0
0.0
Mar 2, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
bush v. gore, they had to get somebody -- in the presidents office. have is really a desire by the government to proceed at a certain time, when there is no legal requirement to do that. you've got plenty of time with a speedy trial clock. so i don't know that there is any deadline other than a preference. and the reality is look, while >> i'll let you finish, i'll let you finish. but jack smith's folks would argue david that you have a tradition of at least no political action of -- you have practical realities, and it's not the case has to be done by the election, because of some political reason, of course, that would be -- but rather, it is a case about whether this criminal defendant stole an election. so, there is a great interest in the united states government to protect elections. go ahead. >> i think they get -- at the supreme court, and then kind of blatantly engages in politics. and no matter how they decide the case, how they decided to proceed, if they go with smith, or they go with trump. there is no winning for them here, right. becaus
bush v. gore, they had to get somebody -- in the presidents office. have is really a desire by the government to proceed at a certain time, when there is no legal requirement to do that. you've got plenty of time with a speedy trial clock. so i don't know that there is any deadline other than a preference. and the reality is look, while >> i'll let you finish, i'll let you finish. but jack smith's folks would argue david that you have a tradition of at least no political action of -- you...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
many of us covered bush v. gore. this is not bush v. gore. this is a court speaking with one clear voice. you know, bush v. gore was damaging not just for the country and for the institution of the court, but also for the justices themselves. this was a bitterly divided opinion. you'll remember famously that ruth bader ginsburg ended her dissent not with respectfully dissent but just dissent. and that was viewed as capturing that moment. this is a different opinion in a different court. and i think you're absolutely right. this is a great victory for chief justice roberts. this was the moment where the court had to show the country that there's some things we remain united on. and some things that we can speak together on. and they just did. and that's why this is such an incredibly important and edifying moment. >> bill: one thing i'd point here, the colorado supreme court was appointed and they weren't elected. >> dana: right. >> bill: lot of people saw that as might have been a red flag from the beginning. did you want to say something? >>
many of us covered bush v. gore. this is not bush v. gore. this is a court speaking with one clear voice. you know, bush v. gore was damaging not just for the country and for the institution of the court, but also for the justices themselves. this was a bitterly divided opinion. you'll remember famously that ruth bader ginsburg ended her dissent not with respectfully dissent but just dissent. and that was viewed as capturing that moment. this is a different opinion in a different court. and i...
0
0.0
Mar 1, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
remember, the bush v. gore case took all of four days to run its course. instead, the court will provide a de facto presidential immunity to trump by potentially pushing the case until after the election. it could impact some of trump's other impending trials as well. trump is claiming a presidential immunity defense both in his other federal case regarding the classified documents and in the georgia state election interference case. and while no decisions have yet been made in either case, we could see the supreme court's decision giving trump a way to further delay those as well. once again, trump can pull a houdini and get out of accountability. at least before the presidential election. one might wonder what the supreme court justices get out of all this. well, with the two most conservative justices, thomas and alito, reaching an age that normally would signal retirement, one might imagine that they would prefer to do so under a republican president, to maintain the court's conservative majority in perpetuity by insuring they would be replaced by much
remember, the bush v. gore case took all of four days to run its course. instead, the court will provide a de facto presidential immunity to trump by potentially pushing the case until after the election. it could impact some of trump's other impending trials as well. trump is claiming a presidential immunity defense both in his other federal case regarding the classified documents and in the georgia state election interference case. and while no decisions have yet been made in either case, we...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
dropping the nuclear citation to bush v. gore is as clear as you can get. so if the liberals were going to tell us we should be worried, this is exactly what it would look like. >> i mentioned it at the top, we're waiting for judge aileen cannon to schedule a trial date in the classified documents case. judge mcafee says he will rule on fani willis and whether or not she can continue the georgia election interference case along with her entire office, d.a. in fulton county in the next two weeks. >> thank you very much. >>> coming up next, she voted for donald trump in 2020, and brought a lawsuit to try to keep him off the ballot in 2024, what krista kafer said she was trying to tell americans when she sued to have trump taken off the colorado ballot. >>> what president biden is warning if he himself wins in november. >>> what is benjamin netanyahu's main political rival doing at the white house today, and what it could signal for gaza. we are back in 60 seconds. and get one free. just scan the qr code and enter promo code flbogo. it only works from the othe
dropping the nuclear citation to bush v. gore is as clear as you can get. so if the liberals were going to tell us we should be worried, this is exactly what it would look like. >> i mentioned it at the top, we're waiting for judge aileen cannon to schedule a trial date in the classified documents case. judge mcafee says he will rule on fani willis and whether or not she can continue the georgia election interference case along with her entire office, d.a. in fulton county in the next two...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
of course, he talked about bush v. gore. we know about how for anyone who's older to remember what a hanging chad is, they know why they don't want to weigh into these issues. but this isn't matter of when they're almost saying we'd like to not wait in by having the voters actually decide the issue, keeping him on the ballot and others that actually don't talk about just this case. they talked about more broadly what role a state ought to have versus congress. but they're not immune to the discussions. they know that tomorrow super tuesday, many of them made themselves have remembered voting at least one justice neil gorsuch, who is from colorado river, was quite well to the ballot is actually tomorrow. and having bush, i mean, it could be having trump on that ballot, you have others who are part of the bush v. gore litigation. and also remember where it's like to have them weighing into political matters. they didn't want to be seen as being political, but good luck on that one. you've got the ethical issues, you've got the
of course, he talked about bush v. gore. we know about how for anyone who's older to remember what a hanging chad is, they know why they don't want to weigh into these issues. but this isn't matter of when they're almost saying we'd like to not wait in by having the voters actually decide the issue, keeping him on the ballot and others that actually don't talk about just this case. they talked about more broadly what role a state ought to have versus congress. but they're not immune to the...
