreme court has changed things like that. i want to add my second comment to your last segment on the economy whether we are optimistic or pessimistic. i am optimistic by nature. i am an optimist about the economy. quite frankly, i am doing well and i retired at 69 years old but the reason is i saved 20% of my paycheck. i didn't go to the vending machines where a can of soda pop was two dollars. when i went grocery shopping, i bought my items including my medication. quite frankly, my wife and i had a goal of paying off our house by 2029. we've been in the house about 12 years. we have not lived beyond their means. i go to a gas station and gas at the walmart is $2.24. host: baltimore, maryland, republican, good morning. caller: good morning, good to see you. i love it when you are ho

for example, in bush v. gore, we had a descent there.d justices of the supreme court who disagreed. i did not hear a single conservative say that that opiniomee full effect. let's also point out here that -- the report has stated fully, that if the president the, former president seeks scotus review, supreme court review, which he does, they've also automatically stated the review -- . so they fully understand the significance of the ruling. they are not trying to somehow subvert the rule of the american people. but again, the law matters. in the constitution says what it says. and what i tend not to here is anyone actually challenging the premise that a former president engaged in insurrection, purposely hurt people engaged in violence against our constitution. i don't hear any defense of that here. now, people have issue with process. we can talk about that, but this is a majority pinion, it's over 200 pages, it is thoughtful. and i think the american people really have to struggle with the idea, and i think the january six committee a

. >> market, the memory of what happened after bush v. gore have influenced this decision? >> absolutely. i think that the justices across the board want to stay away from this case for as long as possible. they do not want to be seen as getting involved in the 2024 election. in part because of course donald trump appointed three of them, angel blended appointed one, and all of them have memories of how bush be gore tarnished the court. even though a lot of conservatives trying to defend the decision, i think it's widely recognized as the supreme court's most aggressive intervention in a presidential election in the united states history. and even for the conservatives, even for those like justice alito are justice thomas, who probably want to see donald trump when, they don't want to see that victory come with a footnote like george w. bush has in 2000. this is by the way the supreme court played a key role here. the justices are being cautious, i agree with catherine, the caution is warranted, i agree that it makes sense for them to wait since the d.c. circuit is moving q

nothing like bush v. gore had ever come to united states supreme court. none of the judges judges had ever consider the issues presented to them in that case by the very able lawyers who had given unprecedented amounts of time to argue their case, make the oral arguments, to the united states supreme court, which were the very first supreme court oral arguments in history that were allowed to be broadcast live on radio, because the supreme court apparently considered that to be the most important arguments in the history of the supreme court. one day it took the supreme exactly one day after those oral arguments to issue their decision in what they were, in effect, declaring was the most important case that they ever heard. the supreme court scheduled those arguments the way they did that, the way they did it quickly, they were ineffective declaring this is the most important thing we have ever done. and after what the supreme court was essentially declaring was the most important argument they ever heard, they took exactly one day. to decide the case and

and then of course the example of bush v gore where the time between the florida supreme court ruling and the supreme court's eventual dozens of pages long decision was four days. so it is not like this supreme court can't act when it wants to and when the national interests demand it. and there is a "new york times" poll out this morning that indicates up to 25% of republican voters would be impacted by whether trump has a conviction. that suggests to me that this is not just about registered democrats who are likely voters. but about our country as a whole and wanting all of the information that they deserve before they cast their ballots on dates like march 5 when colorado is going to the polls. >> you are right on that as usual. lisa, vaughn, steve, thank you all so much. >>> coming up next, i'll speak with the president of crew, the group behind the colorado lawsuit, what he is watching and this ruling and likely will it be heading to the u.s. supreme court. >>> plus what president biden is saying about the colorado ruling. and the senate is officially on holiday break without ha

. >> that included the 2000 ruling in the famous bush v. gore case that settled the election. recalled one secret to her success often speaking first at oral arguments. thereby setting the tone. >> justice o'connor was different. her approach was let's get what's most important to me on the table at the outset. get it done. >> her youngest son sharing a private message from mother to her children. >> our purpose in life is to help others along the way what a beautiful powerful san da day o'connor sentiment. >> david spunt, fox news. >> bret: up next, the panel on the breaking news about the colorado supreme court ruling 4-3. that president trump cannot be on the state ballot. we will look at the president biden and the investigations into his son. first, beyond our borders tonight. strong earthquake rattles the northwestern of china. destroyed homes, leaving residents out in the below freezing winter night. at least 127 people died there in the nation's deadliest quake in nine years. a volcano spews lava into the air. monday night's eruption occurs after weeks of seismic activ

