states supreme court, the united states supreme court quickly and unanimously refused to protect the republican president of the united states. in an opinion written by chief justice warren burger, who was appointed by richard nixon, whose residency chief justice burger in effect destroyed with that unanimous opinion. leading off our discussion tonight is neil tatiana, former acting u.s. solicitor general. -- host of the podcast courtside with neal katyal. i left a wrinkle in what this filing actually is. the trump team has not actually requested the supreme court to take over the case right now. they're just asking them to force the circuit court of appeals below them to have another hearing on it. take us through that, and how we would then also end up in the supreme court, even if that did happen. >> yeah. so the story begins with last week, when criminal defendant donald trump lost a three to our decision in the court of appeals which basically called his claim of absolute immunity crazy. they said, oh, -- president above the law even for murder, and that could not possibly be th

states supreme court, the united states supreme court quickly and unanimously refused to protect the republican president of the united states. in an opinion written by chief justice warren burger, who was appointed by richard nixon, whose residency chief justice burger in effect destroyed with that unanimous opinion. leading off our discussion it is neal katyal, msnbc legal analyst and host of the podcast courtside with neal katyal. i left a wrinkle in what this filing actually is. the trump team has not actually requested the supreme court to take over the case right now. they're just asking them to force the circuit court of appeals below them to have another hearing on it. take us through that, and how we would then also end up in the supreme court, even if that did happen. >> yeah. so the story begins with last week, when criminal defendant donald trump lost a three to our decision in the court of appeals which basically called his claim of absolute immunity crazy. they said, oh, -- put the president above the law even for murder, and that could not possibly be the constitution

>> well, i guess united states supreme court is. but i personally do not think that far right republican witch hunts are a reason to not apply the constitution to trump's action in the insurrection. you know, there can be bad political actors that accuse this, that, and the other, but we have a judicial system. just like in colorado, donald trump had a five-day trial. he had an appeals process with the colorado supreme court, and ultimately to the united states supreme court. this case isn't based on political accusation. it's based on real fact, testimony, witnesses, and a judicial proceeding. so i sure hope the court does not focus its decision on that because temper tantrums from a political party is not good reasoning to not enforce the law and protect the nation from an oath breaking insurrectionist. >> colorado secretary of state jena griswold, thank you for your time. >> thank you. >>> up next, justice clarence thomas took the lead in questioning the attorneys today under a cloud of ethics scandals and the enduring question o

the united states supreme court will hear donald trump's attempt to

states supreme court. so he brings a really nice,

states supreme court looks at all the facts, all the case law and the clear words of the united statesstitution in making their determination. >> does the fact that there appear to be delays for the special counsel's case, i mean there was supposed to start on march 4th. that is not going to start now. it's been postponed indefinitely. ryan goodman was pointing out a judge there could give another date, a provisional date. so the fact it is indefinite is significant possibly. does that -- obviously you made this decision before that, but do the delays we've seen there waiting for this immunity ruling as they are in that case, did that play into your decision to take this stand? >> no, it did not. as soon as the colorado supreme court made its decision, it was very clear to me that a court of competent jurisdiction look at how colorado election law should apply to the scenario had made its clear decision. donald trump incited the insurrection. that was just part of his strategy to steal the 2020 election from the american people. i think he should be held accountable. and whether it's i

court and up to the united states supreme court. but darrow nevertheless, is going to put up a little bit of questioning of these jurors, who largely come from the countryside around dayton. almost all of them are men who are fundamentalists. and he's going to use up his peremptory challenges and then turn to ralston occasionally to try to dismiss some juries for cause. because of their really pronounced fundamentalist views. and ralston will reject those challenges under the theory as put forward by the attorney general in trying to argue against darrow. he says, look, if a man is subject to challenge by the defendant because he believes the bible conflicts with the theory of evolution, then for the converse reason, the state would have grounds to challenge for cause. anyone who believe the theory of evolution and the result would be that everyone on earth who could be brought here would be challenged. and darrow was like, yeah, i don't we haven't had too many of these jurors who are believe in the theory of evolution. and he says,