0
0.0
Mar 2, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
we don't even have to go back to bush v. gore together comparator.at how fast they scheduled that 14th amendment segment three disqualification case. they had briefing and from each side, in about a week, and it went to arguments. so, they have to know the impact this is having on the possibility of getting that case to trial. i suspect there are some disputes among justices on that court on the timing of this, but this is what we have. this is what we have to work with. there's still a chance for the chance to get to trial before the election, but it really depends on what the supreme court does, how quickly they rule, after hearing arguments and whether they issue a definitive ruling, rejecting immunity from criminal prosecution from mr. trump or whether they issue some sort of ruling that since the case back down to the district court to make some initial determinations for example, about whether the alleged conduct was within the scope of the precedents official acts. that could delay things even further. i know that's really complicated, i can u
we don't even have to go back to bush v. gore together comparator.at how fast they scheduled that 14th amendment segment three disqualification case. they had briefing and from each side, in about a week, and it went to arguments. so, they have to know the impact this is having on the possibility of getting that case to trial. i suspect there are some disputes among justices on that court on the timing of this, but this is what we have. this is what we have to work with. there's still a chance...
0
0.0
Mar 10, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
we look back at 2000, where you had bush v gore and it was a controversial you know decision, and spaceere are some similarities, but the difference as i see it, was that the court, you know, in terms of its responsiveness to extremists who threaten the democratic process, they laid out, you know, in the constitution what it was they were and weren't supposed to do and people respected that. do you see this as being similar to 2000 or as markedly different and worlds apart? >> we are in completely different environment, and i am glad you are doing a zoom out because the big picture is we have never seen, we have never seen such a massive attempt to delegitimize constitution including congress assaulted by a mob sending members of congress running for their lives. and the courts. and this is and the press of course. so, having people lose faith in the working of democratic institutions, election above all, trump worked very hard for many years now to discredit elections. so, this is the bigger picture, and the supreme court has not been unaffected in this. because we can take example of
we look back at 2000, where you had bush v gore and it was a controversial you know decision, and spaceere are some similarities, but the difference as i see it, was that the court, you know, in terms of its responsiveness to extremists who threaten the democratic process, they laid out, you know, in the constitution what it was they were and weren't supposed to do and people respected that. do you see this as being similar to 2000 or as markedly different and worlds apart? >> we are in...
282
282
Mar 24, 2024
03/24
by
KNTV
tv
eye 282
favorite 0
quote 3
. >> that was bush v. gore, you mean?that and in my opinion i wrote they shouldn't have taken it up. that's what i thought about bush v. gore. i wrote they shouldn't have taken up the opinion. i think they should decide it the way. that was my view. why? it was a view reached after a considerable amount of work. >> i know that you're not going to weigh in on the current cases before the court, but big picture, justice breyer, do you think that the people of this country deserve to know a verdict in the election subversion case before november? as a legal matter. >> you're still going. you have a lot of good questions, but they're all aiming at the same place. >> big picture. do the people of this country deserve to know? >> the big picture is i'm not going near a case that's -- that is an even bigger picture. >> let me ask you this, can you tell me what you thought on january 6th as those events were unfolding? >> on january 6th. the biggest picture is to me that i tell myself. don't go near these issues. i was -- >> was
. >> that was bush v. gore, you mean?that and in my opinion i wrote they shouldn't have taken it up. that's what i thought about bush v. gore. i wrote they shouldn't have taken up the opinion. i think they should decide it the way. that was my view. why? it was a view reached after a considerable amount of work. >> i know that you're not going to weigh in on the current cases before the court, but big picture, justice breyer, do you think that the people of this country deserve to...
0
0.0
Mar 12, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
v. gore and said it happened in 2002. we all know it happened in 2000. i don't think hur was trying to intentionally mislead people. sometimes people misspeak and there is not intent behind it. the big news here regardless of the theater, and i think the main comparison. >> john: a lot of people who covered that know there's more than 30 days of their life they'll never get back from bush v. gore. appreciate it. >> sandra: we are going to dip into the white house press briefing room where karine jean-pierre is now talking, a quick update here and back to the hearing as soon as it is underway. >> so i know that he is going to continue to be responsive so he will be able to take your questions but we want to wait 'til the hearing is completed and once that's wrapped up he'll be right at the sticks doing the gaggle. >> is the president monitoring the hearing? >> the president is obviously meeting as he does every day, meet with his senior advisers, senior staff. he's preparing for tomorrow'
v. gore and said it happened in 2002. we all know it happened in 2000. i don't think hur was trying to intentionally mislead people. sometimes people misspeak and there is not intent behind it. the big news here regardless of the theater, and i think the main comparison. >> john: a lot of people who covered that know there's more than 30 days of their life they'll never get back from bush v. gore. appreciate it. >> sandra: we are going to dip into the white house press briefing room...
