supreme court or florida supreme court? you look at all of the decisions that were made, ideology played such a strong role. in the heat of the moment, it was very difficult for anyone to be objective about it. one thing i think is really interesting, the florida ballots are public record. and so the ballots themselves are transported to an organization in illinois to have the ballots recounted. after everything is over, bush is already present. already president. what they found was on contested ballots, if the counter, someone who's hired after the fact by this perpetual organization, if the counter was a democrat, they were much more likely to find a count for gore than if the counter was a republican. it was such a heated political moment, it was hard for anyone to be objective, even after the fact. i think in the heat of the moment, these things are so difficult that it suggests the problems have to be solved on the front end so we don't have the purges pam talked about, so we don't have bad ballot design. of course, t

his claims cited a 1935 supreme court decision.had to do with the railroad retirement act of 1934. it had established a plan very similar to social security. payroll deductions, matching contributions by employers, all this going into a huge trust fund held by the government. and later, on retirement, monthly old age payments. ♪ but the railroads had contested the law, and the issue went to the united states supreme court. the decision, a five to four decision, was read by justice roberts. he said, "the railroads, though dedicated to public use, remain private property. their assets may not be taken without just compensation. there is no warrant for taking the property or money of one and giving it to another. petitioners constantly recur to such phrases as employee morale. fear of old age dependency. these matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power." thus the railroad retirement act of 1934 was declared void. the court seemed to say, no such act can be found valid. yet just a few months later, president rooseve

supreme court.re right, he did lose in the national popular vote by more than 7 million votes. as far as the electoral college, our projection is 306 for biden, 232 for trump. in a filing this morning, the texas attorney general though said your state, wisconsin's maladministration, that was the word they used, of the election, quote, makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes, but you have had no excuse -- you have had no-excuse absentee voting for years and biden won your state by nearly the same margin trump did in 2016, right? >> that's right. this suit is an act of desperation. you know, we have the same basic system in place we had four years ago when president trump won wisconsin. we had recounts conducted in our two largest counties, and what that process has shown over and over again, both in a recount this year and in prior recounts, is we have a system that is reliable and accurate. i would note, we consistently have much higher turnout than texas. o

supreme court. his instinct early on was quite correct, which was to say, hey, we may not do to well in the florida supreme court. they had this view that i mentioned earlier of let's count on the votes and keep counting. he thought we may need to go to the u.s. supreme court if this keeps on. so he was the guy who kept pressing these issues into before the u.s. supreme court. he was a right lawyer for the right case. >> i'll gore's legal representation before the court was done by lawrence tribe. who is he? >> famous harvard law professor. one of the sort of best known and highly regarded sort of liberal law professors of his air. he had written great constitutional law textbooks. i remember him early on as an advocate in the supreme court and he had some very good arguments and some not so good arguments. the good thing about tribe was he was so smart and so learned all constitutional laws that there will certain amount of case where the justices would sit back and listen to him which they do not

as supreme court's role interpreter of the constitution. in 80minutes, a 2002 -- minutes, a two thousand two documentary on the federal courts and the challenge to slavery, detailing the legal battle that resulted after an 1839 slave ship mutiny in the caribbean that landed the ship in connecticut and eventually landed the case before the supreme court. ♪ >> this is the story of a struggle between a president, franklin d. roosevelt, who went to the white house on the pledge of a new deal. ♪ and a group of men, once referred to as the nine old men, presided over by chief justice charles evans hughes. the issues were large. they included the problems of a nation's industry, its people, its agriculture, its resources. but the immediate battlefield of the struggle was the constitution, with its checks and balances. its division of power between executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. this is the struggle known as the court packing fight. ♪ on august 14th, 1935, president franklin d. roosevelt signed the social security act.

supreme court. i think his instinct early on was quite correct, which was to say, we may not do too well in the florida supreme court. they have this view that i mentioned earlier of, let's count all the votes and keep counting. he thought, we may need to go to the u.s. supreme court if this keeps on, and so he was the guy who kept pressing these issues into the -- before the u.s. supreme court. so, he was the right lawyer for the right case. >> al gore's legal representation before the court was done by lawrence tribe. who is he? >>. >> famous harvard law professors. one of the best known and highly regarded sort of liberal law professors of his era. had written great constitutional law textbooks. i remember him early on as an advocate in the supreme court. he had some very good arguments and not some good arguments. the thing about larry tribe, he was so smart and so learned on constitutional law that there were certain amount of cases where the justices would just sit back and listen to him, whic