states supreme court. so he brings a really nice,

we'll get a hearing before the united states supreme court in april. a blow to special counsel jack smith that could significantly delayed trump's criminal trial i want to bring in cnn's brian todd right now. he's a closer look at trump's immunity claims. brian, update our viewers, wolf, that term presidential immunity is a lightning rod phrase which some people believe implies that a president could be above the law. but experts say that's really not the case. former president trump's arguments center on the idea that a president should not be sued for an act committed during their time in the white house >> philosophically, the heart of the argument on this immunity is that a president has to be able to move forward, make decisions and a pretty rapid pace. and he can't be subject to loss suits for any act that he takes, whatever act that is that he can't be tied up in court rather than being acting as president. >> the supreme court has barred civil lawsuits against a president for official acts while in the white house, but hasn't addressed whether

states supreme court. we took a bit of a detour to cover that breaking news from the white house. we're gonna take a quick break right now, and when we come back we're going to bring you our official primetime recap of today's historic proceedings at the united states supreme court. here we go. we'll be right back. right bac. 5% apy? that's new! yup, that's how you business differently. ♪♪ we're building a better postal service. all parts working in sync to move your business forward. with a streamlined shipping network. and new, high-speed processing and delivery centers. for more value. more reliability. and more on-time deliveries. the united states postal service is built for how you business. and how you business is with simple, affordable and reliable shipping. usps ground advantage. ♪ [typing] you were made to act spontaneously. we were made to help plan accordingly. ♪ is it possible to count on my internet we were made to help plan like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping

the united states supreme court has begun an unprecedented hearing which could see ex-president donald trump board from november's election. this case could throw the united states into political chaos and cultural war and a quick verdict is expected later this month. ramin mazahari reports. the controversies following the united states 2020 election have reached a new and historic climax. supreme court has begune hearing arguments if ex-president donald trump will be barred from running for re-election this november. the state of colorado is arguing that trump should be disqualified on the basis of the so-called insurrection clause of the us constitution, which was ratified in 1868 to keep southern confederates from holding public office after the civil war. he should be barred from office and he should be thrown in jail, he's in he's a liar, he's a cheat, he sexually abused people, and we should never see him again, uh, i'm not a fan of trumps, but i mean... i find for him to run uh and let the people decide, i would think he needs to be officially indicted before he's fully disquali

. >> welcome to our primetime recap of the historic proceedings that the united states supreme court. i am rachel maddow at msnbc home base along with my beloved colleagues, lawrence o'donnell, and joy reid, and chris hayes, happy to have you all here. no cameras are allowed in federal courtrooms, including the united states supreme court, but today, for the arguments about whether china -- for having an insurrection against the u.s. government, the justices did allow for the sound of the proceedings, the audio, to be livestreamed here on msnbc, we carried the audio of those oral arguments live unfold. that was starting just after 10 am eastern time. but we also know that people have lives, jobs, school, other responsibilities and might make it hard to take two hours out of a thursday to stare at an audio speaker for hours trying to figure out of that was gorsuch, or a leader yelling at that port lawyer. we are here to recap what happens in primetime. in the 1970s, watergate hearings are also broadcast live during the workday. recognizing how consequential and how important those hear

and the united states supreme court has begun an unprecedented hearing, which could see ex-president donald trump barred from november's election. the case could throw the united states into political chaos and cultural war and... quick verdict is expected later this month. reports from chicago. the controversies following the united states 2020. have reached a new and historic climax. the supreme court has begune hearing arguments if ex-president donald trump will be barred from running for reelection this november. the state of colorado is arguing that trump should be disqualified on the basis of the so-called insurrection clause of the us constitution, which was ratified in 1868 to keep southern confederates from holding public office after the civil war. he should be. barred from office and he should be thrown in jail, he's an insurrectionist, he's a liar, he's a cheat, he uh sexually abused people, and we should never see him again, uh, i'm not a fan of trump's, but i mean, i find for him to run uh, and let the people decide, i would think he needs to be officially indicted befo