0
0.0
Mar 3, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
if you look at how they handle bush v.you look how they handled the nixon, case they could do this thing in 2 to 3 weeks i'd give an answer. the other thing i think pauses a lot of questions is they actually in their statement one or two sentences, they gave a bit of -- us to the weather this might be official acts. >> alleged official acts they said. >> that is right, the whole case is they are not official acts. this was not donald trump and the administration of elections, he was trying to get votes for himself. he wasn't worried about any of joe biden's concerns. he was candidate trump. for the supreme court, the high court to suggest maybe there were official acts involved, that gives a lot of reason to question whether or not this is a fair. >> we talk about the delay,, right there is a colorado primary right around, we still haven't gotten the decision whether it comes to whether or not the former president could be on the colorado ballot, so as much as we talk about whether the supreme court actually knows the impo
if you look at how they handle bush v.you look how they handled the nixon, case they could do this thing in 2 to 3 weeks i'd give an answer. the other thing i think pauses a lot of questions is they actually in their statement one or two sentences, they gave a bit of -- us to the weather this might be official acts. >> alleged official acts they said. >> that is right, the whole case is they are not official acts. this was not donald trump and the administration of elections, he was...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> lisa, "the new york times" put it very succinctly this morning writing, not since bush v. gore -- george w. bush obviously, and that was the presidency that was handed to bush, but have they had a direct role in a presidential contest. how big a factor is the supreme court in this election? >> obviously it's a huge factor now in states' ability to regulate who was on the presidential primary and general election ballots. i think this decision and i know neal wants to be especially careful, and i appreciate that, but i think this decision finally does put to rest the power of states to disqualify presidential candidates from their ballots. they say very quickly in the state enforcement of section 3 would raise heightened concerns because state by state resolution would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that the president represents all the voters in the nation, and then the court goes on to talk about what could possibly happen if different states, having different litigations of their own, and different courts with different ev
. >> lisa, "the new york times" put it very succinctly this morning writing, not since bush v. gore -- george w. bush obviously, and that was the presidency that was handed to bush, but have they had a direct role in a presidential contest. how big a factor is the supreme court in this election? >> obviously it's a huge factor now in states' ability to regulate who was on the presidential primary and general election ballots. i think this decision and i know neal wants to...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
v. gore, 24 years ago, has the supreme court. and so directly involved in a presidential race. cnn's paula reid and joan biskupic standing by for this big moment paula, can you lay out what is at stake this morning for everyone? >> so of course, the supreme court does not tell us which opinions they are going to release, but we widely expected today, but they will release their decision on former president trump's ballot eligibility. that's a little surprising that they've spentir locations tomorrow for super tuesday, including the state of colorado. if you remember how this case played out at the supreme court several weeks ago, former president trump's lawyer did pretty well. not only did the law really appear to be on his side, but the justices on bull's-eye sides of the aisle appeared willing to agree with a lot of what he was saying. so it's widely expected that he will likely win in this case, but it's not clear exactly how why it's taken so long, how difficult it might have been f
v. gore, 24 years ago, has the supreme court. and so directly involved in a presidential race. cnn's paula reid and joan biskupic standing by for this big moment paula, can you lay out what is at stake this morning for everyone? >> so of course, the supreme court does not tell us which opinions they are going to release, but we widely expected today, but they will release their decision on former president trump's ballot eligibility. that's a little surprising that they've spentir...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
they quote the descent and from bush v. gore to say that to suggest this was another majority going too far as bush and gore did in many people's minds. and that's when amy coney barrett made her statement, even though she joined the liberals on substance there, she said this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency, but think what this reveals is the disagreement behind the scenes. and probably more stridency to come. yeah. let me just read exactly what amy coney barrett said. would you write with this? she's kind of the way i've been describing this kind of in her own, in her own lane and her very brief comments in my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. the court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election, particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down not up and meanwhile, again, as joan discussed, you talked about the fact that the three more liberal justices evoked bush v.
they quote the descent and from bush v. gore to say that to suggest this was another majority going too far as bush and gore did in many people's minds. and that's when amy coney barrett made her statement, even though she joined the liberals on substance there, she said this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency, but think what this reveals is the disagreement behind the scenes. and probably more stridency to come. yeah. let me just read exactly what amy coney barrett said....
0
0.0
Mar 8, 2024
03/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
v gore or something else, people need confidence that it's not going to be undermined. >> dana: askingng that america got introduced yesterday and senator katie britt from alabama gave the rebuttal. this called for number three here. this is from her kitchen in alabama. watch. >> all worried about the future of our nation. the country we know and love seems to be slipping away and it feels like the next generation will have fewer opportunities and less freedoms than we did. >> dana: he response trying to target voters that might not necessarily think the republican party is for them. >> i think katie britt is a really interesting figure because she's a 40 something mom that's a senator from alabama and looks great doing this. i wish that both she and biden had taken it down on delivery about two notches and i think that would have been more effective. some people have complained about the kitchen. i would like to say i'm not concerned about the kitchen and i don't view as a modern women a kitchen as a symbol of oppression. i make a lot of meals for my family and wrangling the children
v gore or something else, people need confidence that it's not going to be undermined. >> dana: askingng that america got introduced yesterday and senator katie britt from alabama gave the rebuttal. this called for number three here. this is from her kitchen in alabama. watch. >> all worried about the future of our nation. the country we know and love seems to be slipping away and it feels like the next generation will have fewer opportunities and less freedoms than we did. >>...
0
0.0
Mar 12, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
people say that is not moving as fast but bush v gore was up against the deadline for certifying the election and didn't necessarily have to conclude before that. this is moving pretty quickly and it is one thing i try to remind people, keep in mind that the case would have been heard a year ago but for the fact that the january 6th committee held up his official findings for several months. and didn't get the transcripts or the segment to the justice department, in spite of the justice department's request for those. there is a lot of pieces, the congress delay, the executive branch delay and the courts moving in quickly, although not as quickly as some would like, including me. please see in and interviewed someone known as trump employee five on the classified documents indictment. i want to share a bit of what he said. >> i think the american people have the right to know the facts that this is not a witch hunt. i mean, he can go out and tv and say this. that is one of the reasons for doing this. >> what does it mean for this case to have butler with this blockbuster announcement
people say that is not moving as fast but bush v gore was up against the deadline for certifying the election and didn't necessarily have to conclude before that. this is moving pretty quickly and it is one thing i try to remind people, keep in mind that the case would have been heard a year ago but for the fact that the january 6th committee held up his official findings for several months. and didn't get the transcripts or the segment to the justice department, in spite of the justice...
