justice alito. justice alito: suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again that t uted states is its biggest enemy. supposthpresident of the united states for the mac reasons thinks it is in the best interest of the u.s. to provide funds or release funds so they can be used by thacotry. could a state determined that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy and therefore keep that person ofofhe ballot? mr. murray: this court has never interpreted the eight and comfort languagehi is in the treason clause. it has beeneay applied because treason prosecutions are rare. commentators have suggested that aid and comfort only pls in a declared war or any adversarial relationship where you there -- where there is in fact a war between two countrs. the standardould do a lot of workhe because under section three, whatever the underlying conduct is, it has to be done with the intent to further the purpose ofhensurrection or d the enemies. justice alito: let me come back to the question of what

justice alito: exactly. this decision, the trial court in colorado thought it was proper to admit the january report and it also admitted the testimy of an expert who testified aut the meaning of certain words and phrases to people who communicate with and among extremists another state court could reach an opposite conclusion. other states ulconclude that the january 6 rept s admissible hearsay and they might conclude that the atements within the january 6 report are hearsay. and they could certainly have a different conclusion tha the expe ttimony of the professor. perhaps they could produce their own witness. justice alito: should these considerations be dismissed as inconsequential or do they support a structural argument that supports the decision you are taking? mr. mitchell: i think they mutually enforce each otr. we have an argument we believe it is sufficient to dispose this case jusbad on meaning of ofceof the stage. all of the considerations are additional reasons to reverse the colorado supreme c

justice alito. justice alito: suppose there is a countryha proclaims again d ain that the unitedtates is its biggest enemy. suppose the president of the united states for the mac reasons thinks it is in the best inre of the u.s. torode funds or release funds so they can besed by that country. could a state determined that person has genid and comfort to the enemy and therefore keep th person off of the ballot? mr. murray: this court hasever interpreted the eight and mft language which is in the treason clause. it has been really applied because treason prosecutions are ra. commentators have suggested that aid and cfort only applies in a decledar or any adversarial relationship where you there -- where there is in fact a war between two countries. the standard would do a lot of work there because under section three, whatever the uering conduct is, it has to be done with the intent to further the purpose of the insurrection or aid the enemies. justice alo: let mco back to the question of what we woul

justice alito? >> mr. stuart, do you think the constutionality of this provision could be suaid on a theory similar to the one in san francio arts and athletics versus u.s. olympi committee? >> i don't really think so because that was reallynot a provision of general applicability. that was intended to protect the trademark rights -- unique history and a unique motivation. certainly, some of the subsidiaty things that the court said in that case would be relevant here. but the other difference that, in the san frcisco case, what you are dealing with was the actual imposition of a restriction on speech that is the consequence of giving me olympic committee ofexclusive rights, in particular words that other people o wanted to use the same words in thr marketing activities could not use them. all we have here is something different. we are not dealing with an infringement case. we are not dealing with the question, can congress pass on-- law that makes it a source it a liability for people to use particular w

justice alito? >> justice alito: just one further question and along the same lines as a lot of the other questions. we have been told that if what colorado did here is sustained other states are going to retaliate and they are going to potentially exclude another candidate from the ballot. what about that situation? >> your honor, i think we have to have faith in our system that if people will follow their election processes appropriately that they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th amendment. courts will review those decisions. this court may review some of them. but i don't think that this court should take those threats too seriously in its resolution of this case. >> justice alito: you don't think that's a serious threat? >> i think we have. >> justice alito: we should proceed on the assumption it's not a serious threat. >> i think we have institutions in place to handle those types of allegations. >> justice alito: what are those institutions? >> our states, own e

first, justice alito was opining on the constitutionality of my supreme court ethics bill, which the senate judiciary committee had recently advanced. and the legitimacy of related oversight requests from the senate judiciary and finance committees. we have heard time and time again from supreme court nominees, including justice alito himself that it is improper and a disservice to the judicial process. those are justice alito's words in his nomination hearing -- for them to express opinions on a matter that might come before the court. well, boom, this was a matter that might come before the court and indeed it was likely to come before the court and will he was opining at will in the pages of "the wall street journal" editorial page. but it gets worse. he made his comments in the context of a specific ongoing legal dispute, a dispute involving the court fixer leonard leo who had arranged for an undisclosed free jet trip and fishing excursion for justice alito and himself. when the senate judiciary committee requested information about the gift alito arranged, we got a letter back f

