but whether they are truly going to be -- by bush v. goreing who wins elections, and determines somehow to never do that again. only one member of this court was there in bush v. gore, of course, and that's clarence thomas. now i doubt he is going to be haunted by it. but i really think that is part of what they are going to have to look at. and today, i just went and read the case, or some of the case, and i read justice john paul stevens's is incredible and unforgettable descent, where he predicted that the greatest winner of that case would be cynicism in the american people, and not trusting judges in the future. i hope that -- john paul stevens's dissent, in bush v. gore. >> andrew weissmann, what was judge luttig talking about their, when he said the supreme court will find, try to find a way to somehow dispose of this case, without ruling on these central meanings of the 14th amendment? >> so, this is what lawyers do. they take something that is seemingly simple, and make it complicated. so, issues that the court can deal with, what i

everyone knows what the rules are going to be and we can move forward i did very much disagreed with bush v gore. i thought it was and outrageous departure from president and a very political decision. but you'll recall al gore the time. >> and they they had finished counting the in florida. and he said, you know, time for me to go accept the court decision. when he was presiding over the counting of the electoral college, some democrats tried to make a he said don't do that. this is the orderly transfer of power and that's how it's supposed to go. >> you know, i just i have to add we are running out of time. heard something today from donald trump's attorney who said trump was sure that cop kavanaugh would come down on his side. it i i i want to read too much into it. but, you know, did to have that sort of confidence in the people that you placed on to the high court it's you know, one would hope that we that they could put politics aside and do something that you know is based you know, legal precedent and honoring the constitution and that sort of thing. but is that unrealistic? >> well, i t

david blight pointed out, bush v. goree is no precedent for a presidential candidate being disqualified from office for reasons like this. so, there is no existing definition in the jurisprudence that would directly relate to this case, but remember, in the election of 1876, soon after the 14th amendment, supreme court justices were involved and choosing the president then also, and as a lecture -- electoral commission was established, including five members of the supreme court, and a disputed presidential election. judges may pretty much -- very well liked the idea that they can choose the president. they don't get a chance to do that very often. i am not so sure that they are that anxious to have an off ramp, like my colleagues here. >> i have to squeeze in a final break here. i want to get your answer to that same question on the finding officer and insurrection after this commercial break. we'll be right back. that's the value of ownership. i could've waited to tell my doctor my heart was racing just making spaghetti.

after bush v gore, i think anyone that is of a certain age -- anyone under the age of -- i don't knowthat would be -- but bush v gore singed into everyone's mind that you didn't want to have hanging chance. so what do youo? we come up with electronic voting. what our former secretarof state kathy coxe implemented verify electronic voting without a verifiable paper ballot. electronic voting is a different way. how do you know that the machine really recorded that? now we fit the best of both worlds. you can recoryour vote, it's scanned through electronic mean but you can do a hand recount like we did in 2020. you can do audits. it gives people confidence in that. i think the system can always be improved. we added -- >> that trend has been going on for a long time, both parties. >> now we have 17 days of early voti. we give voters the choice. they are not pushing them any which way. we think with the additional requirement that counties have to keep lineshorter than one hour, that is a vor-centric measure and it just really has the voters have confidence in the results but also enjoy t

everybody remembers bush v. gore, president bush, al gore, the decision made in 2000 with respect to that election and the reputational damage of the institution, of people believing that we had a partisan court that gave the election to george bush. i think there will be efforts to avoid that. how do they do that? i think how they'll do it is there's always a maxim on the court, you decide a case in the most narrow fashion possible. what will that mean here? will it mean that the supreme court says that, listen, it's not a state's issue, it's up to the federal government, and until congress passes a law which indicates how this is resolved that we're going to stay out of it? will they say we conclude that the 14th amendment should be more definitive and until or unless it is, we'll stay out of it again? so i don't know that they're going to reach a conclusion as to whether the president engaged in an insurrection, whether there was an insurrection. so my expectation is that they will try to resolve this case in the