0
0.0
Mar 1, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> what about bush v. gore? remember that? the recount in florida? barely a month after the votes were cast, and one day after florida's highest court ordered a statewide recount, the supreme court stepped in. they granted the bush campaign an emergency stay to stop florida from counting the votes. do not count anymore votes. the reason that bush wanted that was that the bush campaign was worried that if the recount continued, allegra would pull ahead. and then, one day after granting search in one of the most expedited cases of all- time, but conservative court took oral arguments and began deliberating quickly. >> it doesn't get any more tense than this. the justices working for a second night on the historic decision. all this waiting for a decision on a case that was after all argued on you yesterday. the justices seem determined to rule on this case quickly, well aware of the committee deadlines for choosing presidential electors. >> just four days after granting -- bias ingle vote, the high could permanently stop the recount and gifted george w
. >> what about bush v. gore? remember that? the recount in florida? barely a month after the votes were cast, and one day after florida's highest court ordered a statewide recount, the supreme court stepped in. they granted the bush campaign an emergency stay to stop florida from counting the votes. do not count anymore votes. the reason that bush wanted that was that the bush campaign was worried that if the recount continued, allegra would pull ahead. and then, one day after granting...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and i wonder if it will be something like we saw in 2000, with bush v. gore, where they essentially sided with, bush and they say this isn't a precedent, don't ever do it again. it's a very clear that these justices who feel as though they worked for donald trump, most likely will give him the results that he wants. but will it continue into the future for other instances that are similar? and what does that really bode for american democracy, if donald trump does get a second term, he has been very clear but what he wants to do with said second term. >> but do you think, charles, just following up on that in the reading of these developments, that the supreme court is intentionally trying to delay the trial in the start of that trial, for donald trump. because they know maybe in the end, they will not grant him the immunity that he seeks. but in some ways, they are kind of giving him what he wants, which is enough time to delay this, trial perhaps with the election being the ultimate getaway card? >> i am loathe to disagree with christina, because that'
and i wonder if it will be something like we saw in 2000, with bush v. gore, where they essentially sided with, bush and they say this isn't a precedent, don't ever do it again. it's a very clear that these justices who feel as though they worked for donald trump, most likely will give him the results that he wants. but will it continue into the future for other instances that are similar? and what does that really bode for american democracy, if donald trump does get a second term, he has been...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and then closing with nothing less than bush v. gore. the case that three of their colleagues worked on as bush side attorneys. writing, quote, what it does today, the court should have left undone. ouch. ouch. and in her own brief concurring opinion, conservative justice amy coney barrett may have giving us a glimpse affwhat to expect from the conservative majority in the coming supreme court hearings on presidential immunity. as she agreed that her fellow conservatives did too much but for a different reason. writing, the court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down. not up. perhaps someone should inform justice barrett that trying to lower the national temperature shouldn't be the court's concern. their only concern should be interpreting the law, according to the constitution, which is actually their entire job. i mean, i don't think the brown v. board of education decision turned down
and then closing with nothing less than bush v. gore. the case that three of their colleagues worked on as bush side attorneys. writing, quote, what it does today, the court should have left undone. ouch. ouch. and in her own brief concurring opinion, conservative justice amy coney barrett may have giving us a glimpse affwhat to expect from the conservative majority in the coming supreme court hearings on presidential immunity. as she agreed that her fellow conservatives did too much but for a...
0
0.0
Mar 3, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this triggered a monthlong series of legal battles which ended in a highly controversial bush v.. when the recount was stopped, the florida state secretary of state certified that bush had won the state by just 537 votes, that is a margin of 0.009%. that election, the entire election was decided by 537 votes. but as -- of the washington post points, out historically, elections are decided not only by those who cast votes, but also by those who don't. so there is a case to be made that in the 5 million floridians who were eligible to vote in florida in a 2000 elections but chose not to are really the ones who tipped the scale. there are many reasons why eligible voters stay home on election day, it could be that they just can't be bothered, that their vote at least in their statement matter anyway, or maybe they can't make it to a ballot box because of work or transportation, illness, or any of reasons valid. voting access remains an issue. maybe they are just missing not spark, liking the enthusiasm for either candidate. that in my books isn't valid. someone is going to win that
this triggered a monthlong series of legal battles which ended in a highly controversial bush v.. when the recount was stopped, the florida state secretary of state certified that bush had won the state by just 537 votes, that is a margin of 0.009%. that election, the entire election was decided by 537 votes. but as -- of the washington post points, out historically, elections are decided not only by those who cast votes, but also by those who don't. so there is a case to be made that in the 5...