i don't know if alito was was lying, but you're talking about the thee on crattic logic.eryone thinking of cpac, it used to be a place where conservative ideas were discussed at some level. now it's become a kind of propaganda, a cultish rah-rahs of not only one person, donald trump, but apparently it doesn't matter his ideas. how does that fit together? >> the irony of this for me, just speaking personally. my grandfather was the republican leader in the town i group up in in michigan. i remember very clearly, when he would talk about the importance of being conservative. this could also be probably he was an immigrant from canada, so bear that in mind as i quote him. he said conservatives means we are toe conserve the earth that god gave us. conservative means do not spend money you do not have. conserative means we're all going to sit together at the family dinner table and have a discussion. it means back in civic classes, it meant in order to have a democracy, we need all voices heard, and we need a place for people to go. so cpac, they have a place this week where t

so, jeff, what was alito's point? >> in terms of the argument itself, jason marie represented colorado. i would say his argument was somewhere between a calamity and a disaster. it was everything he was telling they were not buying. he did not do a bad job, it is just that every argument, whether trump was covered under section three of the 14th amendment, whether colorado had the right to do this. whether colorado had used the right procedures. the argument that justice alito is making, there it is related to an argument chief justice roberts made at another time which was what happens with other states? do other states feel they are bound by colorado and they have to throw trump off the ballot? that is what alito meant by collateral. justice chief roberts made the, point what happens when red states start to throw biden off the ballot? is that the kind of arms ways we want? i thought maybe justice sotomayor votes for colorado, but it looked like a -- and what it means in real terms, is donald trump is going to be on

i can imagine alito just thinking of all the wonderful trips he could take if it works out for him theht way. clarence, he love a trip, too. i don't think these people are not -- i don't think they're neutral. i think that some of them have feelings that they would like him to be president again. so i don't trust them. but i wanted you to go ahead and answer that question about let's just say this drops on judge tonya chutkan in october. how can she speed it up? or how could jack smith speed it up? >> it's really jack smith because any criminal case it's really the prosecutor that decides how many people am i bringing to trial and how many counts and what counts am i bringing. so really you're always looking at number of people but you're also looking at what am i going after them on. >> right. >> and so, you know, i think if you're a jack smith and paul will also have a lot of ideas with this seasoned prosecutor, i was on the civil side, you're thinking what's my strongest case that's my best case that i can get out there quickly so i can help the judge shorten the calendar on this. i

alito once complained that in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right while the ultimate second tier constitutional right in the minds of some is the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. why would he care about actual second class citizens like women, the poor, black and brown people or gays, lesbians, and trans people. alito and trump are joined by house speaker mike johnson who according to one msnbc columnist is the most unabashedly christian nationalist speaker in u.s. history. which means he too wants to basically eviscerate the separation between church and state. he once called homosexuality an inherently unnatural and dangerous lifestyle. if all of this sounds like the handmaid's tale, congratulations, you get it. yesterday, mike johnson made his maiden pilgrimage as speaker to mar-a-lago to pledge his allegiance not to the constitution but to donald trump on the same day trump was voted by historians as the worst president in u.s. history. joining me now is eugene robinson, "washington post" columnist and msnbc political analyst, and s

>> not that i'm aware, justice alito. >> i appreciate that response. is there anything in the original drafting, history, discussion that you think illuminates why that distinction would carry such profound weight? >> not of which we're aware. >> it's a precedent, although not binding, but your point then is it's re-enforced because congress itself relies on that precedent in the enforcement act of 1870 informs the backdrop against which congress does legislate and then as justice alito says, the historical practice for 155 years has been that that's the way it's gone. there haven't been state attempts to enforce disqualification under section 3 against federal officers in the years since. whether that's a federalist 37 liquidation argument at all re-enforces what happened back in 1868, 1869, and 1870. you want to add to that, alter that? >> no, i think that's exactly right. >> bottom line, the majority of the justices seemed inclined to keep trump on the ballot. and it wasn't just the members of the conservative majority who seemed dubious. the libera

