0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this sort of ties into justice kavanaugh's point. in other words, we had a person right there at the time saying what i'm saying. the language here doesn't seem to include president. why is that? so if there's an ambiguity, why would we construe it to -- as justice kavanaugh pointed out -- against democracy? >> johnson agreed with that reading. any office is clear, the constitution says about 20 times -- >> i'm not going to -- let me just say, your point is that there's no ambiguity with having a list and not having president in it with having a history that suggests they were really focussed on local concerns in the south, with this conversation where the legislators actually discussed what looked like an ambiguity, you are saying there's no ambiguity in section 3? >> let me take the point specifically about electors and senators, if i might. >> yes. >> that might be important. presidential electors were not covered, because they don't hold an office. they vote. >> i'm talking about the barred office part of this. >> exactly. the ba
this sort of ties into justice kavanaugh's point. in other words, we had a person right there at the time saying what i'm saying. the language here doesn't seem to include president. why is that? so if there's an ambiguity, why would we construe it to -- as justice kavanaugh pointed out -- against democracy? >> johnson agreed with that reading. any office is clear, the constitution says about 20 times -- >> i'm not going to -- let me just say, your point is that there's no ambiguity...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
president trump's lawyer awkwardly brought it up with brett kavanaugh. while brett kavanaugh was trying to focus on this question of why president trump wasn't prosecuted for insurrection, and we've been talking about that a little bit tonight, this idea that because trump hasn't been charged specifically with insurrection, that suddenly seemed to create this incredible clarity among all the justices that had that thing happened, then this would be something that there would be an easy answer to when we know what to do when this would be settled in a definitive way. i just wanted to ask here, your reaction to that. it doesn't seem clear to me why it's necessary for trump to be charged with or convicted of insurrection for the constitution's ban on insurrection serving in office to be effectuated. what did you think of how that part of it was handled? >> i was a little frustrated at how deeply disrespectful i felt that the court was about the process that happened in the colorado trial court. there was a trial on the merits. there were, as you just heard,
president trump's lawyer awkwardly brought it up with brett kavanaugh. while brett kavanaugh was trying to focus on this question of why president trump wasn't prosecuted for insurrection, and we've been talking about that a little bit tonight, this idea that because trump hasn't been charged specifically with insurrection, that suddenly seemed to create this incredible clarity among all the justices that had that thing happened, then this would be something that there would be an easy answer...
0
0.0
Feb 11, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh? justice jackson? thank you. rebutt. mitchell? >> they rely heavily on the authority that it gives the legislature of eh ate to direct the manner of ectg. it must be consistent. there are others. a state cannot instruct its electo oy to vote forhi candidates. nor cant violate the constitutional holding and they cannot use the electorate clause as an excuse to impose additional to go beyond the constitution. the problem with what it has done is that they have changed the criteria in sectionhree by maki ia requirement that must be met before the candidate who is seeking office actually holds the office, essentially moving forward in time. the has still been no and there on how distinguish the residey cas, ere the court of appeals and applying this court's holding have unanimousl disapproved state laws, requiring congressional candidates to show that they inhabit thste from which they seek election prior to election d. there is sllo possible way to distinguish those from the tuation below. mr. murray also invoked the nsuences that wo
justice kavanaugh? justice jackson? thank you. rebutt. mitchell? >> they rely heavily on the authority that it gives the legislature of eh ate to direct the manner of ectg. it must be consistent. there are others. a state cannot instruct its electo oy to vote forhi candidates. nor cant violate the constitutional holding and they cannot use the electorate clause as an excuse to impose additional to go beyond the constitution. the problem with what it has done is that they have changed the...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
th ties into justice kavanaugh's point. we had a person at the time saying what i am saying, the language does not seem to include president. why is that? if the i ambiguity, why would cstrue it to >> johnson came back -- it is clear that the constitution says abt 20 times. christ let me just say. your point is that there is no ambiguy. with this conversation where the gislators actually discussed what looked like ambiguity, you are saying there is no ity. >> this is important. they do not hold an office. they vote. >> i'm talking about the office part of this. >> first you have to specify electors. they would not fall under any office. theyo t hold office. the constitution told us tt under the clause and refers to them. you want to make sure that there is no doubt the area covered, given that this constitution suggests otherwise. other high offices, the president, vice president -- wes i appreciate that argument. if we think that the state cannot enforce this provision for whatever reason, in this context, what happens nt
th ties into justice kavanaugh's point. we had a person at the time saying what i am saying, the language does not seem to include president. why is that? if the i ambiguity, why would cstrue it to >> johnson came back -- it is clear that the constitution says abt 20 times. christ let me just say. your point is that there is no ambiguy. with this conversation where the gislators actually discussed what looked like ambiguity, you are saying there is no ity. >> this is important. they...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh? e jackson? thank you. rebuttal, mr. mi? >> they rely heavily on the authority that it gives the legislature of each state direct the manner of electing. it must be consistent. there are others. a state cannot instruct its electors only toot for white candidates. nor can it violate the constitutional holdingndhey cannot use the electorate cuse as an excuse to impose additional to go beyond the constitution. the problem with what it has done is that they have changed the criteria in section three by making it a reirent that must be m before the candidate whis seeking oice actually holds the officeessentially moving forward in time. there hastl been no and there on how to distinguish the residency cases, where e urt of appeals and applying this cou's hding have unanimously sapproved stateaws, requiring congressional candat to show that they inhabit the state from which they seek election prior to election day. there is still no poib way to distinguish those from the situatn low. . rray also invoked the consequenc tt would foll