0
0.0
Mar 3, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
in some ways, for what it represents about the court, i think it is 100 times worse than bush v. gore. it doesn't matter what -- they all know that, we all know, that everyone knows the score here. no one should be under any illusions that any player in this drama is confused about what is happening, and has happened. delay is all that matters. the pacing is all that matters. no one needs to wonder anymore whether this right-wing court will audaciously, fragrantly, in front of the whole nation, use their power to run the clock out. so that donald trump faces no legal accountability, so that his guilt or innocence, cannot be definitively proven to us, the of odors. who i believe have a right to know whether the man is guilty or innocent. so that he can return to power, without us having that knowledge, and dismiss these cases from his position as, and i quote him here, i quote him here, dictator on day one. if you were hoping that donald trump's authoritarian disregard for the rule of law was going to be stopped by americans institutions and the court at the highest level, that ho
in some ways, for what it represents about the court, i think it is 100 times worse than bush v. gore. it doesn't matter what -- they all know that, we all know, that everyone knows the score here. no one should be under any illusions that any player in this drama is confused about what is happening, and has happened. delay is all that matters. the pacing is all that matters. no one needs to wonder anymore whether this right-wing court will audaciously, fragrantly, in front of the whole nation,...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and i wonder if it will be something that we saw in 2000, with bush v. where they essentially sided with, bush and they say this isn't a precedent, don't ever do it again. it's a very clear that these justices who feel as though they worked for donald trump, most likely will give him the results that he wants. but will it continue into the future for other instances that are similar? and what does that really bode for american democracy, if donald trump does get a second term, he has been very clear but what he wants to do with set a second term. >> but do you think, charles, just following up on that in the reading of these developments, that the supreme court is intentionally trying to delay the trial in the start of that trial, for donald trump. because they know maybe in the end, they will not grant him the immunity that he seeks. but in some ways, they are kind of giving him what he wants, which is enough time to delay this, trial perhaps with the election being the ultimate getaway card? >> i am loathe to disagree with christina, because that's who
and i wonder if it will be something that we saw in 2000, with bush v. where they essentially sided with, bush and they say this isn't a precedent, don't ever do it again. it's a very clear that these justices who feel as though they worked for donald trump, most likely will give him the results that he wants. but will it continue into the future for other instances that are similar? and what does that really bode for american democracy, if donald trump does get a second term, he has been very...
0
0.0
Mar 2, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
if you, 1000th resolve the bush v.vecase, and effectively decided that years presidential race, just 35 days after election day. but make no mistake, this was a choice. back in the summer, the special prosecutor, tech smith, asked the supreme court to bypass the court of appeals in order to make quote, an immediate definitive, decision on the question of presidential immunity. as we saw with the nixon tapes, that's not an unprecedented or unreasonable request, especially on a matter of utmost national importance. but the supreme court denied smith's request and sent the case thto the court of appeals instead. then, after the court of appeals issued its own on february six, the supreme court took 22 days just to announce that it will wait another two months to t hear the case. it's a decision that will have ripple effects not just on trump's legal cases, but on american democracy itself. the federal january 6th case, fe the election case in d.c., will remain indefinitely palestine till this particular question is resolv
if you, 1000th resolve the bush v.vecase, and effectively decided that years presidential race, just 35 days after election day. but make no mistake, this was a choice. back in the summer, the special prosecutor, tech smith, asked the supreme court to bypass the court of appeals in order to make quote, an immediate definitive, decision on the question of presidential immunity. as we saw with the nixon tapes, that's not an unprecedented or unreasonable request, especially on a matter of utmost...
0
0.0
Mar 31, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
because it seemed to me in bush v.the case where the supreme court was being asked read the constution clearly ou was a state function how the electors are chosen in an, in an election is a function of distance date, and supreme court in that ca, conservative judges li alia, o had always said stes rights anthe federal government shodn't geat suddenly decided in this case. involved and we're going to get involved don't you think that underminethe credibility of t crt that through you to say that's not for me to say. i worked with many of the people there for many years. and what i sayt's a nd of bad faith. and what i say out this in bad faith it's nothing, nothing. i don't wa ay aone is using bad faith. i say they'resing the wronapoach. and that's a different thing and the reason i think it's important is because i believe many people today seeing decisions, they don't like, and that they think are wrong our very ready to say, oh, it's all politics, or it's all what you like or don't like. and i say, well, i can't prove
because it seemed to me in bush v.the case where the supreme court was being asked read the constution clearly ou was a state function how the electors are chosen in an, in an election is a function of distance date, and supreme court in that ca, conservative judges li alia, o had always said stes rights anthe federal government shodn't geat suddenly decided in this case. involved and we're going to get involved don't you think that underminethe credibility of t crt that through you to say...
0
0.0
Mar 3, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
no, i mean, i am very concerned that a63 court room remember, i have the biggest i have bush v gore, so it's very difficult for me to give you an honest, non-emotional answer. i've seen a supreme court stop to count i've seen the supreme court. you the statues of the the civil war to not allow the counting to continue. there was enough time i saw that court. and by the way, they said would never be a precedent again like that. this worries me and what might happen next month. well, next next 30, to be exact february and. remember the supreme court, the colorado case dealing with the insurrection act, the 14th amendment, the third clause. and then we have the d.c. court of appeals, immunity. so we have a lot of work to do. i don't have a lot of i have a faith in institution perhaps not all of the justices and we got one last one before all we have to go. oh, you cut them up. i don't know know. we do.