>> it is not the first time we've heard this from justice alito.15, which legalized same-sex marriage across the nation. in 2020, he, and justice thomas, also issued a separate opinion in a denial of cert that raised questions about obergefell. so, this is something that we have heard before. it is not surprising. i think in the wake of dobbs, and the overruling of roe v. wade, it raises real questions about whether this appetite has an appetite for staying the course with established precedence, or whether they will seek the opportunities to revisit cases that have been settled. >> troubling headline from justice alito, but again, not surprising. thank you so much, it was a pleasure, thank you for joining us. still to come tonight, a bombshell report about plans to make a second trump administration a haven for christian nationalism. plus, harrowing images out of the gaza strip, moving people to call for a cease-fire. why did america just say no to one? more on that with pod save the world's ben rhodes, next. rhode or genital yeast infections, and

. >> a follow-up to justice alito. these decisions might be made different ways in different states. a secretary of state makes it in one state with little process or a process more like colorado's could be followed by others. would our standard of review vary depending on the procedure employed by the state? >> i think this court has tremendous discretion to decide its standard of review. it might be based on the process that was employed by an individual state. i think you could exercise the independent review that mr. murray talked about. you could give deference where you have a full-blown proceeding like here that had all the protections of rules of evidence and cross examination and things like that. >> you think we should give deference in reviewing the factual record, the legal conclusions? in other words -- >> i don't think it should did he de novo. i'm amenable to the suggestion that the court would do independent review that might provide greater certainty to states around the country as to what the court's

justice alito? >> i suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again and again that the united states is its biggest enemy, and suppose that the president of the united states, for diplomatic reasons, think that it is in the best interest of the united states to provide funds or release funds, so that they can be used by that country. could a state determine that that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy, and therefore keep that person off the ballot? >> no, your honor. this court has never interpreted the aid and comfort language which also is present in the treason clause. but, commentators suggested it has been rarely applied because treason prosecutions are so rare. aid and comfort really only applies in the context of a declared war or at least an adversarial relationship where there is in fact a war between two countries, and, second, the intense standard would do a lot of work there. under section 3, whatever the underlying conduct is, engaging in insurrection or aid and com

i welcome the courts questions. >>> justice alito?te to c-section three as a way to bar federal officeholders? >> not that i am aware of, i welcome the courts questions. justice alito. >> not that i am aware of, this is toledo. nope, this is not before, i wonder why that is. welcome back to our primetime recap of today's supreme court proceedings, on whether former president donald trump is eligible or ineligible to ever again stand for office in the united states, after what happened the last time. what you just heard there was a nice short jab from conservative justice samuel alito, answered by president trump's lawyer jonathan mitchell today. the real rejoinder to what -- excuse me, what justice alito was asking there came if you minutes later, from a lawyer on the other side. the lawyer for a lot of voters, it's a summary, in a back and forth with chief justice john roberts, in which the chief justice essentially says that the lawyer, hey, this is crazy that we had to decide something like this, isn't it? the lawyer response, yes,

we saw in dobson justice alito wrote the majority opinion.e a lot of elements of fetal personhood. he speaks of unborn children throughout the opinion. there was a case in texas where there was a wrongful death suit under texas law filed against a woman who had helped another woman seek a medication abortion. the idea was that these women contributed to the negligent death of a person. as a homicide. we have already seen that the fight that is state supreme court has done this, it really opens the door wide. we are now at the point where the window is wide open, and we are normalizing the prospect of fetal personhood. and that was always the endgame for the pro-life movement. this settlement, state-by-state settlement, that dobbs created was never a lasting stadelman. because if you believe that abortion is murder, as many in the pro-life movement do, you cannot be okay with some states deciding that it is fine and other states being opposed to it. so fetal personhood was always the next candidate, it is here, it is now. >> are there other st

just us alito renews criticism of landmark ruling on same sex marriage. just your response to that. >> it's not the first time we've heard this from justice alito. he was a dissenter in 2015's which legalized same sex marriage across the nation. in 2020 he and justice thomas also issued a separate opinion in a denial of cert that raised questions. this is something we've heard from him before. it's not surprising. i think though in the wake of dobbs and overrheuming of roe v. wade it raises real questions whether this court has an appetite of staying the course with established precedence or whether they'll seek the opportunities to revisit cases that have been settled. >> all right, troubling headline there from justice alito, but again not surprising. always a pleasure. thank you for joining us. >>> still to come tonight, a bombshell report about plans to make a second trump administration a haven for christian nationalism. >>> plus harrowing images out of the gaza strip are moving people around the world to call for a cease-fire. so why did america jus