>> i do think he's going to want to avoid a divisive decision like bush v. gore.s going to want to avoid the decision that splits 6-3 with the six republican appointees an three democratic appointees in disscent. i don't think he's going to be eager with that with insurrection. so there may be technical ways to avoid the issue by calling it a political question, say, by saying congress has to enact legislation before the courts can act. but it's a tricky, tricky thing. and i think it's quite unwelcome at the court. but at the same time, this question really would seem to need an actual resolution. and i think it's more likely than not that the court hears the colorado case and decides it pretty quickly. >> and let me ask you about immunity, and the former president saying that he has immunity from jack smith's prosecution. because he was already acquitted in the impeachment, certainly, he's not within the legal system. it was within the political system. >> so, trump's immunity claim is a long shot. that's going to be argued next week in the d.c. circuit, the fede

john dean, we talk about what happened in 2000, when the supreme court had bush v. gore in its hands and essentially decided the presidential election at the finishline of that election. what do you make of the role the high court could have in shaping the 2024 election now? >> i don't think it's a role they want. as you mentioned in your introduction, there's a parallel case that's approaching the court on the question of whether the president gets immunity from criminal prosecution, which is, in many ways, equally as important as this one. i have no idea what the court will do. i know if there really strict constructionists, they would say he belongs off the ballot. i don't know they'll go that far. i think they have a middle road, where they might say, well, 150 years have passed since that amendment was adopted, and times have changed. the congress really needs to address this, not the court. so, they'll find a middle ground. but yet, when they come to immunity, they'll come down hard and say there is no immunity for criminal prosecution for the president. so, i thin

he should be subjected to other accountability as every other american. >> bush v. gorehat experience was for you, donna brazile, americans generally accepted that. >> thanks to al gore who helped. >> will that happen with the supreme court rulings? will americans accept the supreme court rulings as legitimate and move on or will we see the kind of unrest that we don't want to see again? >> this is where you'll see john roberts at his chiefiest if you will, which is he's going to want this to be 9-0. it could be an unsigned opinion. he's going to work very hard for exactly that reason, to protect the constitution of the court. >> george: only one of many decisions they'll have to make. thank you all for your time this morning. we'll be right back. (♪) (♪) (♪) (♪) (crowd cheers) sore throat got your tongue? mucinex instasoothe sore throat medicated drops. uniquely formulated for rapid relief that lasts and lasts. that's my babyyy! -ow! get mucinex instasoothe. it's comeback season. (bobby) my store and my design business? we're exploding. but my old internet, was not lett

on the first, just once, it would be bush v. gore. they also had these hard election deadlines. was december 12th. they were doing things in the day and a half. it wasn't their finest moment in terms of the merits. what questions? that's intriguing here because i don't think i've ever seen a case, alex, that combine such political moment with such a legal blake slate. trump just said, as his question presented, the normally have very discrete questions of law, he just said, did colorado get it wrong, and through seven claims to the supreme court. they haven't ever really analyze this provisions so the parties now, besides going and lickety-split, they have to brief these possibilities, and none of them is really pristine. people will be talking to see which ones that will go for. in terms of the decision, i think, when you're talking this kind of speed, we might expect it within a couple weeks. they're obviously have their eye on the calendar. they can't make up as fast as the colorado folks would want. they may be making it in time for super tuesday. all of those things actuall

but as you and i recall, they decided bush v. gorek in the year 2000 in a matter of days with a very -- even a quicker briefing schedule, but this is fast. but it is giving the parties enough time to get the materials in so that things are well considered. way expect, wolf, is that we are going to see lots of historians, many more legal scholars, probably plenty of political analysts all weighing in so that the -- and i know that things were already being drafted before we even got to this moment in anticipation of the high court taking this up. so i think the justices will have plenty of voices to hear from, and i think -- and i think it is important because, you know, just think back a few weeks. this idea was in some ways hatched up in law schools, you know, some prominent law professors had put it forward. it kept getting more and more attention, and i have to say the arguments at every stage seemed stronger and stronger and both sides are now joined and they're both very forceful arguments. so it is -- and they will be backed, as