supreme court. his instinct early on was quite correct. which is to say hey, we might not do too well in the florida supreme court. we have this view that i mentioned earlier, let's count all the votes and keep counting. he thought, we may need to go to the u.s. supreme court if this keeps on. it was the guy that keeps pressing these issues before the u.s. supreme court. he was the right lawyer for the right case. >> al gore's legal representation before the court was done by lawrence tribe. who is he? >> famous harvard law professor. one of the best known and highly regarded liberal law professors of his era. he's written great constitutional law textbooks. i remember him early on as an advocate in the supreme court. he had some very good arguments and some not so good arguments. the good thing about him was he was so smart that there was a certain amount of cases or the justice would just sit back and listen to him. which way they do not do this too often. there is a fairly liberal law professor.

the supreme court doesn't do what the pennsylvania supreme court does. i would add they're not going to take any approach where they would wholly disenfranchise voters that lawfully followed the system. he has no more recourse here. it doesn't mean he is not going to keep trying unfortunately for the groundhog's day effect we're all suffering through. the supreme court, even with three confirmed supreme court justices, said the jig is up. >> important point indeed. want to bring in gloria borger. the president appealed to the supreme court including as laura pointed out three supreme court justices that he nominated, were approved, confirmed by the senate, just hours before this supreme court denial came down. i want you to listen to what the president said earlier this afternoon. >> let's see whether or not somebody has the courage, whether it's a legislator or legislatures or whether it is a justice of the supreme court or number of justices of the supreme court. let's see if they have the courage to do what everybody in this country knows is right. >>

the supreme court of the united states. a tribunal whose membership is selected and has a power that is, in a sense, an ultimate power. to voiz as unconstitutional laws signed by the president. how did the court achieve this position? the constitution does not in so many words assign it this power, but it does say this constitution and the laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuant there of shall be the supreme law of the land. what this might mean is clear to many of our founding fathers. and became clearer through events. in 1800, president john adams was defeated for reelection by thomas jefferson. john marshall would be replaced by john madison. the democratic republicans were on the rise. but the federalists were not giving up, marshall as one of adams final acts, was made chief justice. in the closing hours of the outgoing administration he was very busy assigning appointments filling new judgeships with faithful federalists. the commissions were sealed with the united states. but something went wrong.

supreme court that they filed today. and the kraken conspiracy case out of georgia, i saw they have filed in the supreme court. but, look, you know, typically filing a lawsuit is just a matter of a filing fee. in the supreme court, it's even less than that. so they can file these cases, but they're not going anywhere. and i think after today, even though many of us predicted that this case wasn't going anywhere, i think it's fair to say that sidney powell's kraken conspiracy nonsense is not going to occupy much time with the supreme court. >> marc, it is remarkable to have seen you and your colleagues basically win 60 straight here. it was -- i mean it was amazing to see it to be a dozen straight and then 20, and then 30, and then 40, and it keeps going. they've just lost at every level and some some cases been quite chastised by judges hearing these cases about how bad they are and how pointless they are. they've had no traction whatsoever. and i have to ask you now at this sort of landmark moment with the court having

supreme court or the florida supreme court.look at all the decisions ideology put such a large role. in the heat at the moment, was very difficult for anyone to be objective about it. once it's dissing that's very interesting, florida's ballots are public records. the bouts themselves were transported to newark organization in illinois to have the ballots were counted. but they found was uncontested ballots, on the counter if someone was hired after the fact by's professional organization, if it was a democrat, you're more likely to find a vote for gore then if the count was republican. it was such a heated moment that it was hard for anyone to be objective even after the fact. neither the moment, these things are so difficult. it's suggest the problems have to be solved on the front and. we don't have the purchase that pam talked about, we don't have bad ballot design the margin of error was much larger, i think i disagree with him. i don't think we know very well, i agree more people wanted to vote for gore then vote for bush

supreme court and ready to go to the supreme court. guess he can stand down and doesn't have to worry about coming up with an argument. >> that's right. it's completely over. this is a crushing defeat for the president of the united states. ted cruz is not able to argue his great case. there were no noted dissent in this. let me remind you what the president said earlier today at his vaccine summit. he said now let's see whether or not somebody has the courage, whether it's the legislature or a justice of the supreme court or a number of justices of supreme court, let's see if they have the courage to do what everybody in the country knows is right. guess what. first of all, everybody in the country doesn't know what is right. secondly, the supreme court just gave the president of the united states the back of his hand and said, sorry, we don't decide elections this way. your case is not valid and we are not even considering it. so i think that this puts to rest any kind of thought that the president might have had that the supreme cou