no, i mean, i am very concerned that a63 court room remember, i have the biggest i have bush v gore, so it's very difficult for me to give you an honest, non-emotional answer. i've seen a supreme court stop to count i've seen the supreme court. you the statues of the the civil war to not allow the counting to continue. there was enough time i saw that court. and by the way, they said would never be a precedent again like that. this worries me and what might happen next month. well, next next...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
v.d the majority's decision in dobbs, the abortion case. they say they quoted justice briar as saying what was done should have been left undone. they quoted dobbs saying if it's not necessary to decide, it's necessary to not decide. it's right to kick him off the ballot for states but for courts to go beyond that and say no federal court could ever decide he's guilty of insurrection violates the original understanding and text of the constitution, and that's why it's significant that justice barrett joined. she's an originalist and textualists, and she feels her conservative colleagues were violating those principles. >> at risk of overanalyzing this, do we look at this split as saying, you know what, the justices can look at cases dispassionately. they can come to a unanimous decision on something that is politically charged. they can also disagree and in an era where we think the left is so far from the left, and the right is so far from the left, you can have a conservative justice w
v.d the majority's decision in dobbs, the abortion case. they say they quoted justice briar as saying what was done should have been left undone. they quoted dobbs saying if it's not necessary to decide, it's necessary to not decide. it's right to kick him off the ballot for states but for courts to go beyond that and say no federal court could ever decide he's guilty of insurrection violates the original understanding and text of the constitution, and that's why it's significant that justice...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
v. but obviously not the most significant one this year because there's another one down the road about whether donald trump is immune from prosecution that could have even more import than this one. this 9-0 decision was sort of expected after we heard the liberal justices during the oral arguments casting doubt on the idea that colorado or any other state could exclude mr. trump from the ballot, but nonetheless, no dissents whatsoever sends a powerful message here today. >> laura, unanimous with two concurring opinions. what stood out to you in this opinion? >> one of the concurrences from justice barrett sort of high lighting the potentially explosive nature of this case, jose. barrett saying this is a time in the country to turn the temperature down and not up, and so even if the justices are in some disagreement about how far they should have taken this actual decision, in her view, this is not the time for the justices to sort of lay all that bare knowing the political consequences
v. but obviously not the most significant one this year because there's another one down the road about whether donald trump is immune from prosecution that could have even more import than this one. this 9-0 decision was sort of expected after we heard the liberal justices during the oral arguments casting doubt on the idea that colorado or any other state could exclude mr. trump from the ballot, but nonetheless, no dissents whatsoever sends a powerful message here today. >> laura,...
0
0.0
Mar 9, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
v.against a nomination of then judge cavanagh. >> confirming judge cavanagh would threaten people's ability to make fundamental personal decisions, including deciding whether to have an abortion but make no mistake, a vote for judge cavanagh is a vote against roe. >> and we're joined by andrew weissmann. he is also that with a crime family from gambino to colombo. and the task force where they had him in that role. you see him there, younger but not wiser. melissa and gender have teamed up to write the new book i mentioned that you may have heard about on the four criminal trials. you can google amazon or go to your local bookstore right now to type into your internet browser. the trump indictments, the charging documents with commentary. that is their legal commentary and a book for the ages. welcome to both of you. >> thank you per >> i want to shut it a worthwhile project. >> as you know, were about to head into the new york criminal trial. there is three other trials. there is a disc
v.against a nomination of then judge cavanagh. >> confirming judge cavanagh would threaten people's ability to make fundamental personal decisions, including deciding whether to have an abortion but make no mistake, a vote for judge cavanagh is a vote against roe. >> and we're joined by andrew weissmann. he is also that with a crime family from gambino to colombo. and the task force where they had him in that role. you see him there, younger but not wiser. melissa and gender have...
0
0.0
Mar 31, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
vigour because it seemed to me in bush v. gore, this was the case where the supreme court was being asked to decide something that if you read the constitution clearly was a state function how the electors are chosen in an, in an election is a function of the state and the supreme court in that case, conservative judges like scalia, who had always said, states rights and the federal government shouldn't get what suddenly decided in this case. no, the fed's are gonna get involved when we're going to get involved don't you think that undermines the credibility of the court >> that's for you to say that's not for me to say. i worked with many of the people there for many years. and what i say it's a kind of bad faith. and what i say about this in bad faith is nothing nothing i don't want to say anyone is using bad faith i say they're using the wrong approach and that's a different thing. and the reason i think it's important is because i believe many people today seeing decisions, they don't like and that they think are wrong, a
vigour because it seemed to me in bush v. gore, this was the case where the supreme court was being asked to decide something that if you read the constitution clearly was a state function how the electors are chosen in an, in an election is a function of the state and the supreme court in that case, conservative judges like scalia, who had always said, states rights and the federal government shouldn't get what suddenly decided in this case. no, the fed's are gonna get involved when we're...
0
0.0
Mar 2, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
bush v. gore is a great example of the supreme court moving quickly when it wants to, john.tly right. but with these cases, knowing that there would be such monumental legal issues, presidential immunity is, just one of many that this case would take a long time. all four criminal cases would take a long time. and i couldn't point to any specific thing is to say that things happen. or in latin, think this happiness -- it's a legal principle. things have happened and here we are. this happened, delay is happening. we should be that surprised. and i stand by what is it in 2023, some of these trends aren't going forward until 2025. save the tape, but don't save the tape. just remember i said tonight and that's it. >> dan, a lot of democrats are furious, they're no panicked about it. but do you really think is voters out there that are actually saying, i think he's guilty. i think he's corrupt, i think maybe he was involved in election interference. however, i need a court decision to help me to decide how i am going to vote. i am not familiar with any of those voters. how about
bush v. gore is a great example of the supreme court moving quickly when it wants to, john.tly right. but with these cases, knowing that there would be such monumental legal issues, presidential immunity is, just one of many that this case would take a long time. all four criminal cases would take a long time. and i couldn't point to any specific thing is to say that things happen. or in latin, think this happiness -- it's a legal principle. things have happened and here we are. this happened,...