justice kavanaugh? e jackson? thank you. rebuttal, mr. mi? >> they rely heavily on the authority that it gives the legislature of each state direct the manner of electing. it must be consistent. there are others. a state cannot instruct its electors only toot for white candidates. nor can it violate the constitutional holdingndhey cannot use the electorate cuse as an excuse to impose additional to go beyond the constitution. the problem with what it has done is that they have changed the...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh didn't want to engage in that issue now.that signaled one of the things justice kavanaugh is thinking about, in overturning this colorado kour, one of the things he can say -- one of the remedies is that the department of justice can prosecute a former president for insurrection and thereby disqualify him, in the same way congress can by using the 14th amendment. >> in a way they couldn't have planned it this way, but in a way the way history has evolved in the last couple of weeks, the supreme court may be inoculating itself from coming down heavily on one side or the other by siding with donald trump against colorado in this case, if as we seem to be all agreeing they probably will, and then in some fashion either not accepting cert on the immunity issue or disposing of it in a way that still leaves donald trump vulnerable to whatever the justice department -- the course of justice rather in these cases, in these trials if they proceed, and if they are not further delayed, beyond the election will have their effect with ju
justice kavanaugh didn't want to engage in that issue now.that signaled one of the things justice kavanaugh is thinking about, in overturning this colorado kour, one of the things he can say -- one of the remedies is that the department of justice can prosecute a former president for insurrection and thereby disqualify him, in the same way congress can by using the 14th amendment. >> in a way they couldn't have planned it this way, but in a way the way history has evolved in the last...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
if there is an ambiguity, why would be construe it as justice kavanaugh pointed out?st democracy. >> what is your response? >> i think that it's always a mistake to conclude from a particular question where the justices psyche or interpretation is. i think that she was trying to tease out the point. section three of the 14th amendment was meant in a categorical way to disqualify anybody who had participated in an insurrection of violence against the union, and previously had sworn an oath of office to hold office again. i think he was trying to get back -- that is part of a question, trying to get back to the reconstruction era context of the radical republicans partition of the 14th amendment to the constitution. >> congressman, i want to ask about the moment that we find the supreme court. you and i used to teach a lot at american universities. you mentioned marbury, the notion that the court is trying to find maybe some kind of political moment. it seems to be that part of the problem, why there is such a discussion off-ramp, is because of where the court is at thi
if there is an ambiguity, why would be construe it as justice kavanaugh pointed out?st democracy. >> what is your response? >> i think that it's always a mistake to conclude from a particular question where the justices psyche or interpretation is. i think that she was trying to tease out the point. section three of the 14th amendment was meant in a categorical way to disqualify anybody who had participated in an insurrection of violence against the union, and previously had sworn...
0
0.0
Feb 2, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and the senate who made the will of an open line and take a look at the language, two points justice kavanaughhe texas case. the first as the district court found the executive branch does not possess the resources necessary to arrest or remove all of the noncitizens covered by these two statutes covered in that case. that reality is not anomaly. itit is a constant. for the last 27 years since a statutes were were enacted in their current form all administration of determine privatization in making immigration arrest. i forget who said this but i believe one of you acknowledged that it there are those sorts of constraints, just based on the resources, you wouldn't he moving forward with impeachment. but that's basically what we have gott. here as the supreme court has pointed out with respect to this specific case. we're not an analogized from a different agency. this is about homeland security. and with respect to how to address it, i think the chairman and others made the point that the only remedy available is and again that's not what justice kavanaugh wrote. kavanaugh wrote, congress poss
and the senate who made the will of an open line and take a look at the language, two points justice kavanaughhe texas case. the first as the district court found the executive branch does not possess the resources necessary to arrest or remove all of the noncitizens covered by these two statutes covered in that case. that reality is not anomaly. itit is a constant. for the last 27 years since a statutes were were enacted in their current form all administration of determine privatization in...
0
0.0
Feb 2, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh said that in his opinion for the majority of the court., in the last two years of the trump administration, listo this, in the last two years of the trump administration, 52% of the migrants encountered at the southern border were released into the united states while awaiting their hearings. that's a higher percentage than during the biden administration. the biden administration has detained migrants across the border approximately 80% rate which is the same as the trump administration so article one is trying to impeach the secretary for doing what every administration before him has done, releasing a portion of the migrants and in fact, a similar percentage as the trump administration while they're waiting for their hearing, not because he wants to, but because congress has failed to give the resources to do it, to detain them. congress has failed to provide the resources, not just in this congress, but over the last 20-plus years, and so, that's why the secretary has exercised his discretion, just as all of his predecessors have done
justice kavanaugh said that in his opinion for the majority of the court., in the last two years of the trump administration, listo this, in the last two years of the trump administration, 52% of the migrants encountered at the southern border were released into the united states while awaiting their hearings. that's a higher percentage than during the biden administration. the biden administration has detained migrants across the border approximately 80% rate which is the same as the trump...
