0
0.0
Feb 20, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i cannot do this justice, but you have to imagine justice ginsburg doing this. upon her injury she announced, i'm the duchess of crack in thorpe. as she did not stop there. justice ginsburg had licensed her right to line -- write the lines for her performance. she talked about how it had opened but not empty minds and were willing to listen and learn. and that they had unsurprisingly and women. the justice was superhuman, we all know that. as an advocate, jurist and teacher, she was an inspiration. but above all else, justice ginsburg was a wonderful human. she was a terrible singer and apparently driver, but hilariously -- hilarious stage performer. she cared deeply about those before her, her clerks, or stare, her family, her friends, this great nation. she approached a life with an open and far from empty mind and was willing to listen and learn as well as teach and explain. it is an understatement to say that it is with our great misfortune to have justice ginsburg in our lives and in our nation. the committee on resolution had prepared resolution summarizin
i cannot do this justice, but you have to imagine justice ginsburg doing this. upon her injury she announced, i'm the duchess of crack in thorpe. as she did not stop there. justice ginsburg had licensed her right to line -- write the lines for her performance. she talked about how it had opened but not empty minds and were willing to listen and learn. and that they had unsurprisingly and women. the justice was superhuman, we all know that. as an advocate, jurist and teacher, she was an...
0
0.0
Feb 17, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
it's as if after 911 when justice started calling another group of justices al qaida. but it also was not a one way street. for example, there are from douglass to murphy this period where he refers to frankfurter as der fÜhrer and the little --. so there's all of personal enmity then among the justices and. what i find interesting with that, too, and then i'll focus to some of the cases in what's going on, both in terms of the war and in terms of domestic affairs. but it's so much it does play out in public there regularly to groups around the country in what almost seems like very political way. or maybe they are just overtly very political. you know, again this is remarkable and this is part of their allegiance to fdr. but again, in 1941, when country was really sort of split, there was strong isolationist sentiment. just about every one of the justices delivers, a very public speeches, strongly supporting fdr his war preparation and talking how important it is. and some of these were explicitly with fdr and the white house. frank murphy was the only catholic on the
it's as if after 911 when justice started calling another group of justices al qaida. but it also was not a one way street. for example, there are from douglass to murphy this period where he refers to frankfurter as der fÜhrer and the little --. so there's all of personal enmity then among the justices and. what i find interesting with that, too, and then i'll focus to some of the cases in what's going on, both in terms of the war and in terms of domestic affairs. but it's so much it does...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice thomas. justice alito. justice alito: suppose there is a countryha proclaims again d ain that the unitedtates is its biggest enemy. suppose the president of the united states for the mac reasons thinks it is in the best inre of the u.s. torode funds or release funds so they can besed by that country. could a state determined that person has genid and comfort to the enemy and therefore keep th person off of the ballot? mr. murray: this court hasever interpreted the eight and mft language which is in the treason clause. it has been really applied because treason prosecutions are ra. commentators have suggested that aid and cfort only applies in a decledar or any adversarial relationship where you there -- where there is in fact a war between two countries. the standard would do a lot of work there because under section three, whatever the uering conduct is, it has to be done with the intent to further the purpose of the insurrection or aid the enemies. justice alo: let mco back to the question of what we woul
chief justice roberts: justice thomas. justice alito. justice alito: suppose there is a countryha proclaims again d ain that the unitedtates is its biggest enemy. suppose the president of the united states for the mac reasons thinks it is in the best inre of the u.s. torode funds or release funds so they can besed by that country. could a state determined that person has genid and comfort to the enemy and therefore keep th person off of the ballot? mr. murray: this court hasever interpreted the...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
in addition to justice scalia, i worked with justice powell.not asking you to comment on this but it seems to me a sad reality there is no world in which someone like that gets on the court today, where someone either does not have opinions about law, justice powell, just a lawyer. justice o'connor had been a judge but she did not chart it out, where she was on most things, and it seems like a loss to not have people like that on the court. we do have them on the courts of appeals for what it's worth. there are plenty of them out there but the selection process has gotten so intense, you have to -- none of your answer with justice o'connor has to do with being first. is that because that's now irrelevant? j. kagan: it is extraordinary. she gets on the court and she is the first and she had the type of background some of her colleagues -- had not the type of background some of her colleagues had had and it turned out she could do a better so she showed them. jeffrey: she was a great questioner. she started things off so you knew where to look as
in addition to justice scalia, i worked with justice powell.not asking you to comment on this but it seems to me a sad reality there is no world in which someone like that gets on the court today, where someone either does not have opinions about law, justice powell, just a lawyer. justice o'connor had been a judge but she did not chart it out, where she was on most things, and it seems like a loss to not have people like that on the court. we do have them on the courts of appeals for what it's...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kagan: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch. juicgorsuch: have not had a chance to talk about the officer point. mr. mitchell makes the argument that in the commissions clause, all officers are to be commissionedy e president. it seems to be all-encompassing, that languag i amurus your response to that. along the way, i poked at the difference between office and officer in the other discussion. one point your friends on the outside would make -on the other sideou make is that is how the constitution uses those terms. when you're the president pro tem of the senate anisigger of the house are officers of the united states because the constitutionaythey are. you also know they don't hold any office in the united states because of the incompatibility clsehat says they cannot. ybe the constitution to us to delay reader might look a little odd. not prepositions, nouns, a distinction. maybe that is how it works. thoughts. mr. murray: i would start with the idea tt e meaning of officer in the 1780's is the same meaning today which is a
justice kagan: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch. juicgorsuch: have not had a chance to talk about the officer point. mr. mitchell makes the argument that in the commissions clause, all officers are to be commissionedy e president. it seems to be all-encompassing, that languag i amurus your response to that. along the way, i poked at the difference between office and officer in the other discussion. one point your friends on the outside would make -on the other sideou make is...