. >> in part because this is the court that remembers what happened after bush v gore when it looked like they were the ones to decide the presidential election. meantime, president biden is using january 6 as a talking point for his reelection campaign 3 years ago. tomorrow we saw their own lives. >> the violent mob stormed the united states capitol, addressing a crowd of supporters at valley forge friday. >> the president sought to remind voters of the chaos of the january 6, 2021 insurrection of the u.s. capitol. >> smashing windows, shatter indoors, attacking the police. outside gallas were wrecked it. as a maga crowd chanted. >> 5 people were killed according to the president. more than 140 police officers were injured. california congressman jared huffman barricaded himself in his office at the capitol hearing chance outside and even gunshots. my false sense of security just jarred into a very disturbing reality. i thought the capital was a fortress. just inviolable. >> i had a rude awakening that day. the u.s. supreme court justices order sets trump's ballot ban case to be hea

they certainly dated 2000 with bush v gore. if thedo take it up and give us a definitive ruling as posed to sidestepping it. i suspect they are going to say for the primaries that those who qualify according to the party rules should affect be on the ballot. if you take the 14 amendment, section three. a plain reading of that section. host: i can read it right now. section three, no person shall be a senator or presentative to congress or lecter president or vice president or hold any officerny state who has taken an oath as a member of congress or a member of an state legislature to support the constitution of the united states having engaged in insurrectionr rebellion against the state or given comfort to the enemy thereof. guest: to me, that plain reading says that trump engaged in insurrection. it doesn't say he has to be convicted. alsooesn't mention the president specically but there is in the debate that occurred in the senate at the time that this came up in 1857, 1858 right after the civil war. this question was asked

. >> in part because this is the court that remembers what happened after bush v gore when it looked like they were the ones to decide the presidential election. meantime, president biden is using january 6 as a talking point for his reelection campaign 3 years ago. tomorrow we saw their own lives. >> the violent mob stormed the united states capitol, addressing a crowd of supporters at valley forge friday. >> the president sought to remind voters of the chaos at the january 6, 2021 insurrection of the u.s. capitol. >> smashing windows, shatter indoors, attacking the police. outside gallas were wrecked it. as the maga crowd chanted. mike pence, 5 people were killed and according to the president, more than 140 police officers were injured. >> california congressman jared huffman barricaded himself in his office at the capitol hearing chance outside and even gunshots. my false sense of security just jarred into a very disturbing reality. i thought the capital was a fortress. just inviolable. >> i had a rude awakening that day 3 years later. and trump's momentum with republicans hasn't

it's the most involvement at the court, any court has had in presidential elections since bush v. gore. already trump's team is winking and nodding their way into tipping the scales. >> i think it should be a slam dunk in the supreme court. i have faith in them. people like kavanaugh who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place. he'll step up. those people will step up. not because they are pro trump, but because they are pro law. because they are pro fairness. the lawness is very clear. >> now is that a suggestion or a quid pro quo? is that a suggested threat? and is this even a legal argument or just a public relations one? >> how much of you being an attracted smart woman played into the role of this? >> to him or in the public? i can tell you it's been a double-edge sword. it's something i've had to deal with in the positive and the negative. i don't think i would be on tv or sitting here if i didn't look the way i look. i think i caught attention. i'm very honest about that and i don't mind. i'm not a feminist, okay. i believe in strong women

. >> this is the biggest ele election-related case for the supreme court since bush v. gore. the justices have accepted a petition from trump's lawyers to review whether the colorado supreme court made a mistake when they removed trump from the ballot. it's unclear which questions or issues the court will decide, but the big question in this case that's been litigated is whether section 3 of the 14th amendment of of the constitution applies to presidents. this is a question that has divided even judges within one state of colorado. this is so-called insurrectionist ban, and this section of the 14th amendment prohibits anyone who engages in insurrection from holding future office. but it does not say how it applies to the president, and that's one of the issues that the justices will likely have to weigh in on. the other big issue is how this is enforced. is it up to the states? is there a role for congress? right now they are not making clear the justices exactly which questions they intend to answer. lawyers are framing this case as a returnrn canandidates toto th choicece t