0
0.0
Feb 5, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this is still justice kavanaugh. for example -- this is where he is talking about options because there is no standing. d for example, congress possesses an array of tools to analyze and influence those policies. oversight? legislative process and senate confirmation. i don't see impeachment mentioned anywhere in the opinion he wrote. by the way, there is concurrence from justice course which. all three of the trump nominees to the supreme court agreed with this language. none of them supported the position you outlined. there was an 8-1 decision. the soul center at this case. based on the constitutional law, as explained by the supreme court in the case that you cited in the article comes out exactly the opposite and undermines the claims that somebody could be impeached in the executive branch for following executive authority that the supreme court recognizes, especially in immigration cases and that has been true for decade after decade. i yield back. >> gentlemen yields. i now recognize ms. green for five minute
this is still justice kavanaugh. for example -- this is where he is talking about options because there is no standing. d for example, congress possesses an array of tools to analyze and influence those policies. oversight? legislative process and senate confirmation. i don't see impeachment mentioned anywhere in the opinion he wrote. by the way, there is concurrence from justice course which. all three of the trump nominees to the supreme court agreed with this language. none of them supported...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i can tell you, in court today in the room you could see jackson and kavanaugh calmly bouncing off each other's intellectual lines of inquiry, that they did seem to share the same premise for their questions. jackson citing the text of the 14th amendment and basically questioning that if it is vague, let's say it's vague, wouldn't then the best thing be to err on the side of allowing more candidates to run, more dem kra any and in doing that, hear him first, she went on to cite her trump appointed colleague. >> what about the idea that we should think about democracy, think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide? >> if there's an ambiguity, why would we construe it to, as justice kavanaugh pointed out, against democracy? >> why, she's asking? so you take that today. what did we learn? this court with these members is widely skeptical of using the power of state ballot bans to lit at this gate or punish candidates for january 6th conduct. now does that mean that all of the justices are soft on insurrection or pro trump? of course n
i can tell you, in court today in the room you could see jackson and kavanaugh calmly bouncing off each other's intellectual lines of inquiry, that they did seem to share the same premise for their questions. jackson citing the text of the 14th amendment and basically questioning that if it is vague, let's say it's vague, wouldn't then the best thing be to err on the side of allowing more candidates to run, more dem kra any and in doing that, hear him first, she went on to cite her trump...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
thank you. >> justice kavanaugh? >> the concerns of some question of the states having such power over a national office, other questions about the different states having different standards of proof. underscored by this case, at least the dissenting opinion below said, i've been -- quote, i've been involved in the justice system for 33 years now and what took place here doesn't resemble anything i have seen in a courtroom, end quote. added, quote, what transpired in this litigation fell woefully short of what due process demands, end quote. i don't know whether i agree or not. i'm not going to take a position on that. the fact na someone is complaining not about the bottom line conclusion but about the processes that were used in the state would seem -- that would be permitted seems to underscore the concerns that have been raised about state power. just wanted to give you a chance to address that. that was powerful language. not disagreeing about the conclusion but about the very fairness of the process. >> yes, y
thank you. >> justice kavanaugh? >> the concerns of some question of the states having such power over a national office, other questions about the different states having different standards of proof. underscored by this case, at least the dissenting opinion below said, i've been -- quote, i've been involved in the justice system for 33 years now and what took place here doesn't resemble anything i have seen in a courtroom, end quote. added, quote, what transpired in this...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i'll just point out that in many others cases, justice kagan defended democracy, but brett kavanaugh conservative brethren have not. it was a little ironic hear justices like kavanaugh and roberts suddenly come out swinging for voting rights and democracy when they have spent much of their careers allowing situates to restrict or revoke voting rights. >> there was a question about that. one of the justices asked if this would be a disenfrancement and the response from the lawyer for colorado was donald trump participated in insurrection and part of that was trying to disenfranchise millions of voters by say their vote department count and he should stay in office. he shouldn't have a second chances. >> i think that's a very powerful argument. really an argument from the 14th amendment, which according to murray and the plaintiffs in this case, was designed to protect democracy against office holders who would subvert it, who would wield the power of their office to affect antithe democratic results, to nullify the rights of the people, including access to the ballot. but the justices
i'll just point out that in many others cases, justice kagan defended democracy, but brett kavanaugh conservative brethren have not. it was a little ironic hear justices like kavanaugh and roberts suddenly come out swinging for voting rights and democracy when they have spent much of their careers allowing situates to restrict or revoke voting rights. >> there was a question about that. one of the justices asked if this would be a disenfrancement and the response from the lawyer for...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this ties into justice kavanaugh's point. we had a person right there at the time saying what i'm saying. the language here doesn't seem to include president. why is that? so if there's an ambiguity, why would we construe it to as justice kavanaugh pointed out, against democracy. >> yon son came back and agreed with that reading. any office is clear. the constitution says 20 times. >> i wonder what you made of justice brown jackson parsing the words of the 14th amendment? >> so a few things. first, just to gloss on what andrew and neil are saying, this case was lost before oral argument. it was evident by 10:01 which way it was going to go. while they did coalesce around a bottom line, they have not coalesced around a result in the dramatic aspect of the three hours was that different justices were trying out different things. this one by brown jackson is a good example of what andrew was talking about in terms of concessions. she gave a softball and he said, no thank you. what she was offering up is a reason why they would h
this ties into justice kavanaugh's point. we had a person right there at the time saying what i'm saying. the language here doesn't seem to include president. why is that? so if there's an ambiguity, why would we construe it to as justice kavanaugh pointed out, against democracy. >> yon son came back and agreed with that reading. any office is clear. the constitution says 20 times. >> i wonder what you made of justice brown jackson parsing the words of the 14th amendment? >>...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> well, you know who also seems to have said exactly that is brett kavanaugh, because brett kavanaugh now on the supreme court, obviously, was part of that same group of special counsel, and obviously thought that bill clinton when out of office would be able to be prosecuted for crimes. let's call it for what it is. the only person who is really saying that is somebody who is currently indicted, trying to figure out how to -- >> trying to duck a trial. >> is failed in the district court, it has failed in the court of appeals. if the supreme court takes it, it will fail there. it is really, it's strategy that defense counsel has which is delay. that is really the purpose, not really the merits of the case. >> yeah, andrew weissmann on more than one topic on this special historic week, thank you, sir. we'll be right back. [sfx: game controller] when occasional heartburn won't let you sleep. [sfx: game controller] get fast relief with tums+ heartburn + sleep support. love food back and fall asleep faster. ♪ tums tums tums tums ♪ eggs make all our family moments better. especially when t
>> well, you know who also seems to have said exactly that is brett kavanaugh, because brett kavanaugh now on the supreme court, obviously, was part of that same group of special counsel, and obviously thought that bill clinton when out of office would be able to be prosecuted for crimes. let's call it for what it is. the only person who is really saying that is somebody who is currently indicted, trying to figure out how to -- >> trying to duck a trial. >> is failed in the...