0
0.0
Feb 23, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kagan and justice gorsuch went to iceland? justice barrett: they went to iceland.d i speak together as i do with justice barrett on civic issues with a variety of different audiences. it's not as if we are not spending time together. we do. we have dinners with virtually all my colleagues. i try to invite all of them to my home when they join the court, that's part of my way of welcoming them up your justice barrett: -- welcoming them. justice barrett: justice sotomayor invited us and it was right around my daughter's 18th birthday, and she knew that and had a gift and a birthday card waiting for my daughter. again, it is small gestures and thoughtfulness. i think that's probably one of the things that was striking to people, not just that justice scalia justice ginsburg spent a lot of time together, i think it was probably more surprising later in their lives, closer to the time of justice ginsburg and justice scalia's death, people found it remarkable because by that time our culture had gotten to a place where those kind of friendships were more remarkable. i th
justice kagan and justice gorsuch went to iceland? justice barrett: they went to iceland.d i speak together as i do with justice barrett on civic issues with a variety of different audiences. it's not as if we are not spending time together. we do. we have dinners with virtually all my colleagues. i try to invite all of them to my home when they join the court, that's part of my way of welcoming them up your justice barrett: -- welcoming them. justice barrett: justice sotomayor invited us and...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
most interesting was justice jackson. she kept on pushing lawyers back to the first threshold question of whether the president is even covered by this provision. and she would not let that go. she kept asking about it, and she is someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about the 14th amendment, and she went in a bit into the history on that. but i think what really came out of this is that -- how seriously these justices took it but also they really proved how wrong many commentators have been. many other networks all listeners have heard six conservative justices who would have their day and we are going to be biased and partisan in every respect. this really put the lie to that, and it shows these justices once again are united in their commitment to the constitution. these were very good questions. and this was the moment the supreme court was designed for. it was designed to be able to bring clarity, maybe even -- i presented this case to my supreme court class yesterday and many of those students don't like pre
most interesting was justice jackson. she kept on pushing lawyers back to the first threshold question of whether the president is even covered by this provision. and she would not let that go. she kept asking about it, and she is someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about the 14th amendment, and she went in a bit into the history on that. but i think what really came out of this is that -- how seriously these justices took it but also they really proved how wrong many commentators have...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice alito? justice alito: what is the situation of people who have possessed bump stocksetween the time of the atf's new rule and the present day, or between the time of the new rule and the fifth circuit decision can they bprecuted? mr. fletcher: probablye unless they have gotten some jucial relief. the rule has not been vacated right large, so the government has been clear ts is what we think the statute means. justicalo: isn't that sturbing? people in the fifth circuit who have been possessing firearms since the beginning of 2023, let's say they are aware of the fifth circui's decision they can be crimill procud for doing something the court of appeals that governs their territory has said is not illegal. mrfletcher: i will give a practical answer and a doctrinal aner practically i am not aware of the prosecutions being brought because we recognize there is legal uncerin. that happens all the time, circuits disagree about what a criminalaweans a someone might do somhi they think is lawful und
justice alito? justice alito: what is the situation of people who have possessed bump stocksetween the time of the atf's new rule and the present day, or between the time of the new rule and the fifth circuit decision can they bprecuted? mr. fletcher: probablye unless they have gotten some jucial relief. the rule has not been vacated right large, so the government has been clear ts is what we think the statute means. justicalo: isn't that sturbing? people in the fifth circuit who have been...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice chief justice roberts: justice thomas, any further? >> is there any evidence of other stat ung section three wbar -- to bar -- mr. mitchell: not that i am aware. >> thank you. justice sotomayor: i would like to condone your principal argument on seconhree. en though the president may may not qualify for the esency may or may not qualify as an office of the uned states, your principal argument is that the president is not an officer of the united states correct? mr. mitchell: i would say it more forfuy than what you described. we belie t presidency is excluded from office under the united states but the argument that he is excluded is the stronger of the two textually. justice sotomayor: a bit of a gerrymandered rule designing it to benefit your client. mr. mitchell: i would not use the term gerrymandeds that would suggest nefarious -- justice sotomayor: only the petier is disqualified because virtually every other presidentxcept washington has taken an oath to support the constituon correct? mr. mitchell and john am might also be exclu
justice chief justice roberts: justice thomas, any further? >> is there any evidence of other stat ung section three wbar -- to bar -- mr. mitchell: not that i am aware. >> thank you. justice sotomayor: i would like to condone your principal argument on seconhree. en though the president may may not qualify for the esency may or may not qualify as an office of the uned states, your principal argument is that the president is not an officer of the united states correct? mr. mitchell:...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