circuit wrote a pretty comprehensive opinion but clearly the united states supreme court wasn't satisfied with that and so they granted cert here. they didn't have to. they were fully saturday with that well, we have a number of former federal officials, including federal judges, including one that used to be on the fourth circuit of appeals who despises president trump and has gone from being a conservative to a total leftist. >> there was no reason in this world for the supreme court to take this case. the three judge panel of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia had written a masterful opinion. >> david, not to get too processee here do you agree with loud dig that there was no reason in the world to take this case? >> absolutely not. judge luttig is driven by hatred of president trump. >> that "national enquirer" michael. >> this case was taken because it raises exceptionally important question. nixon vs. fitzgerald a guide post for the court other remedies, impeachment and that sort of thing. what the court was concerned about there was the intrusion on the

last summer, the united states supreme court said state attorneys general could no longer sue to hold d.a. and department of homeland security accountable when secretary mayorkas brazenly violates immigration law. the supreme court in that same opinion invited congress to confer standing specifically on attorneys general it wanted to do so. the judiciary committee has a bill that will do exactly that, re-extend the power to state attorneys general. that will work well without opening up a pandora's box. >> general paxton, you have been the tip of the spear on the fight against big tech, google, amazon, facebook and apple, and he is the guy who came up with the legal theory to go after online advertising from facebook. they use that money to promote their woke agenda. the use that money to cancel conservatives. he got made fun of this legal theory many years ago when he came up with it, now the biden justice department and attorneys general across the country are going along with general paxton's legal theory. he has truly been the warrior on big tech. we have a problem with big tech.

the united states supreme court has begun an unprecedented hearing which could see expresident donald trump barred from november's election, the case could throw the united states into political chaos and cultural war, and a quick verdict is expected later this month. rome reports from chicago. the controversies following the united states 2020 election have reached a new and historic climax. the supreme'. court has begune hearing arguments if ex-president donald trump will be barred from running for re-election this november. the state of colorado is arguing that trump should be disqualified on the basis of the so-called insurrection clause of the us constitution, which was ratified in 1868 to keep southern confederates from holding public office after the civil war. he should be barred from office and he should be thrown in jail, he's an insurrectionist. "he's a liar, he's a cheat, he uh sexually abused people, and we should never see him again. uh, well, i'm not a fan of trump's, but i mean, i find for him to run uh, and let the people decide, i would think he needs to be officiall

circuit wrote a pretty comprehensive opinion but clearly the united states supreme court wasn't satisfiedat and so they granted cert here. they didn't have to. they were fully saturday with that well, we have a number of former federal officials, including federal judges, including one that used to be on the fourth circuit of appeals who despises president trump and has gone from being a conservative to a total leftist. >> there was no reason in this world for the supreme court to take this case. the three judge panel of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia had written a masterful opinion. >> david, not to get too processee here do you agree with loud dig that there was no reason in the world to take this case? >> absolutely not. judge luttig is driven by hatred of president trump. >> that "national enquirer" michael. >> this case was taken because it raises exceptionally important question. nixon vs. fitzgerald a guide post for the court other remedies, impeachment and that sort of thing. what the court was concerned about there was the intrusion on the authori

ibrahim washi, press tv, damascus. and the united states supreme court has begun an unprecedented hearing which could see ex-president donald trump board from november's election, the case could throw the united states into political chaos and cultural war and a quick verdict is expected later this month. ramen mazari reports from chicago. the controversies following the united states 2020 election have reached a new. historic climax. the supreme court has begune hearing arguments if ex-president donald trump will be barred from running for re-election this november. the state of colorado is arguing that trump should be disqualified on the basis of the so-called insurrection clause of the us constitution, which was ratified in 1868 to keep southern confederates from holding public office after the civil war. he should be barred from office and he should... be thrown in jail, he's an insurrectionist, he's a liar, he's a cheat, he uh sexually abuse people, and we should never see him again, uh, i'm not a fan of trump's, but i mean, i find for him to run uh, and let the people decide. i woul