0
0.0
Feb 12, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
because brett kavanaugh also, who is now on the supreme court obviously, was part of that same groupsel. and obviously thought that bill clinton went out of office, would be able to be prosecuted. let's just call it for what it is. the only person who has really saying that is somebody who is currently indicted, trying to figure out how to, and -- i >> mean, this has failed in the district court it has failed in the court of appeals. the supreme court takes it will fail there. it is really, i mean -- it is a strategy that fence counsel has which is delay. that is really the purpose. it's not really the merits of the case. >> yeah andrew weissmann, on more than one topic on this special historic week, thank you really when you have chronic kidney disease... ...there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here. not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-t
because brett kavanaugh also, who is now on the supreme court obviously, was part of that same groupsel. and obviously thought that bill clinton went out of office, would be able to be prosecuted. let's just call it for what it is. the only person who has really saying that is somebody who is currently indicted, trying to figure out how to, and -- i >> mean, this has failed in the district court it has failed in the court of appeals. the supreme court takes it will fail there. it is...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh, you asked about contemporaneous usage. there's a lot of contemporary usage of people using the term pull of the trigger to be synonymous with function of the trigger. that makes sense if we're talking about what the shooter does. it's by pulling on them. but i think my friend conceded that usage is all inconsistent with his reading, and as you pointed out, there is no evidence that anyone at the time or ever since until the development of devices like these ever thought that function of the trigger meant mechanical movement independent of any action by the shooter. it's also worth emphasizing that even if you looked at what the trigger does by itself, what the trigger does is accepts some input by the shooter. justice kagan, you asked a voice-activated trigger. you could also have one by a swipe screen. they don't have any moving parts. on our understanding, we say is there an act of the shooter that initiated the firing sequence? on my friend's understanding, i have no idea how he would deal with a firearm that had a trig
justice kavanaugh, you asked about contemporaneous usage. there's a lot of contemporary usage of people using the term pull of the trigger to be synonymous with function of the trigger. that makes sense if we're talking about what the shooter does. it's by pulling on them. but i think my friend conceded that usage is all inconsistent with his reading, and as you pointed out, there is no evidence that anyone at the time or ever since until the development of devices like these ever thought that...
0
0.0
Feb 3, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
one of the trump appointees justice kavanaugh wrote that kospi tutorial discretion which is the actualerm for this is not willful neglect of the law. it is based on the fact that prosecutors can't prosecute every case every time and that the constitution gives the executive very broad discretion to make those decisions and it is especially true in the immigration area and as justice kavanaugh pointed out, it is especially true in this particular issue because the last five presidents over the last 27 years have had to make the same kind of decisions. some you prosecute, some you don't. this group, the house republicans that try to invert them around is impeachable which is outrageous. prosecutorial discretion -- they see that all the time. for more than six decades and beyond they have been saying that. that is protected. that is their lead argument. it is totally rejected. >> might i add that some of our members on the republican side over the last week of said we should ignore the rulings of the supreme court. that is how far we have come in this country that when our supreme court m
one of the trump appointees justice kavanaugh wrote that kospi tutorial discretion which is the actualerm for this is not willful neglect of the law. it is based on the fact that prosecutors can't prosecute every case every time and that the constitution gives the executive very broad discretion to make those decisions and it is especially true in the immigration area and as justice kavanaugh pointed out, it is especially true in this particular issue because the last five presidents over the...