0
0.0
Mar 1, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
we can go back to bush v. gore. we can go back to lots of different cases. we can go back to the texas bouncing, hunting, abortion banned thing when the supreme court wants to move quickly, they move when they don't they don't. and it is totally fair to ask why, why is it that when it helps trump they all of a sudden want to slow-walk it. they move like an end. but when it helps, when it, when it's something that could hurt trump, they move like a fighting or akai >> what do you think about all that time? >> those are good political talking points, but as a lawyer, you have to look with the actual record is and in every one of those cases, you make a motion for an expedited schedule. you put out the reasoning for that. there is reasoning why the colorado case had to get expedited because of the dates of the primary and the dates of the general election. the reason why the trump case is not being expedited, the immunity case is because the prosecution did not articulate a reason why it needed to be expedited jack smith went through great detail saying, oh, it
we can go back to bush v. gore. we can go back to lots of different cases. we can go back to the texas bouncing, hunting, abortion banned thing when the supreme court wants to move quickly, they move when they don't they don't. and it is totally fair to ask why, why is it that when it helps trump they all of a sudden want to slow-walk it. they move like an end. but when it helps, when it, when it's something that could hurt trump, they move like a fighting or akai >> what do you think...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
let's take bush v. gore in 2000. the court decided the election in three days.n't even need to look that far back for more examples. this very court, same members of the court, this very year, moved quickly in a separate case related to trump, when he asked these same justices to take up the colorado case regarding his ballot eligibility. they agreed, two days later, and scheduled arguments for the following month. that is downright speedy, if i do say so. and they had chances to move with similar urgency here, even more so. they could've taken up this issue back in december, when jack smith urge them to consider his emergency appeal and keep the trial on schedule. but of course, they did not. they waited until this week to announce they would take up the case, and they will wait until late april to even hear the oral arguments. they know exactly what this means for the trial schedule. they have a calendar, and they didn't anyway. since the spring court may not claim there in the political business, but they just knowingly put the country in a position where peo
let's take bush v. gore in 2000. the court decided the election in three days.n't even need to look that far back for more examples. this very court, same members of the court, this very year, moved quickly in a separate case related to trump, when he asked these same justices to take up the colorado case regarding his ballot eligibility. they agreed, two days later, and scheduled arguments for the following month. that is downright speedy, if i do say so. and they had chances to move with...
0
0.0
Mar 2, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i go back to bush v.'t wait eight months to the side who the next president of the united states would be. they expedited those hearings. they expedited that's conversation, that national conversation, and they rendered a decision shortly after that process had began. why? they knew the country needed a president. this court could have done the same thing. they could have her, they could've had those lawyers brief them on monday, out, they didn't have to bri them, melissa. you know why? because the lower courts and the apple's courts both were briefed by those attorneys, so all they had to do was pick up the briefs they already had! what is dynamically going on here, i mean, i really don't want to say this court is playing the game of politics knowing the chief justice, but you know what? there's a whole lot of politics here when you know where this thing could lands, potentially, on the calendar. and the court refused to move the agenda up, get the lawyers in front of them next week, and render a decisio
i go back to bush v.'t wait eight months to the side who the next president of the united states would be. they expedited those hearings. they expedited that's conversation, that national conversation, and they rendered a decision shortly after that process had began. why? they knew the country needed a president. this court could have done the same thing. they could have her, they could've had those lawyers brief them on monday, out, they didn't have to bri them, melissa. you know why? because...
0
0.0
Mar 3, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
v gore. so they can do it quickly when they want and they know it's exigent they're not slow walk in the immunity case, but they're not going so fast either. and the weeks tick off in ways that, that as we pointed out, everyone did last week, really has implications for whether that case will be heard in 2024. >> yeah. >> we will see harry litman appreciate you jumping on short notice for us. always appreciate get the inside >> thanks so much. have a good day >> we're also following key developments in the middle east right now, a delegation from hamas is in cairo for urgent ceasefire talks. now, israel has not sent a delegation, but the us says israel has basically accepted a six-week ceasefire proposal in gaza, but a highly placed diplomatic sources telling cnn that a deal is unlikely to be reached in the next 48 hours because of a few key issues that are still outstanding, cnn's jeremy diamond is in tel aviv for us, so jeremy, just what are some of the issues that are holding up an agreeme
v gore. so they can do it quickly when they want and they know it's exigent they're not slow walk in the immunity case, but they're not going so fast either. and the weeks tick off in ways that, that as we pointed out, everyone did last week, really has implications for whether that case will be heard in 2024. >> yeah. >> we will see harry litman appreciate you jumping on short notice for us. always appreciate get the inside >> thanks so much. have a good day >> we're...
0
0.0
Mar 15, 2024
03/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
sometimes, when, for example, it's bush v. supreme court can move very quickly, other times these things take a long time. i've heard this a lot from criminal defense colleagues, trump may not realize that judge cannon is maybe helping him by denying these motions. what dave said is so significant, is that if, let's say for example judge cannon were to grant both these motions right now, and say motion kbranted the case is thrown out. you know what would happen, the government can still appeal that, it would go up on appeal and probably trump would lose at the appeals courts, but instead, if it goes to trial, and it's a judgment of acquittal, or an acquittal outright by the jury, there are no comebacks, that is the end of the case. so, some of my more conspiratorial minded colleagues in the criminal defense bar were contacting me and saying, hey, she's helping him, now, obviously, i don't take that view that she's actively helping them, but procedurally the net effect by denying these motions may ultimately be better for trump
sometimes, when, for example, it's bush v. supreme court can move very quickly, other times these things take a long time. i've heard this a lot from criminal defense colleagues, trump may not realize that judge cannon is maybe helping him by denying these motions. what dave said is so significant, is that if, let's say for example judge cannon were to grant both these motions right now, and say motion kbranted the case is thrown out. you know what would happen, the government can still appeal...