it is the story of the supreme court of the united states.eel very small when you stand in the entrance of the supreme court building in washington. the corinthian columns rise three stories high, made of marble from the quarry of the state of vermont. inside, gleaming marble from alabama is underfoot and all around you. and polished walls and columns under a covered ceiling. in this room, historic meetings take place. with jurists of other days observing from the mall -- walls. a staircase of bronze and marble spirals upwards. in the hallway, an open pedestal there's the one word, silence. here, for walk softly the feeling is one of reverence. the root of this reverence? a document held dear to us. the american constitution. article three, the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court. the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution. the laws of the united states, and treaties made under their authority. the first article of the constitution has to do with congres

the work of the supreme court.on this desk with the attention of the clerk of the call. wants a one-man job, today it takes 20 people to keep up with this work which includes preparing cases for the court's top. above ahead of james brown, a 13th clerk, stands his predecessors and all the dignity of their predictions. we are reminded that the contemporaries of the founding fathers were human. when our eyes were on the minutes, carefully preserved the courts fashion in 1790. the first clerk on that august day did what almond do in the first week of the year, wrote the wrong date. you can still see it on the yellow page. 1789, tastefully changed afterwards to 1790 bucks. yes, tradition is strong in the precinct of this court. the clerks cutaway is on changing part of it. the words, a justice of the supreme court says when he takes office are simple ones. i will support and defend the constitution. i will administer justice without respect of persons. and equal right to the poor and to the rich. this is the old, the r

the supreme court bar to do this in the supreme court of the united states is outrageous.egations of fraud that the trump campaign would not put in some of their complaints in federal district court. it's absurd and a public official let alone any lawyer or a member of the supreme court bar bring this lawsuit is atrocious. >> lastly, state electors you know on monday cast their votes and make joe biden's win official for the 20th time. jim jordan his response is no way no way because jordan wants a battle on the house floor come january. the speaker pelosi, does chef the ability to make sure that doesn't happen? >> she should. i don't know about the parliament rules but that law that i mentioned at the very beginning of our segment here. >> safe harbor law? >> yes. they say those electoral votes in the states that file their certificates by today are conclusive. you cannot challenge their bona fide. you cannot say the election was fraudulent. if the governor of georgia says these are the electors, these are biden's electors have been elected. if the republican governor of

no one could predict how the supreme court justices would respond to the case.ajority of the nine justices were slaveholders, among them, chief justice roger tani. in the few previous cases dealing with slavery, the supreme court had protected the institution as it existed in the united states, but the court has strictly enforce the prohibition on the foreign slave trade. anticipation about the deliberation was further heightened when john quincy adams joined a group of lawyers representing the men. the abolitionist committee wanted a prominent statesman on the legal team and when daniel webster declined, they turned to the 73-year-old former president. adams it was then serving as a member of the house of representatives where he had earned the nickname old man eloquent for his tireless condemnation of slavery. in february 1841, the case came before the supreme court in its chamber on the ground floor of the capitol building. large crowds gathered in expectation of dramatic oral arguments. u.s. attorney general henry gilpin presented the government's argument i

he addresses it to the united states supreme court. the supreme court, each nominated by president and confirmed by the senate to serve for life. they have been 92 judges in the 170 year flow of the court's continuity. who are they? not men of marble or parchment, but men of flesh and blood who have risen to great responsibility. ♪ john marshall, born a poor boy in a log cabin learned the law his hard way teaching himself. the government was young and untried when he became chief justice, but 34 years of his decisions, helped make it helped make it strong. oliver wendell holmes like parties and the theater, but he gave the country some of its noblest judicial opinions. justice holmes loved america. when he died, he left all he had to united states government. this is chief justice earl warren, appointed in 1953 by president eisenhower. earl warren was a man with the joys and worries of sons and daughters in his life, a family man and a writer of decisions, that have changed american history. justice william o. douglas , appointed by fr

supreme court. we want all voting to stop. >> we should be heard by the supreme court. something has to be able to get up there, otherwise, what is the supreme court? >> what is the supreme court? they are the people telling you to hang it up. and here's the message tonight to those 18 attorneys general and those 126 house republicans who signed on to the president's doomed attempt to overturn the election. you will never be able to walk away from this. hang your head in shame. tried to kill our democracy. this will go down on your permanent record. so, how do the republicans feel now, the 126 house republicans who supported this president's fight to throw out millions and millions of of votes in four swing states just because they went for joe biden and not for him? those elected officials you see there, their names are up on your screen right now, they got where they are because of voters, right in they all won their elections. now, they have the privilege of joining trump in losing his. way to turn yourselves from winners to losers. and you can see how they are going