justice alito? justice alito: what is the situation of people who have possessed bump stocks between the time of the atf's new rule and the present day, or between the time of the new rule and the fifth circuit decision? can they be prosecuted? mr. fletcher: probably yes unless they have gotten some judicial relief. the rule has not been vacated right large, so the government has been clear this is what we think the statute means. justice alito: isn't that disturbing? people in the fifth circuit who have been possessing firearms since the beginning of 2023, let's say they are aware of the fifth circuit's decision they can be criminally prosecuted for doing something the court of appeals that governs their territory has said is not illegal. mr. fletcher: i will give a practical answer and a doctrinal answer. practically i am not aware of these prosecutions being brought because we recognize there is legal uncertainty. that happens all the time, circuits disagree about what a criminal law means and so

i think thomas and alito, justices thomas and alito are the most likely to want to take this case. i think the three liberal justices are unlikely to want to take this case. so the question is, are there two more who might join with thomas and alito in this scenario? out of justices gorsuch, kavanaugh, and the chief justice, john roberts. it's going to be a play for who can get two of those three on their side in order to take this case. it's interesting to see how the consensus has evolved. my own view included. if you asked me four months ago, will the supreme court take this case, all of us would say they have to. this is heavy duty constitutional questions. there's no supreme court precedent on it. but i think as the opinions have come back one by one, including today's, and they have been so clear cut and so unambiguous, i would move it down to a 50/50 where it could go really either way, and by the way, if the supreme court does take this case, that could all but erase the chances of this getting tried before the election as a practical matter. >> timothy, you're still with u

and most likely, sam alito needs trump to win again, so alito can retire instead of having to die on and so that's at least two of the nine who have a vested professional interest in seeing continued republican hedge money over this country. and that's why the first thing time this is happened. sandra day o'connor also wanted george bush to be president and also thus appointed him president in bush v. gore because she wanted to retire under are public and president. this is how republicans role. >> well, on that note, we're gonna have to leave it there. the conversation is by no means over. please come back, mark joseph stern and elie mystal, thanks so much for your time and passions during these dark moments. still to come this evening, the man who was arguably the most responsible for the 6 to 3 conservative majority supreme court. dropped a bombshell of his own today. we'll get to that. plus another breaking story. for the third time donald trump has been kicked off a state ballot. what happens now? more on that, coming up next. it's time we listen to science. one a day is formula

on the campaign trail, we had ron desantis saying i want alito and thomas. even though the decisions seem unpopular outside the mainstream and quite radical, it's really just a taste of what's to come if trump gets to replace even just one of the current liberals on the supreme court in a second term. >> so what else would be at stake here? what else could we see changed? >> so, look, we could run down the line. even less leeway for gun control. broader protections for religious liberty that would allow or mandate state funding of discrimination. i think one really important point that doesn't get discussed enough is fetal personhood, presented to the supreme court in dobbs. only one justice in that majority in dobbs went out of his way to reject the idea that fetuses have equal protection. the other four were silent on that issue, and frankly, justice alito's majority opinion had a lot of language that hinted that he was at least curious about the possibility that states had a constitutional requirement to limit or ban abortion. that is top of agenda for co

>> like justice kagan, justice alito is considered one of the sharpest questionnaires on the court.t he's picking up on something that this supreme court has felt for at least two decades, which is the technology cases -- they don't know where the technology will go. they don't want to mess up the economy. i think i've argued 15 or so tech cases of the supreme court. it is a common theme. justice alito by asking that question, i think it was basically pushing for a more narrow decision from the u.s. supreme court in this case. look, this is about youtube. this is about meta and facebook. this is about twitter. it isn't about gmail and other things. let's leave that -- whatever decision we make here, let's have it be a narrow one, not touching those things. i do think that is a very smart credential thing to do in a case of this magnitude. >> interesting. i was very curious how you would help us to understand that. as you say, it is a shrewd way to see the warning sign. whatever the member of the media is, if these companies have too much power and can start to use that, you would im