host: what were the justices saying? what types of questions were they asking revolving around the 14th amendment, section three? guest: it's very interesting because this came up kind of quickly and was put on the docket quickly by the court with the belief that they need to address this. once they did disqualify donald trump, other states had reached the opposite conclusion or not disqualified him on technical reasons. yet, other states are considering this. so, i think the court felt it was important. there are many complex questions that are embedded in this case. what was clear from the beginning was that the court was not going to engage -- the basic question, did donald trump engage in insurrection? they were going to work on the margins of some of the other more complicated issues first and last. host: it was one hour before that very question came up. it was asked by justice ketanji brown jackson to the presidents lawyer. what is likelihood after listening to more than two hours today, this oral argument, that t
host: what were the justices saying? what types of questions were they asking revolving around the 14th amendment, section three? guest: it's very interesting because this came up kind of quickly and was put on the docket quickly by the court with the belief that they need to address this. once they did disqualify donald trump, other states had reached the opposite conclusion or not disqualified him on technical reasons. yet, other states are considering this. so, i think the court felt it was...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
we heard a lot from the court, particularly the chief justice, justice kavanaugh, justice alito, about how if you affirm the colorado decision, it will empower states to mess with federal elections. to be sure, that's a risk. but what you never heard the trump challengers really get at was the risk on the other side, that this is a part of our constitution forged after the civil war at one of the most difficult times in our nation's history, and yet we came together and said, insurrectionists can't be on the ballot, not just about the civil war, but going forward for all sorts of reasons. there was no discussion of that really. basically, they allowed donald trump to read the 14th amendment like a tax code, looking for a loophole here and a loophole there. unfortunately, the stakes on the other side were not presented to the court today. i saw only one justice really, sotomayor, who was listening to what the colorado challengers were saying. it wouldn't shock me if even she, when push came to shove and she reads the transcript of the argument, may come the other way. the justices could
we heard a lot from the court, particularly the chief justice, justice kavanaugh, justice alito, about how if you affirm the colorado decision, it will empower states to mess with federal elections. to be sure, that's a risk. but what you never heard the trump challengers really get at was the risk on the other side, that this is a part of our constitution forged after the civil war at one of the most difficult times in our nation's history, and yet we came together and said, insurrectionists...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice thomas? justice alito? >> i suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again and again that the united states is its biggest enemy, and suppose that the president of the united states, for diplomatic reasons, think that it is in the best interest of the united states to provide funds or release funds, so that they can be used by that country. could a state determine that that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy, and therefore keep that person off the ballot? >> no, your honor. this court has never interpreted the aid and comfort language which also is present in the treason clause. but, commentators suggested it has been rarely applied because treason prosecutions are so rare. aid and comfort really only applies in the context of a declared war or at least an adversarial relationship where there is in fact a war between two countries, and, second, the intense standard would do a lot of work there. under section 3, whatever the underlying conduct is, engaging in insurrection or aid and com
justice thomas? justice alito? >> i suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again and again that the united states is its biggest enemy, and suppose that the president of the united states, for diplomatic reasons, think that it is in the best interest of the united states to provide funds or release funds, so that they can be used by that country. could a state determine that that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy, and therefore keep that person off the ballot?...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
remember the special counsel's part of the department of justice. i think one is that that crime had not been charged for many years and so this idea that they're reaching back to that crime to single out donald trump, which would certainly be an attack. there's an answer to that, which is we've never been in that situation before. but i think the other is, if you think that there's a claim of politics now, if you brought that charge, the idea is that has that penalty, you are avoiding all that. and i think that's really worth taking a step back to note that if you think about what we are seeing with comparing this justice department, both in the discussion we're having now about the fact they didn't charge insurrection, they did not seek to make it disqualifying for donald trump, and relate that also to what you saw in the special counsel report today, this is the justice department that appointed a special counsel for the sitting president, appointed a special counsel with respect to a sitting presidents son. you did not have merrick garland, for