0
0.0
Feb 4, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh's opinion does not mention impeachment as a tool for resolving political dispute, i think based on the document entered earlier, that goes with the maladministration piece, the point there is, this is not for policy disputes. you do not use impeachment for policy disputes because it can get out of control. we want to make sure that we use it for very limited circumstances. >> gentleman, yield for a question? >> yes. >> is one of the tools available to congress, passed statutes limiting the enforcement of the date administration? >> i think that is what justice kavanaugh meant by the legislative process. >> okay, so, that is what congress has done. that is what the court is dealing with in the texas case and the issue is whether or not the administration has blatantly disregarded those statutes, limiting discretion. so, how does the congress deal with controversy over that? >> that is the point he is trying to make with the other options that he is trying to lay out. >> this is an 8 to 1 decision. and the supreme court, the trump wing of the supreme court is in the st
justice kavanaugh's opinion does not mention impeachment as a tool for resolving political dispute, i think based on the document entered earlier, that goes with the maladministration piece, the point there is, this is not for policy disputes. you do not use impeachment for policy disputes because it can get out of control. we want to make sure that we use it for very limited circumstances. >> gentleman, yield for a question? >> yes. >> is one of the tools available to...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
murmur i would like to make three points on that justice kavanaugh that you. first, constitutional safeguards are for the purpose of safeguarding our domenic crazy not just for the next election cycle but for generations to come. section 3 designed to protect our democracy in that very way. the flamers knew from painful experience those violently broke their oaths to the constitution couldn't be trusted to hold power then because they could dismantle our constitutional democracy from within. they created a democratic safety salve, president trump can go ask congress to give him amnesty by two thirds votes. unless he does that our constitution protects us insurrectionist. the reason we are here is that president trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million americans who voted against him and the constitution doesn't require that he be given another chance. >> justice kavanaugh: thank you. >> justice barrett? >> justice barrett: general rule is absent rare circumstances state courts and federal courts share authorities. state courts have authorities to enforce the c
murmur i would like to make three points on that justice kavanaugh that you. first, constitutional safeguards are for the purpose of safeguarding our domenic crazy not just for the next election cycle but for generations to come. section 3 designed to protect our democracy in that very way. the flamers knew from painful experience those violently broke their oaths to the constitution couldn't be trusted to hold power then because they could dismantle our constitutional democracy from within....
0
0.0
Feb 2, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kavanaugh's opinion does not mention impeachment as a tool for resolving political dispute.nk based on the other document i entered early witches, goes to maladministration, the point there is this is a proposed disputes. you don't use mps before policy dispute becau■<■=se he cn get out of control for what to make sure we use for very limited circumstances. we've heard some of those already. >> gentleman you for a question? >> yes. >> yes. >> is one of the tools available to congress, passed statutes limiting the enforcement of the date administration? >> i think that is what justice kavanaugh meant by the legislative process. >> okay, so, that is at that is what the court is dealing with in the texas case and the issue is whether or not the administration has blatantly disregarded those statutes, limiting discretion. so, how does the congress deal with controversy over that? >> that is the point he is trying to make with the other options that he is trying to lay out. >> this is an 8 to 1 decision. and the supreme court, the trump wing of the supreme court is in the statute
justice kavanaugh's opinion does not mention impeachment as a tool for resolving political dispute.nk based on the other document i entered early witches, goes to maladministration, the point there is this is a proposed disputes. you don't use mps before policy dispute becau■
0
0.0
Feb 10, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
brett kavanaugh, because brett kavanaugh also, who is now on the supreme court obviously, was part off special counsel, and obviously thought that bill clinton went out of office, would be able to be prosecuted for crimes. let's just, let's just call it for what it is. the only person who is really saying that is somebody who is currently indicted, trying to figure out how -- >> exactly. i >> mean, this has failed in the district court, it has failed in the court of appeals, this supreme court if it takes, it will fail there. it is really, i mean it is a strategy that the defense counsel has, which is delay. that is really the purpose, it's not really the merits of the case. >> yeah, andrew weissmann, on more than one topic on this special historic week, thank you sir. we will be right back. sir. we will be right back. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we'
brett kavanaugh, because brett kavanaugh also, who is now on the supreme court obviously, was part off special counsel, and obviously thought that bill clinton went out of office, would be able to be prosecuted for crimes. let's just, let's just call it for what it is. the only person who is really saying that is somebody who is currently indicted, trying to figure out how -- >> exactly. i >> mean, this has failed in the district court, it has failed in the court of appeals, this...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
president trump's lawyer awkwardly brought it up with brett kavanaugh. kavanaugh was trying to focus on this question of why president trump wasn't prosecuted for insurrection, and we've been talking about that a little bit tonight, this idea that because trump hasn't been charged specifically with insurrection, that suddenly seemed to create this incredible clarity among all the justices that had that thing happened, then this would be something that there would be an easy answer to when we know what to do when this would be settled in a definitive way. i just wanted to ask here, your reaction to that. it doesn't seem clear to me why it's necessary for trump to be charged with or convicted of insurrection for the constitution's ban on insurrection serving in office to be effectuated. what did you think of how that part of it was handled? >> i was a little frustrated at how deeply disrespectful i felt that the court was about the process that happened in the colorado trial court. there was a trial on the merits. there were, as you just heard, meaningful
president trump's lawyer awkwardly brought it up with brett kavanaugh. kavanaugh was trying to focus on this question of why president trump wasn't prosecuted for insurrection, and we've been talking about that a little bit tonight, this idea that because trump hasn't been charged specifically with insurrection, that suddenly seemed to create this incredible clarity among all the justices that had that thing happened, then this would be something that there would be an easy answer to when we...
0
0.0
Feb 3, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> in terms of justice kavanaugh ? >> o cnt. >> yes. it was broug in this effort. this court hel that we have a multi- count indictment. it is a different crime. each town is a different crime. >> i had one of those cases on the 10th circuit. guilty. not guilty. >> ye >> i don't know what to do. you have not returned a verdict acquittal. youav also returned a verdict of guilty. >> go bknd figure this out. thatee to be a world away om verdict on any count. this individual is not guilty in the eyes of its peers. >> exactly. the opinion he wrote in the shipyase did not reach the double jeopardy. >> i took care not to come close to this. [laughter] >> you did say it aew times. >> how can a defendant be both sane and insane? >> it cannot be. >> it is the principle that we have juries tha their decision-making -- in oer words, the jury can nullify a particular decision. we don't go back to t to figure out respect to inconsistent across diffent counts. sort of a te and memorial principle with theespected jury deliberatns. yes. that is exactly why we propose this looking a
>> in terms of justice kavanaugh ? >> o cnt. >> yes. it was broug in this effort. this court hel that we have a multi- count indictment. it is a different crime. each town is a different crime. >> i had one of those cases on the 10th circuit. guilty. not guilty. >> ye >> i don't know what to do. you have not returned a verdict acquittal. youav also returned a verdict of guilty. >> go bknd figure this out. thatee to be a world away om verdict on any...