i think justice alito is asking a different question. a more pointed and difficult one for you. it deserves an answer. on your theory, would anything compel a lower official to obey an order from in your view the former president? >> i'm imagining a situation where, for example, a former president was -- a president was elected and they were 25 and ineligible to have office but >> we're talking about section three. don't change the hypothetical. i like doing it, too. please don't do it. okay? >> the point i'm trying to make. >> he is disqualified from the moment he created an in insur insurrection. boom, it happened. try to answer the question. if you don't have an answer, we'll move on. what would compel a lower official to obey an order from that individual? >> because ultimately we have statutes and rules requiring chains of command. the person is in the office and even if they don't have the authority to hold the office, the only way to get someone out of the office of the presidency is impeachment. i think if you interpreted section three in light of other provisions in the

. >> i rise to congregate the alito bearcats with a win over the valley rangers to become the 5-a state football champions. the bearcats finished with a season of 16 wins and zero losses. mr. williams: after a season of early mornings and long hours in the field and staying focused in school, these young men showed dedication and strength and unwavering commitment to victory. i'm proud all their hard work and dedication throughout the year paid off. some of the bright and talented men and women prepare for their next endeavors i wish them best of luck for a brighter and more victorious future. gobert cats. in god we trust, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for one minute. ms. tokuda: the usda estimates $23 million were lost in revenue, property and livestock with 8,350 acres of agriculture lands burned, millions in sa

>> i really agree with justice alito, but i find myself in complete agreement with tonight.he pandora's box that would have been opened up i think would be devastating for the country. i'm not a constitutional expert, but most of a practical lawyer, but this was a practically strong decision coming, and i agree. it will be 8-1, 9-0, 7-2, in favorite of trump. i also agree that all eyes should not -- wait for the d.c. decision that the supreme court will have to make in a few days. the question is whether the united states supreme court will issue a stay and essentially prevent that district court matter before judge chutkan from going or whether they will allow it to go forward. i'm betting on the latter. >> plenty of that coming up in the next few days as welt. do you have a time line? >> their next scheduled meeting is next friday. they can do anything by phone. i would think the chief can be frankly i think the chief and several of his colleagues have already started trying to write this. i know these justices and how much they try to get ahead of things. we're in the mid

shareholder >> is that encompassed by this congress into your discussion of justice alito. thought the questionrented was about the extent to which the 16th amendment requires realizatn. if we are going beyond that are we out of the territory that is encompassed he. >> i don't think so the answer to theueion preseede don't have to decide in all context there was a realiti and as we set a briefing opposition to this case we don't thk that the case preventss a question prevented because here there wasctl realization by the corporation in the real dispute betenhe parties of whether congress made a fair attribution disn. >> let me ask you another question about the f governments brief. why did the government men argument about excess taxes at the end. >> we think the mrt is clearly constitutialn a tax theory as well. there has been some suggestion and aumt that maybe we did not present thergument below and it is incorrect. inheinth circuit we said even if the mrt is not properly arterized as an income tax it is not a direct tax and we sa trefore congress had article one authori

justice alito?>> is there any history of states using section 3 as a way to bar federal office holdingers? >> not that i'm aware of, justice alito because of griffin's case. griffin's case has been the law -- i shouldn't say it's been the law, it's a circuit court decision, but that has been the settled understanding since 1870 when it was decided. >> thank you. >> i want to pin down your principal argument on section 3. you argue that even though the president may or may not qualify, presidency may or may not qualify as an office under the united states, your principal argument is that the president is not an officer of the united states, correct? >> i would say a little more forcefully than what your honor just described. we believe the presidency is excluded from office under the united states, but the argument we have that he's excluded, the president as an officer of the united states is the stronger of the two textually. >> a bit of a gerrymandered rule, isn't it? deciding to benefit only your

thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> justice alito?suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again and again that the united states is its biggest enemy, and suppose that the president of the united states for diplomatic reasons think it is in the best interest of the united states to provide funds or release funds so that they can be used by that country, could a state determine that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy and therefore keep that person off of the ballot? >> no, your honor. this court has never interpreted aid and comfort language which is present in the treason clause, but commentators have suggested that it is rarely applied because the treason clauses are so rare. first of all, aid and comfort applies only in the declared war or at least adversarial relationship where there is in fact a war between two country, and secondly, the intent standard would do work there, because under section iii the underlying section there of aid and comfort has to be done with the intent to the unlawful insurrection or