remember the special counsel's part of the department of justice. i think one is that that crime had not been charged for many years and so this idea that they're reaching back to that crime to single out donald trump, which would certainly be an attack. there's an answer to that, which is we've never been in that situation before. but i think the other is, if you think that there's a claim of politics now, if you brought that charge, the idea is that has that penalty, you are avoiding all...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice ka gvanaugh?i would like to look into in the processes used ratified in 1668, the next year of chief justice chase opines that the states do not have the authorities that only congress has the authority to enforce that, and that could be evidence as you say the original public meaning, and some evidence, and a precedent and though not binding, but it is reinforced, because congress, itself, relies on the enforcement of 1870 against the backdrop of which congress does legislate, and as justice alito says, the historical practice for 155 years has been that's the way it has gone, or there have not been state attempts to enforce disqualification under section iii of disqualify in the years since. and that is the enforcement of what happened in 1868, 1869, and 1870. do you want to add to that or -- >> no, that is crucial to the case. it is the griffin case, and the providing of the backdrop of legislation, and why we should read those extant mechanisms and why we should read that as state court remedi
justice ka gvanaugh?i would like to look into in the processes used ratified in 1668, the next year of chief justice chase opines that the states do not have the authorities that only congress has the authority to enforce that, and that could be evidence as you say the original public meaning, and some evidence, and a precedent and though not binding, but it is reinforced, because congress, itself, relies on the enforcement of 1870 against the backdrop of which congress does legislate, and as...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice thomas? justice thomas: mr. mitchell, i think you would agree that the bump stock accelerates the rate of fire. mr. mitchell: absolutely. why wouldn't you then take the further step of saying it changes the nature of the trigger in doing that? >> because the trigger still has to reset after every single shot. it's not accelerating by changing the trigger, it's accelerating the rate of fire -- >> that's not really what -- >> i'm sorry. >> why wouldn't you say that you have enhanced the triggering mechanism by using the bump stock? >> because it's not changing the triggering mechanism at all. it's simple making it easier for the shooter to bump that trigger repeatedly. the nature of the triggering mechanism remains exactly the same. what's going on inside the gun after the trigger got bumped is no different than what it would be if it were a semiautomatic rifle without the bump stock. that's why the government can't win on this single function of the trigger. >> i think the difference is that there may be some who
justice thomas? justice thomas: mr. mitchell, i think you would agree that the bump stock accelerates the rate of fire. mr. mitchell: absolutely. why wouldn't you then take the further step of saying it changes the nature of the trigger in doing that? >> because the trigger still has to reset after every single shot. it's not accelerating by changing the trigger, it's accelerating the rate of fire -- >> that's not really what -- >> i'm sorry. >> why wouldn't you say that...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i can't imagine why couldn't have known immediately justice by justice whether they thought the casetant enough to take. and, you know, i've heard others say and i don't isagree with this, this could have been an effort by the justices to actually convince others maybe newt to take the case and it took this amount of time. they could have also been trying to hammer out what the actual question would be they decided to take, but still almost two weeks is surprising to me, and i think that's why a lot of us thought they would deny cer-touch in term of my surprise about the justices, there's at least two who maybe want to side with the former president on this or at least don't want to see him go to trial before the election, but i think that, you know, most of the justices ultimately i think will calm down on the same side the d.c. circuit did and determine that on these facts if they reach this, if they don't send it back to judge chutkan to determine whether this was in the scope of his official acts or not, but if they actually look at the facts of this case and address whether on a
i can't imagine why couldn't have known immediately justice by justice whether they thought the casetant enough to take. and, you know, i've heard others say and i don't isagree with this, this could have been an effort by the justices to actually convince others maybe newt to take the case and it took this amount of time. they could have also been trying to hammer out what the actual question would be they decided to take, but still almost two weeks is surprising to me, and i think that's why...
1
1.0
Feb 24, 2024
02/24
by
IRINN
tv
eye 1
favorite 0
quote 0
please tell me, not only about justice, but your opinion of justice. i want to understand the impact of this value added tax on the pensioner , the relief and welfare committee, and the worker, and even the unemployed. well, after we took it and gave it to the pensioner and that's it. let's do justice. i don't think we should lose the main point of the discussion. i'll give you the answer now . i'll be born again. everything i heard about justice and review once more. judgment is with the audience . what does it mean that judgment is with the audience? please feel free to answer this, i will give my opinion and you too order if you have an opinion. i have my own opinion. we can sit in two studios and talk at some time . this is a debate. let me answer your question, sir . i suggest that you take a look. let me take a benefit here, now that our path is that how to raise salaries and how to determine the minimum , the main point of our discussion in this meeting was that one view was that it was proportional, the other view was that at least we believed
please tell me, not only about justice, but your opinion of justice. i want to understand the impact of this value added tax on the pensioner , the relief and welfare committee, and the worker, and even the unemployed. well, after we took it and gave it to the pensioner and that's it. let's do justice. i don't think we should lose the main point of the discussion. i'll give you the answer now . i'll be born again. everything i heard about justice and review once more. judgment is with the...