the united states supreme court has begun an unprecedented hearing. which could see ex-president donald court has begune hearing arguments on if ex-president donald trump will be barred from running for re-election this november. the state of colorado is arguing that trump should be disqualified on the basis of the so-called insurrection clause of the us constitution, which was ratified in 1868 to keep southern confederates from holding public office after the civil war. he should be barred from office and he should be thrown in jail. he's an insurrectionist, he's a liar. "he's a cheat, he uh sexually abused people, and we should never see him again. uh, well, i'm not a fan of trump's, but i mean, i find for him to run uh, and let the people decide. i would think he needs to be officially indicted before he's fully disqualified. disqualifying trump would throw november's election into an almost unthinkable disarray. the reaction by trump's passionate..." supporters appears equally hard to imagine, it's a democracy at risk, it's very much worth holding steady to what we believe and what

states supreme court.re the high court's decision allowing the biden administration to remove razor wire installed on the southern border. the wire intended to stop migrant crossings. the biden administration arguing that the wire actually impedes border patrol from doing its job. abbott being cheered on by high-profile gop leaders, who are encouraging his unlawful defiance. he's receiving support from 25 gop-led states, some saying that the feud between the texas governor and the biden administration is turning into a constitutional crisis. texas congressman chip roy even musing about a, quote, post-constitutional world. >> it is long past time for texas to go ahead and tell the federal government, no, i do not want to live in a post-constitutional world, but this court is pushing our hand, and the court needs to know that. >> this is coming from the so-called law and order party. chip roy followed up those remarks on fox news encouraging other republican governors to defy the supreme court and to defy fe

the united states supreme court has begun an unprecedented hearing which could see ex-president donald trump board from november's election. the case could throw the united states into political chaos and cultural. and a quick verdict is expected later this month, ramen mazari reports from chicago. the controversies following the united states 2020 election have reached a new and historic climax. the supreme court has begun hearing arguments if ex-president donald trump will be barred from running for re-election this november. the state of colorado is arguing that trump should be disqualified on the basis. the so-called insurrection clause of the us constitution, which was ratified in 1868 to keep southern confederates from holding public office after the civil war. should be barred from office and he should be thrown in jail, he's an insurrectionist, he's a liar, he's a cheat, he uh sexually abused people, and we should never see him again. uh, well, i'm not a fan of trump's, but i mean, i find for him to run uh, and let the people decide. i would think he needs to be officially indi

states supreme court with the argument that they didn't understand when they stopped paying the interest that was not a discharge of that indebtedness and therefore not income, they would be left of the courtroom by these very justices. but when they are the ones who were involved in, it then suddenly it all gets very peculiar. so if the judicial conference really has an important role here. also getting to the bottom of these donations by the billionaires. why on earth a billionaire spending money to influence either the court or political elections should be able to use pretax money to exert their influence when every ordinary person who writes 100 dollar check to her friend who's running for city counselor for congress pays with after tax money. that's a completely unfair advantage for the billionaires, who shouldn't be allowed to spend that much money in the first place, let alone have a tax advantage. >> and the only way your bill is going to get through will be in a tax bill that is moving through on reconciliation rules that needs 51 votes, which is one of the reasons why you've g

he's asked the supreme court of the united states to give him the time to be able to appeal. do you think now, based upon the fact he filed a presidential immunity motion in mar-a-lago, that that kind of forces the hand of scotus to maybe take up his appeal? >> so, that is such an interesting question. you know, when we talk about forcing their hand, we are normally thinking about a circuit slip where cannon would rule either for or against trump and the issue would go to appeal to the 11th circuit. and if they rule differently, then the court of appeals in the district of columbia than maybe the supreme court would feel obligated to take the case. but i think your point is actually more sophisticated one that suggests that now the argument is percolating in multiple courts, rather than just letting the court of appeals judgment in d.c. stand. the supreme court may have to create a law for the entire country on this issue. you are absolutely right to think that that could slow the process down. i think the supreme court can simply make the argument that they will decide the c