kayleigh: the new york times said this is set to be the most explosive case of bush v gore and there'llcrat justices saying this is not how the constitution works and this is history and it's confederates and saw in michigan it was like five democrat judges that said, look, no, this is not the way we're going. it's a back hand slap to the nonsense of the state level saying we're going to ban the leading republican candidate from the ballot. will: much more optimistic and i don't think it'll be 9-0. i think everything in our country has been so politicized and the tip of the spear of politicization is this insurrection narrative and i would not be surprised and definitely three. brace yourself for disappointment in hoping for rationality. pete: i care about the outcome and keep the country, we jump the shark on the perception of the supreme court. like the left hate it is right now because it's full of trump nominees that have ruled and overturned roe v wade and they hate and want to discredit the supreme court no matter what. at this point it's about winning and if donald trump wins the

supreme court did not want this day to come, they're probably still recovering a little bit from bush v. gore, and this seems to be the worst kind of deja vu. maybe that's why after several hours behind closed doors talking today, drum roll, please, the supreme court said yes to the dress. they will decide whether donald trump, the former president of the united states, one who is trying to become the president yet again, can even actually be on a ballot after his role on january 6th. well, which ballot? well, this one concerns colorado, but the supreme court knows that the floodgates, they're about to open. it's already been -- and i can't believe it either -- three years as of tomorrow since this attack you're seeing right here on the screen. and while prosecutors have been dragged for taking so long to get the prosecutorial ball rolling, well the court not at all known for lightning speed, well, now they're wasting no time. their oral arguments are set for february 8th. donald trump saying just a little while ago that he hopes the justices that he appointed will be -- i'll use his word --

what is the likelihood that chief justice roberts will try and avoid a political decision like bush v gorethere are competing scholars about the applicability of the 14th amendment to bar donald trump, and it says anybody that engages in an insurrection is not eligible to hold office, and it seems clear on its face, but there are tricky views at play, and for example, is the president an officer of the united states? it seems obvious, but it says who has taken an oath to support the constitution, and the president swears an oath to protect, preserve and defend the constitution. that's a potential off-ramp for the textlists. so then it's not self executing, and i think one of those ways out seems most likely to me. whatever they do, they need to decide this case quickly because all of these states need to print up the ballots for the primaries. >> what a complicated situation. barbara, thank you for sorting it out. the book, can't wait, "attack from within" upcoming. >> thank you. >> you bet. >>> coming up, new details about what israel is planning for gaza after the war, the war against ha

. >> reporter: this is the biggest election-related case that the court will hear since bush v gore. they have granted this petition from former president trump's lawyers to review whether the colorado supreme court made a mistake when it decided to remove trump from the ballot based on section 3 of the 14th amendment of the u.s. constitution. that is a so-called insurrectionist ban that bars anyone who engages in an insurrection from holding future office. it's unclear exactly which questions and issues the court will consider and rule on, but the overarching issue is whether that section 3 of the 14th amendment applies to presidents. this is an issue that has actually divided judges even within the state of colorado. trump's lawyers are framing their case as a request to return choice to the voters. they insist if they rule against trump, then the court will for the first time be taking away the choice that voters should have to vote for a party's primary candidate. they say this will be the first time in the history of the country that the judiciary would make that decision. the c

off what we're looking at, a historic period where the supreme court for the first time since bush v. gore in 2000 is set to play a major role in the presidential election, perhaps making a decision on whether the former -- whether the former president gets to stay on these ballots. >> yeah. it is quite the decision indeed, evan. appreciate it. thank you. >>> outfront now, sean gripsly who represents the group of voters in colorado who want trump off of the ballot. the fact that the supreme court has agreed to decide this case, what is your reaction to that? what do you anticipate? >> well, we are thankful that the supreme court decided to take the case. we asked the supreme court to do so along with the petitioners. the republican state party, donald trump and our clients asked that. we are also gratified the court is setting it on expedited schedule. we had asked for argument by january 19th. that was probably pretty ambitious but having it on february 8th is pretty close, and we think the court will have the decision well in advance of super tuesday. >> there is the issue as evan was go