but the court is once more going to be thrust into the election in a has not been since bush v gore in 2001 or december of 20. -- december of 2000. i think it's going to be a complete mess. if they decide the issue and they affirm what colorado has done, then it's done. because it will apply to every state and donald trump will be off the ballot everywhere. >> that is a remarkable thing i don't think people have focused on. suppose they upheld the colorado supreme court, that means the supreme court's blessing this interpretation of the 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

and, she voted with the 5-to-4 majority in bush v. case that ultimately settled the bitterly disputed 2000 presidential election. in later years, o'connor acknowledged criticism that she lacked a clear judicial philosophy, but she defended her case-by-case approach. justice o'connor: you have to answer the question, like it or not. and the questions deserve a valid legal response, even if the response isn't one that will be easily understood. you have an obligation as a member of the court to do what you are bound to do under federal law, even if it isn't an attractive resolution from a public standpoint. judy: she was the lone woman on the high court for 12 years, until president bill clinton nominated ruth bader ginsburg in 1993. o'connor retired from the court in 2006, citing her husband's health, but continued hearing cases in the u.s. courts of appeals. and, she made time to visit schools, actively promoting the importance of civics education. justice o'connor: i wanted to teach young people in america how they can be part of the

we were here at bush v gore, i guess. the idea we will get a briefing schedule and a decision before january 5 is not feasible. what you will see happen is the supreme court takes the case and for the moment trump remains on the ballot. if the primaries happen and trump wins and after the supreme court decides trump should be off the ballot, that's a decision individual states will have to address. host: when is the colorado primary? could the supreme court naked decision before that happens -- make a decision for that happens? guest: it's possible. the colorado primary is super tuesday, march 5. if the supreme court hustled there is the potential for us to have a ruling on the 14th and emmett issue by march -- 14th amendment issue by march. it comes back to the question of what happens with respect to the other states where there are similar challenges to trump and trump being on the ballot. one of the challenges is a new hampshire. the new hampshire primary is january 23. if the supreme court was to rule down the road t

v. gore" she mused that maybe that didn't do too much for the reputation of the court, and now there is a sense that it does not matter. >> the first woman, but the last politician. that is an interesting thing that as people are watching today, whenever there are big funerals at the national cathedral, and john mccain's funeral comes to mind, another arizona republican, there is something mourned in the cultural politics, and the pragmatism, and compromise and not see it is evil, and to try to find a way in murky circumstances is also going by the wayside in washington, and i suspect we will be hearing dialogue maybe in the president's comments to kind of nod to that, and what her role was, and how there are not many people out there who can fill it today. >> that is a good point, because she is the last elected official on the court, and there are skills when you run for office, and you learn to talk to the other side, and negotiate and accept half a loaf when you can't get a full loaf

you can go all the way back to the decision in bush v. gore and see how public trust started to decline in some of these institutions. but it accelerated much faster in recent years, the supreme court is part of that. the justices themselves have seen when people are unhappy with their decisions how they're willing to show up and protest in person, they have been the subject of death threats, but i'll also say so many other people who are essential to the fabric of our democracy and to our elections systems have been under those threats as well. that's another big part of this that unfortunately will probably see a rise in, that is the election workers, people who actually put together the systems of democracy here have been facing rising threats, leaving those posts. it is a sad re-election of the times we live in. and it is going to be important to cover in the year ahead. >> indeed. vaughn hillyard, amna, matthew, mary, thank you for being with us this morning. >>> a deadly shooting in downtown producing, the czech republic. we're gett

going back to bush v. gore when the supreme court decided the election, that was a bitter pill for a lot of americans to swallow. if it turns out that the supreme court plays a decisive role in whether this case can go forward before donald trump faces the voters, that will really be a perilous moment for the high court. it's probably one that the justices would like to avoid, alex. >> lisa, i'm told that you have relative to a "new york times" article from last week, you have some insight into maybe why it was such a terse answer, as to whether or not the supreme court was going to take this up. that one single line that has no attribution as to which way either of the justices were to have voted. talk about that. what are you thinking? >> i wouldn't call it insight. i'll call it speculation. in the reporting last week, the part that stuck out most to me was the fact that the justices agreed to hear the dobbs case which overturned roe v. wade, but when they made that agreement or compact amongst themselve