the united states supreme court has begon an unprecedented hearing, which could see ex-president donald trump barred from november's election. the case would throw the united states in political chaos and the cultural war and a quick verdict is expected later this month. rami mazori reports from chicago. the controversies following the united states. 2020 election have reached a new and historic climax. the supreme court has begune hearing arguments if ex-president donald trump will be barred from running for re-election this november. the state of colorado is arguing that trump should be disqualified on the basis of the so-called insurrection clause of the us constitution, which was ratified in 1868 to keep southern confederates from holding public office after the civil war. "he should be barred from office and he should be thrown in jail, he's an insurrectionist, he's a liar, he's a cheat, he uh sexually abused people, and we should never see him again. uh, well, i'm not a fan of trump's, but i mean, i find for him to run uh, and let the people decide. i would think he needs to be of

the united states supreme court has begun an unprecedented hearing which could see ex-president donald trump board from november's election. the case could throw the united states into political chaos and cultural war and a quick verdict is expected later this month. ramen mazari reports from chicago. the controversies following. the united states 2020 election have reached a new and historic climax. the supreme court has begune hearing arguments if ex-president donald trump will be barred from running for reelection this november. the state of colorado is arguing that trump should be disqualified on the basis of the so-called insurrection clause of the us constitution, which was ratified in 1868 to keep southern confederates from holding public office after the... civil war, he should be barred from office and he should be thrown in jail, he's an insurrectionist, he's a liar, he's a cheat, he uh sexually abused people, and we should never see him again, uh, well, i'm not a fan of trump's, but i mean, i find for him to run uh, and let the people decide, i would think he needs to be off

states, supreme court has agreed to decide if donald trump has immunity from prosecution on electionand a lot more to come on newsday. do you stay with bbc news. hello there. sunshine was a scarce commodity across the uk on wednesday — but we had most of it in eastern scotland, with just over four hours of sunshine in edinburgh. however, the rest of us, rather cloudy, gray and at times wet — but it was mild with it. however, as the rain continues to push south and east, the wind direction is changing. we'll see a return to some colder air across our shores. so thursday will start off mild but wet across southeast england and east anglia. quite a lot of cloud generally across england and wales, with the best of any brighter skies into northern ireland, scotland — northwest scotland seeing a real rash of showers, accompanied by gale—force gusts of winds through the day. it will start to turn colder generally across scotland, 6—9 celsius, maybe double digits for a time before that front clears through in the southeast. but, as we move out of thursday into friday, we see this next fronta

i would like to specifically talk about the supreme court's ruling united states versus texas.dent biden's appointed solicitor general elizabeth prelogar made a a stunning claim asserting that no state individual business bao challenge and administrations decision to, as a blanket matter, not enforce any particular law. when pressed by justice brett kavanaugh, it states and individuals were precluded from challenging this lack of enforcement, the president's own secretary, or solicitor general responded, that is correct. but the framers intended political checks in the circumstances congress has tools at its disposal. justice kavanaugh responded, i think your position is instead of judicial review, congress has to resort to impeachment or dramatic steps in the face of such defiant of the laws passed by congress. her response was in the face of dramatic abdication of statutory responsibility by the executive branch, such steps would be warranted. in other words, if the biden administration's own legal position, it is the biden administration's own legal position before the supre

. >>> today, at least four members of the united states supreme court agreed to hear donald trump's appeal arguing that l presidential immunity protects him from criminal prosecution for the charges filed by jack smith against donald trump for crimes leading up to riand on january 6th. it takes only four members of the court to agree to hear a case, and of course it takes a majority of five members of the court to issue an opinion in the case. the supreme court threw out half of donald trump's appeal today and granted a hearing on the other half of the appeal. the part of the appeal the supreme court threw out otoday was donald e trump's claim of double jeopardy on the basis that he is now being prosecuted for some of the same crimes he was charged cwith in his secon impeachment trial in the united states senate, in which a majority of senators voted to find him guilty, but not the two thirds necessary to convict him. the supreme court gave trump's lawyers three weeks to submit their brief and gave jack smith then three weeks to reply to the trump brief, then the trump lawyers will get a f