this is huge before the supreme court since bush v. gore. this is the first time that justices are wading in the 2024 campaign and trump's many legal issues. but among his many cases this is the one where he is expected to have the greatest chance of success as many legal experts expect that the justices are not going to want to completely strip voters of their choice of candidate based on this constitutional language where we've seen even courts within the same state couldn't quite agree on what it means. >> and let's talk about something, and i'll give our viewers a little bit of a window behind the scenes that you and i have been talking about a lot this morning, and that is, what is happening in georgia. the judge overseeing donald trump's election subversion case there has set a date to hear a motion to disqualify the fulton county d.a. fani willis, based on allegations she had an improper relationship with the special prosecutor. explain what the allegations are and more importantly what it could mean for the case? how would if the all

for those of us, like you and i old enough to remember bush v gore, that was 5-4 decision, chief rehnquist divided that court a little bit with that decided that the florida supreme court could not be the writer of election law and in that case, under count of the ballots not to take people too far back. but in this case, it's going possibly be divisive, if there's a more unanimous decision perhaps there's an impact. >> i hope for the good of the country that it's a unanimous decision, there's so much politicalization of the supreme court right now. and democrats are going to see it the way they see it and the republican sees it the way they see it. whoever wins i hope it's unanimous, it's not good to have an independent body like the supreme court and everybody throwing darts at it and saying it's a political body. it's not good for our country. griff: let me switch gears before i run out of time because the batches, i believe there have been three or four batches of documents in the jeffrey epstein case. what do you make of it? what's your read on what we're seeing? >> look, some way it'

this is the biggest supreme court case be have had since bush v. gore. the question is whether states can remove trump from the bow based on section 3 of the 14th amendment. the so-called insurrectionist ban. last night the trump team filed their brief before the supreme court expanding on the argument that they are going to make before the justices in just a few weeks they argue, look, you cannot strip voters of their choice of candidate. quote, doing that would threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of americans and promised to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow colorado's lead. exclude the likely republican presidential nominee from their ballots. of course, this is an appeal of the collar supreme court decision to remove him from the ballot. some folks really emphasize the language. they're and bedlam being unleashed. that echoes, of course, the things trump said in the lead off to january 6th that helped promote violence. it is also true that if the supreme court were to allowed each of the 50 states to ha

this is the biggest election related case that the court will hear since bush v. gore.hey have granted this petition from former president trump's lawyers to review whether the colorado supreme court made a mistake when it decided to remove trump from the ballot based on section 3 of the 14th amendment of the u.s. constitution. that is a so-called insurrectionist ban that bars anyone who engages in an insurrection from holding future office. now, it's unclear exactly which questions and issues the court will consider and rule on, but the overarching issue here is whether that section 3 of the 14th amendment applies to presidents. this is an issue that has actually divided judges even within the state of colorado. trump's lawyers are framing their case as a request to return choice to the voters. they insist that if they rule against trump, then the court will for the first time be taking away the choice that voters should have to vote for a party's primary candidate. they say this would be the first time in the history of the country that the judiciary would make that d

in many ways the supreme court could really get involved in ways that we have not seen since bush v. gore. and this is going to be important for them to decide on and many constitutional, legal experts, expect the supreme court will decide to weigh in in some way here. but of course if they decide it applies to presidency or whether they will start to weigh in on whether or not the former president engaged in insurrection. >> so the reality is this plays directly into many of the political arguments as well that the former president makes on the campaign trail. he consistently argues the system is rigged against him. and he makes it about his supporters. he tells them that it means the system is out to get you. when i've talked to democrats, a lot will privately acknowledge that they are nervous about him being stripped off of these ballots even though obviously many democratic supporters feel strongly about him not appearing on ballots. they say it just plays in to his hand and allows him to make this argument and makes it harder to argue that they actually are able to win the general el