0
0.0
Mar 5, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
v. gore. >> and tonight the ruling is unanimous. that's how history will record donald trump's 90 victory today. >> but inside >> that same ruling, it is exposing deep cracks and that united front on the supreme court the justices offered very different ways of explaining the same result, but they did in the end agree that donald trump will remain on the ballot and of course this came just 24 hours before the first super tuesday polls are about to open now, just about nine hours from where we are at this moment. >> the >> biggest primary night and donald trump is expected to rack up blowout wins in buckets of delegates from coast-to-coast, putting him within reach of the republican nomination. the question of whether he engaged in insurrection. remember the one that the colorado court's found? well, that was left untouched entirely today, too hot for the high court put a pin in that because we've a lot to discuss and we'll get to that and just a moment. >> the other >> thing that stood o
v. gore. >> and tonight the ruling is unanimous. that's how history will record donald trump's 90 victory today. >> but inside >> that same ruling, it is exposing deep cracks and that united front on the supreme court the justices offered very different ways of explaining the same result, but they did in the end agree that donald trump will remain on the ballot and of course this came just 24 hours before the first super tuesday polls are about to open now, just about nine...
0
0.0
Mar 3, 2024
03/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
but the court in the past, if you go back to bush v. gore, they were like we have to make a decision on this pretty darn quickly. if you go back to the nixon tapes case, we've got to make a decision on this pretty quickly. >> would >> there not be a consistent argument to say, not only do you have to begin a trial prior, but but have the trial answered prior to an election when it gets to an issue as centralists there. presidential immunity from well, the way his lawyers argument from any and all crimes >> yeah, i think it should be of the same time, urgency. i think there's a little bit of a double-standard going on. first of all, delays here in coming down with the colorado decision so close to super tuesday delay would demand he could signal that there's some back-and-forth dissonance among the justices. another way to look at it though, is why is there not equal pressure about the election with regard to immunity as regarding valid? and if the justices really my question right now if the justices are really, we're just calling balls
but the court in the past, if you go back to bush v. gore, they were like we have to make a decision on this pretty darn quickly. if you go back to the nixon tapes case, we've got to make a decision on this pretty quickly. >> would >> there not be a consistent argument to say, not only do you have to begin a trial prior, but but have the trial answered prior to an election when it gets to an issue as centralists there. presidential immunity from well, the way his lawyers argument...
0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i think where to go back to gore v. hanging chads down there, it was that razor thin. what you are saying in your boat is you try to uncover the fraud and tome out to where it would affect the election. we also got to go back to that timeframe, that was during covid. so there's a lot m time. i think this election coming up in 2024 of be like a lot less mail in ballots and more in-person voting. i actually had a guy from mississippi come to our work in south dakota and said are you going to make sure these elections are bound? i said what i go vote and my little elementary school here in sioux falls, south dakota, you have to have your id. they cheÑck it and actually double check it with the role and then you go in and vote. so there is no voter fraud republicans, okay? my question to your guest is, why won't trump and republicans accept the fact that they lost? because al gore had to do back when george w. bush won even though i think he sort of got actually screwed in that election. >> host: let's take yourhy don'k tru
i think where to go back to gore v. hanging chads down there, it was that razor thin. what you are saying in your boat is you try to uncover the fraud and tome out to where it would affect the election. we also got to go back to that timeframe, that was during covid. so there's a lot m time. i think this election coming up in 2024 of be like a lot less mail in ballots and more in-person voting. i actually had a guy from mississippi come to our work in south dakota and said are you going to make...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
v. bush thing happened. but when they put god on the cross, the romans did him wrong, but he said we have to believe in government. he had the power to overtake it, but he didn't, because he said there are things we have to endure. as long as we live, never put more than what you can take. host: back to new york, this is john, independent. good morning. caller: i watched the beginning of this, and you sure -- you presented the question do you trust the supreme court regarding the selection thing, and then you showed a chart saying how many people have faith in the supreme court? you showed a chart, some people do, some don't, some people are in between. but they were two different questions. we do not know what context those questions were put in. you said today we have a question that possibly could answer the election results, and another -- host: so stick with whichever you want to answer. the question we put up this morning, do you trust the supreme court when it comes to election 20
v. bush thing happened. but when they put god on the cross, the romans did him wrong, but he said we have to believe in government. he had the power to overtake it, but he didn't, because he said there are things we have to endure. as long as we live, never put more than what you can take. host: back to new york, this is john, independent. good morning. caller: i watched the beginning of this, and you sure -- you presented the question do you trust the supreme court regarding the selection...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
v.ush thing happened. but when they t god on the cross, the roman but he said we have to believe in government. he had the power to ovid there are things we have to endure. as long as we live never put more than what you can take. host:k to new york, this is john, independent. good morning. i watched the beginning of this, and you you presented the question do you trust the supreme court regarding the selection thing, and then you showed a chart saying how many people have faith in the supreme court? you showed a chart, some people do, some don't, some people are in between. but they were two different questions. we do not know what context those questions were put in. you said today we have a question that possibly could answer the election results, and anothe -- host: so stick with whichever you want to answer. the question we put up this morning, do you trust the supreme court when election 2024 cases? we have alsooval ratings over time and that sort of thing, but stick with that ques
v.ush thing happened. but when they t god on the cross, the roman but he said we have to believe in government. he had the power to ovid there are things we have to endure. as long as we live never put more than what you can take. host:k to new york, this is john, independent. good morning. i watched the beginning of this, and you you presented the question do you trust the supreme court regarding the selection thing, and then you showed a chart saying how many people have faith in the supreme...