states supreme court. you make of that? >> well, that's suggesting the -- it's suggesting the end of the republic. and as a -- we enter into a social contract, joy, all of us, as citizens, and our servants do the same thing. and that social contract says i'm taking this oath and pledging and promising you that i will enforce the constitution. i will respect it. and i will make certain that it's preserved and protected. and that doesn't -- that clearly states what the intentions are as a contract. and so, if you engage in conduct that undermines the public good, undermines the constitution, undermines civility and our civil society, ultimately threatening the abra gags of the constitution, our way of life and our union can't survive. >> first to you and then to claire. congressman matt gaetz of florida, he is circulating a resolution to his fellow members of the republican caucus in the united states house which would declare that donald trump did not, in fact, engage in insurrection or rebellion against th

newsom says if they win in november, the threat is serious and real. >> the united states supreme court again set the tone and tenor for the debate we have having. not just a war on travel, a war on reproductive health care, and woman are declined contraceptives. >> you can watch you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter or a human cannonball... or save money the easy way, with xfinity mobile. existing customers can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan for a year! not only will you save hundreds but you'll also be joining millions who have connected to america's most reliable 5g network. sure is a lot safer than becoming a stuntman for money. get a free line of unlimited intro for a year when you buy one unlimited line. plus, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. the economy is simply not working for millions of hard working families. they're working harder than ever and they still can't make enough to get by to afford food and medicine to even keep a roof over their heads. we need to build more housing that's truly affordable. we need to address this terrible epide

a guy who this week is going before a united states supreme court that is going to decide if maybe he might be ineligible to ever hold federal office ever again. what do you call that kind of a system? what could possibly go wrong? ♪3, 4♪ ♪ ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪ schedule, or child care, whatever you need to do, if you can make time for it on thursday morning this week, you will have the opportunity to hear american history being made live and in real time. it's this thursday, 10:00 a.m. eastern, the united states supreme court is going to hear oral arguments in the case that will decide whether donald trump's efforts to overturn the results of the election in 2020 to stay in power despite losing, whether his role in the violent attack on congress on january 6th, 2021, whether those things mean that states can keep donald trump off the ballot under the provisions of the 14th amendment to the u.s. constitution, which says effectively that insurrectionists are ineligible to hold federal office. because this is a really big case, the court is going

under the terms of today's order, he needs to get his brief to the united states supreme court by nextday p. that's lightning fast in screw additional terms, in terms of how quickly you have to file your brief -- judicial terms. but the courts understand the importance, the seriousness and the gravity of the issues this case e presents. elizabeth: so, you know, the debate too, tom, is the supreme court, it may not get involved. it could summarily dismiss any trump appeal on the merits, right? because they could just say, no, we're not going to take it on, we disagree with the appeals court. >> that's right. the supreme court has a whole bunch of options here, and one option is they could say, look, we think these are porn issues, but the -- important issues, but the timing isn't right. come back to us after there's a trial, months later if this trial goes further forward, if former president trump is convicted. at that point come back to us, and we can decide the immunity question then. that's an option, that's a road that's open to them. we also could say, look, we want to get involve

the united states supreme court. we predicted that this would happen when the d.c. circuits opinion dropped last week. and again, that opinion was really methodical and deliberate. it did take over a month for them to break it. but they adjust all the arguments that donald trump put forward, and they really shredded them. so -- real strategy is delay, delay, delay, it's not surprising that he waited until the 11th hour to file this request. and it's just a request for the stay. they haven't even yet filed their petition for -- the supreme court decides whether or not it will hear a case, and so there has to be -- but they have indicated that they will file a petition for -- that eats up a little bit of time. but what they're really hoping to do is to have the united states supreme court stayed the d.c. circuits opinion, which would make it harder for this criminal proceeding to resume and continue. so that's what they're hoping for. again, because of this whole question and tactic of delay. keep this going as long as