decision but the court once more going to be trust into into the election in a way since george bush v gore. i think it's going to be a complete mess. >> that's a remarkable thing. suppose the court granted and upheld the colorado supreme court, that would essentially mean that the supreme court is blessing this interpretation of the 14th amendment and the supreme court that would disqualify donald trump, not just in colorado but throughout the entire country. i have a hard time seeing chief justice roberts leading the supreme court. 50 to 30 points in early primary states. presidential electoral politics. if your call was the court saying that the state of florida's courts were using inconsistent standards in how counting ballots county to county. i think that the the court too will grant circ. suppose that you're worried that there might be 5 votes to affirm the colorado supreme court and you don't want the supreme court to be the one who decides nationwide whether trump is going to be on the ballot or not. maybe you don't grant circ. maybe you let colorado have its way and case for anoth

. >> in part because this is the court that remembers what happened after bush v gore when it lookedey were the ones to decide the presidential election. meantime, president biden is using january 6 as a talking point for his reelection campaign 3 years ago. tomorrow we saw their own lives. >> the violent mob stormed the united states capitol, addressing a crowd of supporters at valley forge friday. >> the president sought to remind voters of the chaos at the january 6, 2021 insurrection of the u.s. capitol. >> smashing windows, shatter indoors, attacking the police. outside gallas were wrecked it. as the maga crowd chanted. mike pence, 5 people were killed and according to the president, more than 140 police officers were injured. >> california congressman jared huffman barricaded himself in his office at the capitol hearing chance outside and even gunshots. my false sense of security just jarred into a very disturbing reality. i thought the capital was a fortress. just inviolable. >> i had a rude awakening that day 3 years later. and trump's momentum with republicans hasn't slowed

. >> only clarence thomas was on the supreme court for the bush v. gore in 2000. do you see parallels? >> here, the stakes are different. right? right now, we don't know if one of the leading candidates is eligible to run for office. that suggests we really need a decision soon so republican voters have the chance to know if the candidate they are considering supporting can serve as president. it is different than a recount. yes, the stakes are similar. the legal issues are very different. as you think about what it will mean for the country, remember, there are other cases involving trump that are coming to the supreme court including a really important one about whether he can be criminally prosecuted or whether he is immune. that trial may take place depending on what the court does before we get to the general election season. that decision may end up being much more important than this one. >> karen, do you think justice thomas should have recused himself from the case? there are questions he could be impartial. but an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case

supreme court likely to try to find some kind of technical off-ramp rather than getting into a bush v. gore? >> that could be, andrea. catherine is right, this feels like an argument in which its reach has exceeded its grasp. but the real victory for former president trump is that he loses, the real victory for president trump is delay. he wants to delay this decision. he wants to hold off the trial and wait in after the election, in the hope that he can somehow seek a pardon or have a new department of justice in place. that's what president trump's lawyers are truly hoping to win. because i think the legal arguments are clearly in favor of jack smith and the prosecutors. >> catherine christian, paul charlton, thanks to both of you. >>> and new year, new big challenges. next, senator chris van hollen joining us and doubling down on 2024. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports." thisis msnbc. is msnbc >>> ukraine's two largest cities were bombarded by russian missiles today, after president putin began the new year vowing to intensify attacks. at least five people were killed in kyiv and

looming large, you know, behind -- in their minds obviously is the bush v. goreision, they don't want to answer political questions but they really have no choice at this point. they are going to decide one way or another with respect to all 50 states, whether or not trump can be on the ballot in all 50 states. it's not going to be a state by state issue. and, you know, i personally don't feel that they're going to answer this question we are all asking whether or not trump engaged in an insurrection for the purposes of the 14th amendment, that section 3 that we have all been talking b i think they are going to make the decision on procedural grounds whether or not that clause is self-executing and whether or not really it's the electorate or congress that is going to enforce this decision. i don't think it's going to be the courts. >> so to that point do you think that those were the most effective arguments made in that filing, less about whether he actually committed insurrection, more about sort of the technical aspects of who should be deciding who remains o