states supreme court? to repeal the entirety of the affordable care act when we need it most. a law that's on the front lines against the pandemic. it protects more than 100 million americans who live with pre-existing conditions, which will increase now including those with lung scarring and consequences from covid-19. it provides coverage for more than 20 million americans who get the care they need if they're showing symptoms of covid-19. the law that fulfills our moral obligation here in america, health care is a right for all, not a privilege for a few. as all of you know, i know that out of our collective pain, we're going to find collective purpose to control the pandemic, to save lives, and to heal as a nation. >> leading off our discussion tonight, white house correspondent for the pbs news hour and msnbc political analyst, yamiche alcindor, and joyce vance, former u.s. attorney for alabama and professor at the alabama school of law. she is an msnbc contributor. yamiche, let me start with you. we

even after the president tried to intimidate the supreme court today tweeting, quote, if the supreme court shows great wisdom and courage, the american people will win perhaps the most important case in history and our electoral process will be respected again. well, it is respected now after the free and fair election that we just completed, the court did show wisdom and courage in upholding that election and its results. it is the second time this week that the court has tersely rebuked a totally manufactured attempt with no basis in law to undo the free and fair election. all attempts put through by republicans to pull a coup through the courts. the suit from texas was respected by 18 other who supported it. it was supported by 126 republican house members including a late signee, kevin mccarthy. he just signed on today. all of them backing what they know to be complete bs because they want trump to approve of them and back them. they think it's going to help their career. maybe the attorney general of texas who's accused of serious crimes wants a pardon. all of them unified in pu

supreme court. supreme court shut down the president's latest efforts, the effort to overturn the election in pennsylvania. not one disent. how do you read their one-line rejection? >> it's more or less what i expect. it went to the u.s. supreme court. it was an appeal of a loss that congressman, others that have had at the state supreme court the so they already lost before. and their basic position was their own election should be uncertified. it should be decertified. it was a preposterous lawsuit. and i wish there were consequences for people like congressman kelly who have perpetuated this. but it didn't surprise me the supreme court had not. >> so we've got texas, right? texas files this desperate bid with the supreme court asking justice to allow a lawsuit against battleground states. does it stand a chance? >> no. no. some of these cases i described as press releases with filing fees. i'm not sure there was a filing fee for the supreme court with texas. this was an act of some bizarro world

supreme court, cases he won. he is now officially agreed to argue the legal challenge in the pennsylvania case. it we've been telling you all about it if and when that case reaches the highest court in the land. this is the suit if you remember, pennsylvania legislature passed at 77. well, the massively expanded mail-in voting. that was passed by state lademocrats and signed by the state democratic governor. problem is, it's in direct violation of the actual language in the pennsylvania constitution because the state constitution of pennsylvania features carefully documented restrictions surrounding mail-in voting. that can only be changed through constitutional amendments. that would take two years in a row, majority two-thirds in theg houses there. a referendum by the people. the statement senator cruz wrote, it needs resolution. i believe the supreme court of the united states they have the responsibilities to the american people to ensure within its powers that we are following the law and following the const

supreme court. only place we can go, we have no other place to go. >> paxton and 18 other republican attorneys general are asking the supreme court to temporarily block next week's electoral college certification in georgia, michigan, pennsylvania, and wisconsin. democrats say the president and his allies are trying to invalidate millions of votes in four battle grounds that joe biden won and even some republicans, like tennessee senator lamar alexander have a problem with it. >> texas is a big state but i don't know exactly why it has a right to tell four other states how to run their elections. so i'm having a hard time figuring out the basis for that lawsuit. >> this morning president trump asked the supreme court justices to show great courage and wisdom and save the u.s.a. but in the same tweet, he also referenced a biden administration that the president says, quote: will be a scandal plagued mess for years to come. when asked if that statement should be interpreted a concession said this. >>

he addresses it to the united states supreme court. the justices of the supreme court, each nominated by a president, and confirmed by the senate to serve for life. there are 92 judges in the 170s of the courts continuity. who are they? men of flesh and blood who have risen to great responsibility. ♪ marshall, born a poor boy in a log cabin. had to teach himself. the government was young and untried, but 34 years of his decisions helped to make it strong. oliver homes liked pardons and the theater, but he gave some of his noblist opinions. he loved america. he left all that he had to the united states government. this is chief justice earl warren, appointed in 1953 appointed by presidentizeen hour. a man with the joys and worries of sons and daughters in his life. a family man and a writer of decisions that have changed american history. justice women o doilliam o'doug. he pursued understanding everywhere and seeks out people. at 12 he was an immigrant boy. justice felix frankfurter. when justice black was 70, he rejoiced. now i can pl