1
1.0
Feb 25, 2024
02/24
by
IRINN
tv
eye 1
favorite 0
quote 0
doctor , educational justice is definitely the central symbol of social justice. that is, social justice will not happen in this country unless educational justice happens, because it is from the basis of educational justice that good but poor talents can be born. how do you define justice at all? some people say, sir, that justice is the distribution of facilities based on the needs of those who need more. some people say that justice is the distribution of services based on the talents of those who are the most talented and talented. he is not smart, he does not want facilities, some say no this is not justice at all. justice in education means equality. i am expressing my opinion . i hope i am not wrong. since educational justice is based on providing a service, first of all , it means providing services based on the level of need, that is, the area that is deprived. if he reaches a standard floor , he should have a teacher in the class instead of sitting in a caper. so far, it is fair, that is , you should give him more credit to reach this level. for example,
doctor , educational justice is definitely the central symbol of social justice. that is, social justice will not happen in this country unless educational justice happens, because it is from the basis of educational justice that good but poor talents can be born. how do you define justice at all? some people say, sir, that justice is the distribution of facilities based on the needs of those who need more. some people say that justice is the distribution of services based on the talents of...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and so you could have had a lot justices even justices who think that legally there was a problem with colorado, but factually, there's a determination here. there was a hearing that we lived through this. everyone watched it on tv. so steer wag from the facts, was a smart move and to neil's point if you're on the other side, you need to be focusing on those facts and saying the talking about what happened. and steering it to some part that's useful. i think here justice jackson is saying you do not want to wrestle with it. she was a star in this hearing. just making really good points, really tough questioning. it's very good for the country to see justices who are viewed as either lib call or conservative asking really good questions that seem completely apolitical and very focused on text, history, why would this be done, would it even make sense. and look at the result and saying if it's the result that could occur, all this chaos. is that would have been intended at the time. this is the professor in me. it's really useful for the country to see a body sitting -- especially the su
and so you could have had a lot justices even justices who think that legally there was a problem with colorado, but factually, there's a determination here. there was a hearing that we lived through this. everyone watched it on tv. so steer wag from the facts, was a smart move and to neil's point if you're on the other side, you need to be focusing on those facts and saying the talking about what happened. and steering it to some part that's useful. i think here justice jackson is saying you...
131
131
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 131
favorite 0
quote 1
>> justice sotomayor: justice kagan? justice kavanaugh? justice jackson? anything further? thank you, counsel. >> thank you. >> chief justice roberts: rebutt al, mr. mitchell? >> poet rely on the elector's clause authority of each state to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors. that prerogative under article 2 must be exercised in a manner consistent with other constitutional provisions and restrictions. and justice kagan alluded to one of those restrictions that might be imposed by the first amendment. but there are others. a state cannot use its power under article 2's elector's clause to instruct its presidential electors only to vote for white candidates that would violate the equal protection clause nor can it exercise in a manner that would violate the constitutional holding of u.s. term limits against authorton. and they cannot use the elector's clause as an excuse additional qualifications for the presidency to go beyond what the constitution enumerous rates in article 2 the colorado state court changed the criteria in section 3 by making it a requir
>> justice sotomayor: justice kagan? justice kavanaugh? justice jackson? anything further? thank you, counsel. >> thank you. >> chief justice roberts: rebutt al, mr. mitchell? >> poet rely on the elector's clause authority of each state to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors. that prerogative under article 2 must be exercised in a manner consistent with other constitutional provisions and restrictions. and justice kagan alluded to one of those...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and that seemed to be very much on the justices' minds today, in particular justice kavanaugh searchingto understand are there other ways in which barring impeachment, a former president can be made ineligible to hold office and he invoked a particular federal statute, 18 usc 2383, and if you're convicted of that statute, which was not charged hero here by the department of justice against trump, but if you were convicted you were disqualified from holding office. jonathan mitchell made very clear he agreed with justice kavanaugh on his interpretation. of course we're not conceding that because we believe former president trump is immune. justice kavanaugh didn't want to engage in that issue now. that signaled one of the things justice kavanaugh is thinking about, in overturning this colorado kour, one of the things he can say -- one of the remedies is that the department of justice can prosecute a former president for insurrection and thereby disqualify him, in the same way congress can by using the 14th amendment. >> in a way they couldn't have planned it this way, but in a way the wa
and that seemed to be very much on the justices' minds today, in particular justice kavanaugh searchingto understand are there other ways in which barring impeachment, a former president can be made ineligible to hold office and he invoked a particular federal statute, 18 usc 2383, and if you're convicted of that statute, which was not charged hero here by the department of justice against trump, but if you were convicted you were disqualified from holding office. jonathan mitchell made very...