that are they haunted by bush v. gore in that sense? well, again the framers of this clause, in the 14th amendment, said john bingham's, and i'll give you this last little bingham quote. there are men, there are men now in these halls, who may learn when it is too late, that the ballot in the hands of conspirators maybe more dangerous than the ballot. now we have like voters to -- but taking the ballot away from people who wish to put insurrectionist back into power, they were saying this is dangerous, as was the insurrection itself. now, every political -- movement in history is full of judgments for sure. but if section three is to survive, in the 14th amendment. and for that matter, a lot of the very meaning of the 14th amendment, the court passed to take some kind of position on this, that on the one hand i would hope doesn't ruin their own reputation. but on the other hand, gives us some sense of stability, and a way to work through. this >> professor david blight, thank you very much for another of your contributions to history, i

oral arguments for february 8 in what could be the high court's biggest political decision since bush v. gore3 years ago. in the meantime president biden began his 2024 campaign push but instead of running on his own record it appears biden is choosing to villainize former president trump. even some democrats are saying biden is being hypocritical when it comes to democracy but first senior national correspondent dev is life in d.c. with what former president trump is is saying. >> a very interesting rally to watch. on the heels of joe biden's campaign launch, as you know, punctuated by ominous warnings of what a second trump presidency just might entail, former president obviously responding today. holding a pair of rallies ahead of the iowa caucuses. mr. trump said it's not him but the current occupant of 1600 pennsylvania avenue who is the real problem. >> biden is a threat to democracy. he's weaponizing law enforcement for a high level election interference. it's all about election interference and i don't even know if it's him because he's grossly incompetent but he's surrounded by peopl

. >> in part because this is the court that remembers what happened after bush v gore when it lookede they were the ones to decide the presidential election. meantime, president biden is using january 6 as a talking point for his reelection campaign 3 years ago. tomorrow we saw their own lives. >> the violent mob stormed the united states capitol, addressing a crowd of supporters at valley forge friday. >> the president sought to remind voters of the chaos at the january 6, 2021 insurrection of the u.s. capitol. >> smashing windows, shatter indoors, attacking the police. outside gallas were wrecked it. as a maga crowd chanted. >> 5 people were killed according to the president. more than 140 police officers were injured. california congressman jared huffman barricaded himself in his office at the capitol hearing chance outside and even gunshots. my false sense of security just jarred into a very disturbing reality. i thought the capital was a fortress. just inviolable. >> i had a rude awakening that day 3 years later. and trump's momentum with republicans hasn't slowed down leading b

so a lot of people sort of relate back to bush v. gore and all of that. my view of that is misunderstanding, or what the constitutional process dictates. there is a clock and the constitution about what you have to do, when you have to do it. you have this document that everyone wants to hold up. yes, we love and follow the constitution. but they start applying the specifics to a case and controversy. everyone wants to back away because the politics seems to drive the narrative. how do you see the court dealing with that? justice roberts wants to steer clear of the politics. there are a lot of folks who believe that because of the political elements of those, and some on the court, the lean into it. how do you see this looking at these cases that are coming before in terms of giving donald trump the immunity that he seeks, et cetera? >> the way the court should steer the politics is by ignoring the politics. let's be honest, we would never have applied the section three and the 14th amendment after the civil war if we're worried about public opinion and t

on january 6 will regard the supreme court's intervention as illicit much the way we all think bush v gorea tragic mistake. and there is strategy. i worry getting rid of trump this way could backfire. in particular, it saves the democrats from the obligation to make their case to the american people that they should win. >> juan: what about this issue of granting more power to the supreme court in terms of collections? also, the issue of how the trump base might react to this removal of him from the ballot? >> i think we can have a separate conversation about whether the supreme court as an institution commands more power, vis-À-vis the other branches, but there's no reason for particular modesty for the u.s. supreme court with respect to enforcing section three of the 14th amendment. i think there no reason for the supreme court to run away from the text in history of this provision. i guess i am skeptical this notion that somehow leaving it to the voters is a better strategy. i think the voters certainly spoke in 2020 and resoundingly chose president biden. president trump at that time c