supreme court has spoken. while ie be no doubt, strongly disagree with the court's decision, i accept it. thisept the finality of outcome, which will be ratified next monday in the electoral college. tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and strength of our democracy, i offer my concession. this is america. just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done. and while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us. while rillettes hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the to political parties. this is america, and we put country before party. we will stand together behind our new president. gore's concession speech from december 13, 2000, 20 years ago tomorrow. it was 20 years ago today that the bush v. gore decision was handed down. let us know what you think of the legacy of the decision was. republica

supreme court stopped the florida vote recount.s ultimately awarded the state's electoral votes and the presidency to governor bush. >> good evening. just moments ago, i spoke with george w. bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the united states. i promised him that i wouldn't call him back this time. i offered to meet with him

this is the proud record of the supreme court of the united states. ♪ [captions copyright national cableatellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪> ♪ of 1839, aummer foreign schooner accidentally sailed along the shores of the united states and transformed the federal court into a forum for an explosive national debate. ♪ the drama that began when the enslaved africans on the amistad revolted and took control of the vessel off the coast of cuba would culminate in the supreme court of the united states, with a former president arguing on behalf of the africans' appeal for freedom. the amistad case forced the federal courts and the nation to consider the legal foundations of slavery. ♪ for several weeks in the summer of 1839, newspapers along the atlantic coast reported sightings of a mysterious schooner supposedly commanded by african pirates. late in august, the crew of the navy brig washington spotted a badly damaged vessel in long island sound and a shore party trading w

supreme court stopped the florida vote recount.his ultimately awarded the states electoral votes and the presidency to governor bush. >> good evening.

the decision from the supreme court was very short. it is one page.just said we rejected because we don't have standing. that is the legal construct. i think there's a few people in this room that understand what standing is better than i do. it's a standing issue, a legal issue, not a moral issue. plus, i think there were a lot of reasons why they did it the way they did. it might actually be favorable to us. i would not put inflammatory language in any kind of resolution leaving this room that is going out to a body of judicial officers across the state because it makes us look childish, and pertinent, and angry. that is not the signal that the great state of texas should send. thank you. [applause] >> is there any other discussion on the motion to amend? seeing none, we will now move to a vote. for mr.lectors voting pickle's motion to amend, which the motion is to remove the words "moral cowardice" from the resolution, please raise your hand. the secretary of staff -- please keep them held as the secretary of staff tallies the vote. would you pleas

supreme court has spoken. let there be no doubt while i strongly decide -- strongly disagree with the court's decision, i accept it. i agree with the outcome, which will be ratified in the electoral college and for the sake of our democracy, i offer my confession. as wes america, just fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done. bewill -- while there will time to debate our continuing difference, now is the time to recognize that what unites us is greater than that which divides us. while we get hold into do not yield our opposing beliefs, yield-- hold and do not our opposing beliefs, we put country before party. we will stand together behind our new president. >> our country has been through a long and trying period with the outcome of the presidential election not finalized for longer than any of us could have imagined. vice president for and i put our and ice president gore shared similar emotions so i understand how difficult this moment must be for vice p

december 8, the florida supreme court. december 11, oral arguments held at the supreme court. december 12 they issued the ruling reversing the florida supreme court. day, december 13, al gore ends his campaign. december 18, the electoral college votes. early in 2001, january 6, of 2001, that al gore presided over the certification in congress of that electoral college result. we want to hear your views on it and what you remember. we are going to start with a florida caller. this is linda. you are on with e.j. dionne and william kristol. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. number watching -- i remember watching every minute of it on the news at night and during the day at times. is thet thing i remember was so sure the supreme court would never take the case. that stuck in my mind for years. he was so sure. hen they did take the case, was like i know what is going to happen now. but that is what i remember. host: william kristol? guest: that is interesting. i have not gone back and reviewed all. so you a florida voter remember some of the zigs and zags. i remem