the united states supreme court will hear donald trump's attempt to delay or end the trial scheduled by the justice department and special counsel jack smith for his january 6th conduct. by shorthand you may have heard this called the immunity case. what we have new just in the last hour is the supreme court deciding to weigh in, to take the case to delay the trial. as we'll get into tonight it's not something they have to do but something they have the legal authority to do, and it's something they are doing. so the court is granting this cert, this review late today. and they're giving a calender which we'll get into because it has repercussions for the court, the country, potentially the election and on whether or not the fbi and justice department can patrol efforts to overthrow our democracy and stage coups. this means no matter what we know something tonight we didn't know last night that jack smith's scheduled coup trial and his victories because he's won not one but two basic hearings about whether or not presidents have immunity when they leave office, both the trial judge a

. >>> happening now, donald trump makes a final plea to the united states supreme court ahead of critical arguments on colorado's ballot ban. this hour, we have exclusive new polls on the controversial case, and how americans feel about trump's legal troubles. >>> plus, an history storm is slamming southern california, unleashing dangerous flooding, hurricane-force winds, and heavy snow. records falling across the state as forecasters warn of more to come. in the united kingdom, buckingham palace reveals that king charles has been diagnosed with cancer. what it means for the royal family. >>> welcome to our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer, you're in "the situation room." >>> first up, donald trump's last-minute pitch to the u.s. supreme court as the justices prepare for an unprecedented hearing on the colorado ballot removal. katelyn polantz has more. >> everybody is getting ready for the final turn about trump's eligibility on the balance, and potential other states also, colorado is an outlier. maine was also saying he could be removed because of hi r

states supreme court will be hearing oral arguments on whether the colorado court can disqualify donald trump from the states presidential primary ballot based on section 3 the 14th amendment. now, today in the new york times, yale law professor akhil amar offered a possible outcome in the case which has not been fully considered on this program . just a line or two from me here and there. but in an op-ed piece entitled the supreme court should get out of the insurrection business, professor of our points out that we have 50 different ballot access laws in this country because each state has its own ballot access law. most commentators on the case before the supreme court tomorrow have been suggesting all or nothing outcomes in which the supreme court should decide if donald trump should have access to all or none of the presidential ballots in the 50 states. professor amar offers what he calls a 50 state solution. quote, under the 50 state solution, facts as found by a state trial court in colorado permit that state to act. but other states using different procedures are free to act di

. >> it is front and center because the united states supreme court has tossed aside a 50-year-old precedent. we thought we could rely on a woman's right to choose. we thought we could ensure that there was reproductive freedom. with this supreme court, it is rather obvious that we can't, given the makeup of the court today. that means that congress has to step up, has to step in, find a solution, pass a law at a national level that protects the rights of women and families throughout the entire country because we may feel a little bit comfortable here in california but there are impacts felt across the nation and that will require a legislative solution. >> given the fact that that is such a polarizing and politicized issue, do you think there is any appetite for a national solution in congress, in washington? >> the american public is not that polarized around this set of issues. >> d.c. is. >> d.c. is in the makeup of congress is. i am not naÏve. i have worked in partisan environments before. i had to work across party lines. i had to find common ground and get republican votes. yes, the

states supreme court heard oral arguments today about how the first amendment should apply to social media companies. ktvu tom vacar reports. the court's decision could alter the nature of speech on the internet. >> the ultimate question for the court what precise nicely is social media is social media a completely open public forum where anyone can post anything without filtering, editing, or restraint? that's what elon musk sided with when he wanted to buy twitter. >> i do think that we want to be just very reluctant to delete things or is social media more like a newspaper that can gather and edit any kind of information it chooses? >> sometimes it's based on perhaps opinion, but it's often based on just what they consider to be worthy of putting in their newspaper. it gets into some very dicey issues when it comes to political speech. >> that's exactly what social media companies want. in fact, 50 years ago, the supreme court ruled that under the constitution's first amendment, newspapers can pick and choose their content. >> they have the right to delete things that, in their op