in part, because it's the most important election law case since bush v. gorejonathan, if this case is a 60 vote for trump, if it's the conservatives against the liberals, then it will be viewed as just another power play by the hard right. it will further erode the course of legitimacy, but the conservative justices don't seem to care about that anymore than they care about -- we've seen that as the congressman asset, and in the abortion affirmative action cases, where they banned decades of precedent. because this is a hard case, the chief justice may try to be on the defensive, but i think you'll have a hard time in justice sought to mayer and jackson, and they know and instruction when they see, one just like the colorado supreme court it. i think they'll come to the same conclusion, except, that might be a dissenting opinion before the u.s. supreme court. >> well, we will soon see. popular, barbara mcquade, thank you both very much for joining us tonight. coming up, the economic news lately is so good, even fox can't help questioning what they see. that is

they still have a level patriots'day from bush v. gore.don't want to make it look like little side of the election. we can go through the legal questions here, and why i think actually the colorado supreme court got it right. and that he is constitutionally barred. i just don't see the u.s. supreme court going there. >> all right, we'll see when that decision comes out. i know a lot of people are anticipating. it jessica levinson, thanks for joining. us dean, and carlos, we have got a lot more to discuss with you. we have someone pick to talk about. turns out there is a level of kissing that ring that even makes donald trump uneasy, believe it or not. the rnc's push to toss out the democratic process, that's next. next and a tight end all have in common? they all got this season's updated covid-19 shot to help better protect them against recent variants. got it? ♪♪ ♪♪ got yours? a force to be reckon with. no, not you saquon. hm? you! your business bank account with quickbooks money, now earns 5% apy. 5% apy? that's new! yup, that's how you

it's going to be the most momentous case since bush v. gore and it will have huge implications for the election and there's no easy way for the supreme court to duck it. >> the thing is, mary y have no comment. i don't have a lot of confidence, mr. rosen has much more confidence than i do that there is any originalist thinking. to me, it's a political question of what outcome they prefer to have associated with themselves. what is your level of confidence? >> on the immunity question, i think there is a chance that's if the d.c. circuit rules in a comprehensive ruling that there is no absolute immunity for a former president, for crimes committed while in office, that the supreme court might just deny cert? >> that means? just don't take it at all? >> don't take it at all. they already denied jack smith's request that they take it and just leapfrog over the d.c. circuit. in part, i don't think that's because they didn't think it was important. i think it was because the d.c. circuit had already accelerated its briefing. we already almost were

obviously, we've seen the supreme court under a microscope in the recent years, after the bush v. goreion decision there, then, they took a hit to their standing, essentially, when it comes to how they could decide this. it's not just eastern no. a yes or a no. there are different ways and narrower scopes that we could see as an outcome from the supreme court of what this could look like. right? >> that's right, caitlin. they may also wait a lyle. they don't have to take this petition immediately. they may want to see what other states do. and not tip their hand as to how they feel about it. so, the problem is still young. the issue is growing. more states are, i think there's something like 14 states out there with this issue still brewing. so who knows how they're gonna resolve it. i think ultimately, they're gonna have to, there's no question it will have to be resolved before the end of the general election. but when is still open, an open question. >> elie honig, justice, i like that name. thank you both for joining tonight. up next on the ice, the source, long-awaited documents h

. >> we talk about what happened in 2000 when they had bush v gore in their hands and decided the presidential election at finish line. what do you make in that role that they could shape the 2024 election now? >> i don't think it is a role they want. as you mentioned, it's sort of a parallel case that's approaching the courts. which is in many ways, equally as important as this one. i have no idea what the courts will do. if they are strict, they would say he belongs off the ballot. i don't know if they will go that far. i think they will have a middle road where they say 150 years have passed and times have changed and congress really needs to address this, not the courts. so when they come to immunity, they will come down and say there is no immunity. i think they are political in their own ways and in what works for the country when they need it. >> you heard a few of the arguments that they laid out and what trump's team has been saying in response to this. it is not just one argument. but they say colorado supreme court in their view is wrong and that even if it was an insurrection, and