SFGTV: San Francisco Government Television
0
0.0
Feb 5, 2024
02/24
by
SFGTV
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
what is justice? justice is giving every man his due. in that same code, a couple lines down, it said that but slaves have no rights. slaves have no rights. so, in this 6th century code of roman society, justice is giving every man his due, but you had to be a citizen of rome to be able to get your due. but if you were a slave you had no rights. that means you had no justice. that means there was no law that a white man was bound to respect if you were a black person. you heard of that before? that term or that sentence, justice is giving every man his due is the basis for how we in our modern society define justice. our western society defines justice based on the 6th century principal where slaves couldn't partake. where women even though they were citizens couldn't partake and it is that definition that we use to frame what justice means today. under law giving every man his due. justice comes from somewhere else other then that. justice comes from somewhere else. our own howard thurman, the mentor to dr. king, howard thurman started
what is justice? justice is giving every man his due. in that same code, a couple lines down, it said that but slaves have no rights. slaves have no rights. so, in this 6th century code of roman society, justice is giving every man his due, but you had to be a citizen of rome to be able to get your due. but if you were a slave you had no rights. that means you had no justice. that means there was no law that a white man was bound to respect if you were a black person. you heard of that before?...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i shouldn't really say justice chase, which is what the supreme court justices were saying, because he wasn't acting as a supreme court justice. he was acting as what we would call a circuit court judge. he just rendered a decision on his own, which totally contradicted the position he had taken just a year earlier in the jefferson davis treason trial. and there, he was advancing the opinion that why doesn't jefferson davis try to get off by saying he can't be prosecuted and convicted for treason because it would constitute double jeopardy because he's already been excluded from serving as president by section 3 of the 14th amendment. as a legal argument, that's totally wrong, of course, because section 3 of the 14th amendment is a civil disqualification, which can be removed by congress ultimately. it's not criminal, so there's no double jeopardy. that was perfectly clear, according to the framers of the constitution. in any event, all of it is irrelevant because it's not a binding supreme court opinion. so really, they're looking at it afresh, and a lot of them seem to like the argum
i shouldn't really say justice chase, which is what the supreme court justices were saying, because he wasn't acting as a supreme court justice. he was acting as what we would call a circuit court judge. he just rendered a decision on his own, which totally contradicted the position he had taken just a year earlier in the jefferson davis treason trial. and there, he was advancing the opinion that why doesn't jefferson davis try to get off by saying he can't be prosecuted and convicted for...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
supreme court as the justices voice deep skepticism. we'll bring you the latest details on the largest and. >>> also a damning special counsel report finds president biden willfully retained classified information after leaving the vice presidency, but will not, not face charges form the report laying out key differences between biden's cooperation with the instruction and trump's alleged obstruction of his own documents case. >>> welcome to our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer, you're in "the situation room." ♪ >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >>> we're following major legal developments affecting the two men likely heading toward a presidential rematch. paula reid has more on donald trump appearing to win over the supreme court. and a special counsel report of biden's handling of documents. this looks like a pretty good date across the country. absolutely, wolf. >> reporter: there was no drama, no outbursts. instead, it was trump's lawyer making nuanced legal arguments before justices who app
supreme court as the justices voice deep skepticism. we'll bring you the latest details on the largest and. >>> also a damning special counsel report finds president biden willfully retained classified information after leaving the vice presidency, but will not, not face charges form the report laying out key differences between biden's cooperation with the instruction and trump's alleged obstruction of his own documents case. >>> welcome to our viewers in the united states...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the justices are going to roll? it could be an unanimous opinion, based on what you heard? >> you sure have got to think that. i agree. i've argued six times in the supreme court. i've won nine cases there. you have to be cautious in reaching conclusions about the questions they ask. many of these justices were talking about not just asking questions or devils advocate question, they were expressing their own concerns about the colorado decision, where it would lead the country. it is very important that our elections be considered legitimate, and this willie nearly state by state, maybe just one bureaucrat or state court judge taking a presidential candidate off with the result of affecting the outcome of the election. it's just intolerable. it does, i think it is congress's role, and that's where they will leave it to. >> george conway, i want you to take a listen to the lawyer for the colorado voters responding to a question from justice kavanaugh. >> what about the idea we should think about democracy? think abo
the justices are going to roll? it could be an unanimous opinion, based on what you heard? >> you sure have got to think that. i agree. i've argued six times in the supreme court. i've won nine cases there. you have to be cautious in reaching conclusions about the questions they ask. many of these justices were talking about not just asking questions or devils advocate question, they were expressing their own concerns about the colorado decision, where it would lead the country. it is...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
there was maybe one justice, justice sotomayor that might go the other way, but it was clear the justices are going to reverse the decision of the colorado supreme court. the bigger questions are, first, how are they going to do it? one way if they do it taking one path they leave it to congress to decide. we come to january 6th, 2025, it's a situation where trump appears to have won but if democrats control congress they decide he can't sit. that would create a lot of political instability. but if they go another path, if they follow what justice jackson seemed to suggest, this provision, section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the presidency, then that takes the sish u off the table. put that together with an immunity case, you could see it kind of compromise where the court says trump gets to be on the ballot but he's going on trial this spring for election subversion and the voters are going to decide if he's qualified or not to be professor again. >> professor? >> i think that's exactly right. one of the things that struck me today, ari, was how little time this took. i had
there was maybe one justice, justice sotomayor that might go the other way, but it was clear the justices are going to reverse the decision of the colorado supreme court. the bigger questions are, first, how are they going to do it? one way if they do it taking one path they leave it to congress to decide. we come to january 6th, 2025, it's a situation where trump appears to have won but if democrats control congress they decide he can't sit. that would create a lot of political instability....