despite the fact that the supreme court kicked this off yesterday, in wisconsin that state's supreme court, which has a republican majority, has agreed to hear the trump case today at about 1:00 p.m. eastern. now, they are trying to overturnaboutoverturn about 200,000 votes, that's not likely to happen, but that is still being heard. there is nothing at the moment stopping the electoral college from voting on monday as planned. even if something were to go wrong in wisconsin, overturning wisconsin's votes are not enough to affect the outcome. that is story number one. this is a split screen. that's story number one. story number two is that vaccine. my colleague, gabe gutierrez is live in the city of portage, kalamazoo, michigan. the people there who understand the thing that will be part of the end of the worst pandemic in our lifetimes is coming from their hometown. >> certainly. there's a lot of pride in this pfizer facility here. this is just the largest manufacturing facility in what really is a global company here. the workers here take great pride in what they do. this facilit

he winds up going supreme court of pennsylvania. the supreme court of pennsylvania has 7 justices.ouple of year ago they have an election for three justices. the republicans really weren't paying attention to it. the democrats were. and they backed three hard core leftist for the supreme court of pennsylvania. among other things they were thinking in 2020. the labor unions poured in fortune and they won all three seats. and now the makeup of the pennsylvania supreme court as they say members are elected is 5-2 democrat. and in democrats when it comes o election law those five stick together like three democrats and john roberts on u.s. supreme court. so what did those democrats do? they said you said what we have a good idea. few months before the election they said yes no signatures required. you don't need signature comparison. you don't need a postal date and if the postal date is smudged you count it anyway. but yes even though election day ends on tuesday 8 p.m. eastern time we extend to 5 p.m. eastern time on friday. they have no legal or constitutional basis for doing any of

supreme court. and then it was december 12th, as we said, they issued that ruling, reversing the florida supreme court. the next day, december 13th, al gore ends his campaign. december 18th the electoral college meets, votes, bush, 271, gore, 266. and then it was early in 2001, it was january 6th of 2001 that al gore provided over the certification in congress of that electoral college results. we're talking about it. i want to hear your views on it, the your views on the legacy and what you remember. we're going to start with a florida caller. this is linda this morning. linda, you're on with e.j. dionne and william kristol. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. >> good morning. >> caller: i remember watching every minute of it on the news at night and during the day sometimes, too, but the most thing i remember is the attorney, david boies, he was so sure the supreme court would never take the case and that stuck in my mind for years, he was so sure. and when they did actually tak

okay, they lost at the supreme court. and yet, there is no sanction. there is -- there is no cost that they have paid. >> so, i -- you know, i don't want to get into the realm of political strategy because i don't -- you know, that's not something i'm good at. that's not something i have expertise in. what i will say is that, you know, as long as there are no political consequences for going against democracy but there are political rewards for going against democracy, republicans are going to continue to do that. and that's -- that's just a question of incentives. there has to be some way to -- or, sorry, there has to be some way is a little determinative -- unless democrats figure out a way to force republicans to pay for this kind of behavior, they will calculate that they can get away with it. and because it -- it -- it -- it works to their advantage, they will continue to do it. that's just -- you know, that's not about good or evil. that is -- that is simply the way that politics work. >> olivia, you -- you spent your life as a republican, republ

the supreme court. i think it is important that we have nine justices. i think it is better if you go before the election because i think this scam that the democrats are pulling, it is a scam. the scam will be before the united states supreme court. >> and it won't. he wanted his court with his justices to settle this. it did but not in his favor. the three justices he named to the court did not decent to tonight's decision and whether they saw it or not, their decisions came shortly after the president tweeted. "if the supreme court shows great wisdom and courage, the american people will win the most important case in history and our electoral process will be respected again." again, no clue of anything the justices made of that and all the rest of his tweets nor what they made of this other than not wanting to hear more on the subject. >> for president trump to be ahead as far as he was in these four states and for the votes to swing by as much as it did, the probability of that and one state is one

the supreme court, and i remember the powerful dissent by the chief of the florida supreme court, theocratic appointee but i don't remember he thought , the u.s. supreme court would stay out of it. i guess then the count would have gone on and florida would not have certified on safe harbor day, and so forth, but one last point, on e.j.'s last comment that struck me. of course, i remember gore winning the popular vote. we were all struck by that. it was understood. we had the electoral college. there was not a huge crisis about it. there was talk that maybe we should rethink the electoral college. it is hard to change that without a constitutional amendment. it had not happened in more than a century. right? in the political world e.j. and i grew up in, if you won the popular vote, you won the electoral college votes. so the whole electoral college, the way we organize votes, it was not problematic particularly from a democratic point of view. it is kind of astonishing that we have now had the two elections in 2000 and 2016 where the winner of the popular vote loss, and it could have