0
0.0
Feb 29, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice gorsuch and kavanaugh? >>sponse a lot of the questions you made the point that bump stocks were not around in 1934, and that's a good point for you. but what evidence is there, if an tt as of 1934 the ordinary understanding of the phrase functioofhe trigger referred to the mechanics of the gun rather than the shooter's motion? >> well, it had to, and the evidence tt can see is the evidence the solicitor general points out abo t fact that there were push triggers in extee at that time. and that function of the trigger, even thoughouan find legislative history where there seems to be peleho think function of the trigger means e me thing as pull of the trigger, those phrases cannot be equated for that very reason. >> i guess i am asking the opposite. is there any evidence that someone was drawing that distinction? >> between push and pull? >> no, the distinction between the function of the trigger ant something different. >> i'm not aware of that in legislative history. >> are you aware of that anywhere in com
justice gorsuch and kavanaugh? >>sponse a lot of the questions you made the point that bump stocks were not around in 1934, and that's a good point for you. but what evidence is there, if an tt as of 1934 the ordinary understanding of the phrase functioofhe trigger referred to the mechanics of the gun rather than the shooter's motion? >> well, it had to, and the evidence tt can see is the evidence the solicitor general points out abo t fact that there were push triggers in extee at...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
brett kavanaugh today waxed about disenfranchisement of voters. that's what scotus did in bush v. 2000 when it told the florida supreme court it couldn't decide how to do its state's election in terms of a presidential election. bush v. gore federalized a presidential election in violation of the united states constitution. that's why al gore lost, because bush got the electoral college votes. the electoral college is dissen franchiing the voters. if you want to do one person one vote under equal protection, you have to have a popular vote. what's happening is they're federalizing elections through what happened today in the colorado case. states should have states' rights. it works for abortion, right? hey, let's kick abortion back to the states. when it comes to not having trump thon ballot, if you want to have a patchwork result, that's exactly what the constitution contemplated and joy, my last word is that it's what the constitution wants. if you don't like it, amend the constitution. >> that was a word, michael steele. i'm going to go to you on that because they seem to love
brett kavanaugh today waxed about disenfranchisement of voters. that's what scotus did in bush v. 2000 when it told the florida supreme court it couldn't decide how to do its state's election in terms of a presidential election. bush v. gore federalized a presidential election in violation of the united states constitution. that's why al gore lost, because bush got the electoral college votes. the electoral college is dissen franchiing the voters. if you want to do one person one vote under...
0
0.0
Feb 21, 2024
02/24
by
KNTV
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i have faith in them you know, people like kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the presidentrough hell to get into place, he'll step up. those people will step up. >> seth: she's talking about a supreme court justice the way a mobster talks about one of his street captains. "we need someone to take out the russians don't worry. kavanaugh will step up he owes us for the thing with and the guy and the thing. [ laughter ] now, as you may recall, the colorado supreme court ruled that trump was ineligible for the ballot based on the 14th amendment's insurrectionist clause, which bars anyone who takes an oath to uphold the constitution but then engages in insurrection or rebellion against the u.s. from holding state or federal office. the amendment was ratified after the civil war to bar former confederates from serving in government because after the war, southern states immediately started sending unrepentant traitors back to congress. as one historian explained, they lose in april of 1865, but by december of 1865, they're sending back to congress people like alexander stephens,
i have faith in them you know, people like kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the presidentrough hell to get into place, he'll step up. those people will step up. >> seth: she's talking about a supreme court justice the way a mobster talks about one of his street captains. "we need someone to take out the russians don't worry. kavanaugh will step up he owes us for the thing with and the guy and the thing. [ laughter ] now, as you may recall, the colorado supreme court ruled...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
lawyer to ask and want to know the answer to and colorado did not have a good answer to it. >> john: kavanaughrought up there are provisions to remove a person from office if they are found guilty of insurrection. but to be found guilty, a person has to be charged, tried, and convicted. none of those things have happened with donald trump. so, the state of colorado just says oh, we think it's insurrection and therefore we are going to bar them from the ballot. i think a lot of the members of the supreme court said well, who are you to make that decision and then the broader question of and why should you get to decide for everybody else. >> and then how does it not create untenable patch work. and justice alito asked jason murray who was arguing for colorado, he said you are not helping me understand how this will not become an unmanageable situation. p>> sandra: kerri, i believe jonathan turley is back with us as we continue to wait, i believe we are inside the two-minute warning now to the white house. jonathan, this will be interesting to see what the messaging is from the white house after
lawyer to ask and want to know the answer to and colorado did not have a good answer to it. >> john: kavanaughrought up there are provisions to remove a person from office if they are found guilty of insurrection. but to be found guilty, a person has to be charged, tried, and convicted. none of those things have happened with donald trump. so, the state of colorado just says oh, we think it's insurrection and therefore we are going to bar them from the ballot. i think a lot of the members...