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
if justice jackson or justice kagan are on board, there is a strategic advantage to him in giving them the opinion to really convey to the country that we are speaking with one voice. that's what john roberts said years ago was the greatest challenge for a chief justice was to get the court to speak with one voice. and i think he will make that priority in whatever they do. >> bret: it will be fascinating. weave will be watching it all. jonathan, as always, thank you. >> thanks, bret. >> bret: stocks were up today with the dow and the s&p finishing with new record closes. the coup adding 49. the s&p 500 gained 3. the nasdaq was up 37. meantime, on capitol hill, senate lawmakers tonight are scrambling to try find a path forward on foreign aid legislation after the senate tanked a bill that tied border security and foreign aid together. that's supplemental we talked about. but a major hurdle may have been cleared tonight. congressional correspondent aishah hasnie with the breaking news update from capitol hill. good evening, aishah. >> right, good evening to you. a whopping 17 g.o.p. sen
if justice jackson or justice kagan are on board, there is a strategic advantage to him in giving them the opinion to really convey to the country that we are speaking with one voice. that's what john roberts said years ago was the greatest challenge for a chief justice was to get the court to speak with one voice. and i think he will make that priority in whatever they do. >> bret: it will be fascinating. weave will be watching it all. jonathan, as always, thank you. >> thanks,...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
senior justice. he was pretty animated with you. there is some irony, and i'll just say this myself, that his wife, her relationship with the insurrection i found ironic when listening to him speak. it was a point at which he talked about the plethora of confederates still around after the civil war. there are any number of people who can continue to run for state office so it would seem, he said, that that would suggest that there would at least be a few examples of national candidates being disqualified if your reading is correct. there was a lot of engagement with you on this question. if this is such an obvious point, in section three is self executing, why aren't there other cases that we can cite where insurrectionists were disqualified in the way that you are arguing donald trump should be disqualified. i would love for you to say more on that. if we could have a longer exchange, what more would you say? >> one of the extraordinary things about this case is that we have about 50 professors of
senior justice. he was pretty animated with you. there is some irony, and i'll just say this myself, that his wife, her relationship with the insurrection i found ironic when listening to him speak. it was a point at which he talked about the plethora of confederates still around after the civil war. there are any number of people who can continue to run for state office so it would seem, he said, that that would suggest that there would at least be a few examples of national candidates being...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
KPIX
quote
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
>> norah: catherine herridge out by the justice department, thank you. well, now to the historic arguments today at the super u.s. supreme court. at issue is whether former president donald trump is constitutionally ineligible to hold office again because of his actions surrounding the january 6th attack. and while there are no cameras allowed inside the nation's highest court, there is a live audio cbs's chief legal correspondent jan crawford says they'd give an insight today into how the justices may ultimately rule. >> reporter: indicates that could determine the presidency, the justices seems to find mere common ground. perhaps ruling unanimously that states can't use an obscure constitutional provision to kick donald trump off the ballot. that would be up to congress. liberal justice elena kagan got right to the point. >> i think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the united states. >> reporter: conservative amy coney barrett agreed. >> it just doesn't seem like a state call. >
>> norah: catherine herridge out by the justice department, thank you. well, now to the historic arguments today at the super u.s. supreme court. at issue is whether former president donald trump is constitutionally ineligible to hold office again because of his actions surrounding the january 6th attack. and while there are no cameras allowed inside the nation's highest court, there is a live audio cbs's chief legal correspondent jan crawford says they'd give an insight today into how...