0
0.0
Feb 26, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that's what justice kavanaugh is saying is antithetical to the entire idea of the first amendment.ustice jackson asking some questions. it really did feel like this is one after four hours of argument, which is in itself very rare thing. it felt to me like more of a consensus. that will make this case, already, the blockbuster that i think somewhere in dissipating this morning. i do think that the court is going to file a well-established first amendment principal from buckley versus vallejo, that you can't do this. >> as you say, it is a very big case. one more mild or measured way to deal with it is to not take the in imitation to do more stuff for ponder the internet. just say, hey, we just have case law in this. you can't have your thumb on the scale, scientist doesn't get that power. as you know, this is an area where congress and the court struggles more than other areas. it is challenging for anybody, let alone folks that grew up in literally another technological environment. alito asked at one point something that relates to the press, and we don't avoid coverage because h
that's what justice kavanaugh is saying is antithetical to the entire idea of the first amendment.ustice jackson asking some questions. it really did feel like this is one after four hours of argument, which is in itself very rare thing. it felt to me like more of a consensus. that will make this case, already, the blockbuster that i think somewhere in dissipating this morning. i do think that the court is going to file a well-established first amendment principal from buckley versus vallejo,...
0
0.0
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
this ties into justice kavanaugh's point. we had a person at the time saying what i am saying.e here does not seem to include president. why is that? so if there is ambiguity, why would we construe it to come as justice kavanaugh pointed out, against democracy? amna: it is fascinating, the language at play here. did they ever address that central point, that january 6 was an insurrection that donald trump was responsible for? william: you would have thought that would be a central line of questioning but it really was not. the point about was others -- about whether this was an insurrection or not barely came up. the lawyer from colorado kept trying to insert that into his answers but the justices get to choose what parts of these laws and rulings they want to talk about. they are not relitigating the entire case. but it was surprising how little that came up. we both felt that. i want to play this one bit where justice kavanaugh was questioning the lawyer representing colorado about this where he was arguing to the point that marcia was making that if you allow colorado to bas
this ties into justice kavanaugh's point. we had a person at the time saying what i am saying.e here does not seem to include president. why is that? so if there is ambiguity, why would we construe it to come as justice kavanaugh pointed out, against democracy? amna: it is fascinating, the language at play here. did they ever address that central point, that january 6 was an insurrection that donald trump was responsible for? william: you would have thought that would be a central line of...
0
0.0
Feb 7, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
john roberts, amy coney barrett and the very controversial brett kavanaugh. this is known. hearings and barrett dispatched to florida to help the legal team deal with absentee ballots and she claims she barely remembered it. >> i did work on bush v. gore. i did work on behalf of the republican side. to be totally honest i can't remember exactly when piece of the case it was. >> that's interesting. i can't remember that. another controversial conservative stalwart, brett kavanaugh was a partisan lawyer on the bush team and we checked and found him discussing the same case in 2000 right after the supreme court heard the oral arguments. he was dealing with the recount litigation and i think we have -- do we still have that sound to play? not even then -- we do. my bad. i'll just show you this. i want you to see how even then he knew the game. he was doing everything in his power to be a partisan advocate for bush to get a partisan result where the court would do things that made bush winner and president, but he still knew you don't admit that, you talk about how, well, the co
john roberts, amy coney barrett and the very controversial brett kavanaugh. this is known. hearings and barrett dispatched to florida to help the legal team deal with absentee ballots and she claims she barely remembered it. >> i did work on bush v. gore. i did work on behalf of the republican side. to be totally honest i can't remember exactly when piece of the case it was. >> that's interesting. i can't remember that. another controversial conservative stalwart, brett kavanaugh...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
unclear to me if they actually had done this extra charge that justice kavanaugh would be saying that. and it still doesn't, -- it doesn't totally answer the question because there is still an issue on whether that is constitutional. whether that really does come forward and is anti-democratic. so there is still that issue. many viewers might be asking why wasn't there that prosecution. i think for two reasons. one, the statute has not been charged in over 100 years. it would be selective prosecution, some answers to that, including that we haven't had a former presidential engagement so there's no reason to have charged it. but the other is the concern about being viewed as political. it is worth remembering that this is a credit to our justice department. even if you disagree what they were thinking is that we could've charged this. there is no question. the facts supported that charge. and they precisely, i think weren't doing it. if i had to guess, because they didn't want to see that sort of claim that they were doing it just to keep them out of office. >> i'll katyal, thank you
unclear to me if they actually had done this extra charge that justice kavanaugh would be saying that. and it still doesn't, -- it doesn't totally answer the question because there is still an issue on whether that is constitutional. whether that really does come forward and is anti-democratic. so there is still that issue. many viewers might be asking why wasn't there that prosecution. i think for two reasons. one, the statute has not been charged in over 100 years. it would be selective...