0
0.0
Feb 1, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
if part of justice thomas' debt -- justice thomas' debt was forgiven, he had to report it.f the facts based on the documents the finance committee has obtained and reviewed is that justice thomas never paid back a dollar of principal on a quarter million-dollar loan. and that the donor long ago stopped collecting even interest on that loan. so let's take a look at the law. justice thomas likely didn't have to report the loan itself. justices don't need to report loans secured by a personal vehicle as long as the value of the loan isn't worth more than the vehicle itself. if justice thomas put up the r.v. as collateral for his loan and did not obtain more money, then the r. -- than the r.v. was worth, there was no need for him to disclose the loan. but all that changes if any part of the loan was forgiven later on. and as the chairman has said, when you've collected not one dollar in principal and collecting interest, that sure looks like forgiveness of a loan. and a loan you don't pay back is a form of income. the law requires officials to disclose any income they receive o
if part of justice thomas' debt -- justice thomas' debt was forgiven, he had to report it.f the facts based on the documents the finance committee has obtained and reviewed is that justice thomas never paid back a dollar of principal on a quarter million-dollar loan. and that the donor long ago stopped collecting even interest on that loan. so let's take a look at the law. justice thomas likely didn't have to report the loan itself. justices don't need to report loans secured by a personal...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice alito?>> is there any history of states using section 3 as a way to bar federal office holdingers? >> not that i'm aware of, justice alito because of griffin's case. griffin's case has been the law -- i shouldn't say it's been the law, it's a circuit court decision, but that has been the settled understanding since 1870 when it was decided. >> thank you. >> i want to pin down your principal argument on section 3. you argue that even though the president may or may not qualify, presidency may or may not qualify as an office under the united states, your principal argument is that the president is not an officer of the united states, correct? >> i would say a little more forcefully than what your honor just described. we believe the presidency is excluded from office under the united states, but the argument we have that he's excluded, the president as an officer of the united states is the stronger of the two textually. >> a bit of a gerrymandered rule, isn't it? deciding to benefit only your
justice alito?>> is there any history of states using section 3 as a way to bar federal office holdingers? >> not that i'm aware of, justice alito because of griffin's case. griffin's case has been the law -- i shouldn't say it's been the law, it's a circuit court decision, but that has been the settled understanding since 1870 when it was decided. >> thank you. >> i want to pin down your principal argument on section 3. you argue that even though the president may or...
65
65
tv
eye 65
favorite 0
quote 1
such comments have no place in a department of justice report. then adding, in fact, there is ample evidence from your interview that the president did well in answering your questions about years-old events over the course of five hours. bottom line, while this report legally clears the president, politically, david, this could still be damaging. >> david: mare rip bruce live at the white house tonight. mary, thank you. >>> across town, we move on now to the showdown at the supreme court tonight. donald trump appealing the colorado supreme court ruling finding that under the 14th amendment, trump can be barred from the ballot for his role in the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. the justices now at the nation's highest court tonight appearing unlikely to keep trump off the ballot. terry moran at the court. >> reporter: at the supreme court today, sharp skepticism from the justices -- both conservative and liberal -- about a colorado court's decision to ban donald trump from the 2024 presidential ballot for his efforts to overturn the 2020
such comments have no place in a department of justice report. then adding, in fact, there is ample evidence from your interview that the president did well in answering your questions about years-old events over the course of five hours. bottom line, while this report legally clears the president, politically, david, this could still be damaging. >> david: mare rip bruce live at the white house tonight. mary, thank you. >>> across town, we move on now to the showdown at the...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
remember the special counsel's part of the department of justice. is that that crime had not been charged for many years and so this idea that they're reaching back to that crime to single out donald trump, which would certainly be an attack. there's an answer to that, which is we've never been in that situation before. but i think the other is, if you think that there's a claim of politics now, if you brought that charge, the idea is that has that penalty, you are avoiding all that. and i think that's really worth taking a step back to note that if you think about what we are seeing with comparing this justice department, both in the discussion we're having now about the fact they didn't charge insurrection, they did not seek to make it disqualifying for donald trump, and relate that also to what you saw in the special counsel report today, this is the justice department that appointed a special counsel for the sitting president, appointed a special counsel with respect to a sitting presidents son. you did not have merrick garland, for instance, is
remember the special counsel's part of the department of justice. is that that crime had not been charged for many years and so this idea that they're reaching back to that crime to single out donald trump, which would certainly be an attack. there's an answer to that, which is we've never been in that situation before. but i think the other is, if you think that there's a claim of politics now, if you brought that charge, the idea is that has that penalty, you are avoiding all that. and i...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and when some of the justices, including justice gorsuch, and the chief justice, and even justice kagan suggested that colorado was trying to rule the whole country by applying some obscure standard or obscure rules of evidence to decide what was an insurrection, that was a fantasy. colorado isn't saying we have the last word, they were just doing their job by applying the constitution. subject to the u.s. supreme court's final review and. the idea that one state might make a big difference is hardly novel. have they ever heard of the electoral college? what about florida in bush v. gore in the year 2000? our whole system delegates enormous power to the states under article two of the 12 minute. it gives them anonymous power to run even the presidential election. and then running that election, they really need to obey the constitution. part of which is section three of the 14th amendment. now there were other aspects of the case that i found intriguing but why don't you ask me what you have in mind and i will rather engage in a consultation then a soliloquy. >> you did touch on one of
and when some of the justices, including justice gorsuch, and the chief justice, and even justice kagan suggested that colorado was trying to rule the whole country by applying some obscure standard or obscure rules of evidence to decide what was an insurrection, that was a fantasy. colorado isn't saying we have the last word, they were just doing their job by applying the constitution. subject to the u.s. supreme court's final review and. the idea that one state might make a big difference is...