0
0.0
Feb 15, 2024
02/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
some of those allegations to chuck grassley and two others reminds me to a degree of during the brett kavanaugh hearings, when all these people were making wild allegations, false allegations about the man that is now supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. and then there was this move to just like release all this this information will allegations are not facts and just because somebody has reported something to the fbi doesn't mean it's true and we saw all this wild stuff released about brett kavanaugh, who was unfairly smeared by a lot of this. here we have apparently the same situation except it's against joe biden right? >> exactly. and by the way, i mean, if people come to the fbi all the time, make allegations, the fbi puts it down in these documents called the 1023, and that's what republicans then released to the public yeah, it seems in retrospect wildly irresponsible. just released ten 23s without any sort of context as to how credible an individual might be. and now we know the fbi thinks this guy is not credible at all, right. >> made it all up. >> all right, evan perez, thanks so m
some of those allegations to chuck grassley and two others reminds me to a degree of during the brett kavanaugh hearings, when all these people were making wild allegations, false allegations about the man that is now supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. and then there was this move to just like release all this this information will allegations are not facts and just because somebody has reported something to the fbi doesn't mean it's true and we saw all this wild stuff released about brett...
0
0.0
Feb 10, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i think the second though is that it's almost precisely kavanaugh's point, which is that they didn'tprosecution, and if they had brought a charge where the remedy in the statute for conviction is disqualification from running, the ball trump would have said, look, you are in fact doing this for political purposes. you are doing it to get me off of the ballots, and so i can run. and so by avoiding that particular charge, they were trying to de-politicize this to say, no, what we're doing is we thought you committed a crime. we think that the jury should be presented without evidence, and we will see whether they agree with us. and so the issue of the remedy was not where the case was brought, and i think that is a pretty powerful argument for doing it as to why they did not bring this charge. again, this is just speculation on my part, but i think those are likely to be the two things that they were thinking about. >> but george, to these arguments, the lawyer for the colorado voters, jason murray, said the following. there is a reason section three has been dormant for 150 years. it
i think the second though is that it's almost precisely kavanaugh's point, which is that they didn'tprosecution, and if they had brought a charge where the remedy in the statute for conviction is disqualification from running, the ball trump would have said, look, you are in fact doing this for political purposes. you are doing it to get me off of the ballots, and so i can run. and so by avoiding that particular charge, they were trying to de-politicize this to say, no, what we're doing is we...
0
0.0
Feb 9, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice brett kavanaugh elicited some icof the stronges push at this point, the point of whether thisinsurrection and the implications of that. he elicited some of the strongest pushback on that today from jason murray, one of the lawyers in colorado. >> in trying to figure out what section three means to the extent of its elusive language or vague language. what about the idea that you should think about democracy, think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide. your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree. what about the background principle, if you'd agree on -- >> a good like to make three points of that, justice kavanaugh. the first is that constitutional safeguards, but for the purpose of safeguarding our democracy, not just for the next election cycle but for generations to come. second, section three is designed to protect our democracy in that very way. the framers of section three new from painful experience that those who violently expose their oath to the constitution cannot be truste
justice brett kavanaugh elicited some icof the stronges push at this point, the point of whether thisinsurrection and the implications of that. he elicited some of the strongest pushback on that today from jason murray, one of the lawyers in colorado. >> in trying to figure out what section three means to the extent of its elusive language or vague language. what about the idea that you should think about democracy, think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice,...
0
0.0
Feb 11, 2024
02/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
president trump's lawyer awkwardly brought it up with brett kavanaugh.dent trump wasn't prosecuted for insurrection, and we've been talking about that a little bit tonight, this idea that because trump hasn't been charged specifically with insurrection, that suddenly seemed to create this incredible clarity among all the justices that had that thing happened, then this would be something that there would be an easy answer to when we know what to do when this would be settled in a definitive way. i just wanted to ask here, your reaction to that. it doesn't seem clear to me why it's necessary for trump to be charged with or convicted of insurrection for the constitution's ban on insurrection serving in office to be effectuated. what did you think of how that part of it was handled? >> i was a little frustrated at how deeply disrespectful i felt that the court was about the process that happened in the colorado trial court. there was a trial on the merits. there were, as you just heard, meaningful findings from that court. the notion that trial courts can't
president trump's lawyer awkwardly brought it up with brett kavanaugh.dent trump wasn't prosecuted for insurrection, and we've been talking about that a little bit tonight, this idea that because trump hasn't been charged specifically with insurrection, that suddenly seemed to create this incredible clarity among all the justices that had that thing happened, then this would be something that there would be an easy answer to when we know what to do when this would be settled in a definitive...
0
0.0
Feb 16, 2024
02/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> my understanding of get more coistent with justice kavanaugh is is not a difference. turn. call the ctne of weight or persuasiveness. as i understand and i suppose the dect as well, i think the skidmore test alws you to consider the weight of the agency's ew but then consider if the something they came up with ghafter the statue was passed? so it actually shedlit on the meaning of the statue or is it something they didn't adopt until 20 years later? or did they get that one policy after e policy was passed and flipped it over 20 years later? all of that is something skidmore then account for the chevron has never been caused to account for. you can modify it and try to d l of that, what i do think the chevron experime has failed. >> it is usually described as a deference doctrine. people talk about skidmore defenc >> yes they do, and that puzzled me a little bit. i went to the dictionary and ed up deference. the most common definition is yielding to the will of another. i think if that is the definition, you should not apply chevron or skidmore rather a way where you actual
>> my understanding of get more coistent with justice kavanaugh is is not a difference. turn. call the ctne of weight or persuasiveness. as i understand and i suppose the dect as well, i think the skidmore test alws you to consider the weight of the agency's ew but then consider if the something they came up with ghafter the statue was passed? so it actually shedlit on the meaning of the statue or is it something they didn't adopt until 20 years later? or did they get that one policy...
131
131
Feb 8, 2024
02/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 131
favorite 0
quote 1
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 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...