. >> well, one of them was discussed by justice alito in the argument with the colorado case. the insticonstitution gives to congress the power to say when electors are selected but after the case the court decided in 2020 about whether electors are free to vote however they want, it's now clear that states have the power to tell electors how they must vote. so justice alito asked the question what if after the election, the state legislature doesn't believe the results are accurately reflected in the count of the elector's board? could the legislature just tell the electors that they have to vote for donald trump even though the state went for joe biden? and the problem that we've identified in the book is that seems to be the law as it is right now. no doubt justice kagan did not intend that when she wrote the opinion in the case, but it's where we are and it's one of the things we need to protect against to assure that that game is not played next election. >> and one of trump's most ardent defenders has been talked about as a police running mate. she was asked whether she

justice alito is in the 70s, justice thomas is in his 70s. if the republican president is elected they will be hello, my. you know what always shocks the conscience is beyond the sort of general ethical principles at stake here. the political reality that republican families use ivf, republican women often have abortions -- >> many. >> this crosses partisan lines. and if anyone thinks this is going to be neatly divided between left and right, man, are they wrong. >> it's the opposite of that. the majority of people in this country probably support ivf. i've not seen data on this but they do support a woman's right to choose, so this is not a clear partisan issue at all. >> thank you, my friend. as always lovely to see you through the week. and thanks to you at home for joining me this hour. so one of fox news' biggest stories just blew up in its face. >> so this confidential human source if you're watching other networks you're not going to hear this story, so if you're just watching fox for the first time, we'll tell you what's happening in

i think it was judge alito that this is one of the reasons they took up the case, they don't want thisnd chaos among 50 states. >> we have seen this play out. this is all centered on colorado. it has national implications. what we saw happen in maine, where the secretary of state made that decision. she's not an attorney, bringing attention what she believes is the duties of her office. but they were, saying the main superior court, let's see what the supreme court was saying. it speaks to the gravity of the decision they are making here, how many states it could affect. >> this is what they are designed to do. they are designed to resolve constitutional questions. there is ambiguity obviously, there is ambiguity here because it has been litigated over a dozen states with different outcomes. also settling the law when there are disputes among the states. this is what they do. hopefully they can offer some clarity soon. now the question is, how long will it take them to get back with the decision? nobody knows. nobody knows how long it will take. >> my guess is that they would like to o

and what alito said is just kind of nonsensical.ejudiced against gay people might have prejudiced against them. therefore, we have to reverse gay marriage so no one feels bad about it. it's a little bit insane. >> the "washington post" associate editor suggests the decision puts alabama firmly in thee yog ra sit territory. but so, too, has been the idea of separation between church and state. we were just talking about that. i think we understand the danger kboining religion and law making, but we're talking about the potential of a second trump term. where that's going to be the actual core. there's great reporting just yesterday in politico about the fact that a lot of these folks are going to be central to the policymaking were this to be a second trump term. this is not something that has happened in the past. it's something that could be forthcoming. >> that's right. you can add in the culture wars in florida. and i think what conservatives both jurists and politicians continue to get wrong is all of these advancements they are

. >> before we go to break, i just want to share a bit of what we heard from justice alito earlier today. >> content moderation, to me, is just editorial destruction. >> is it anything more than he usually misses for censorship? >> if the government is doing it, that content moderation might be a euphemism for censorship. if a private party is doing it, content moderation is a euphemism for editorial discretion, and there is a fundamental difference between the two. >> francis, how would you answer justice alito? is content moderation censorship? >> so, there is a very important distinction between the government mandating certain kinds of speech and there are other cases that are likely going to be seen by the supreme court this year, that regard, can the government talk to social media platforms about what content they do or don't distribute it? when a private company is making choices about what kind of sight they want to make, remember, these laws that are in question right now, they're not just going to matter and acts. they're going to apply to places like etsy and pinterest. are w

it’s safer to buy from alito auto. petp. we 're going on vacation. and we're going. third year.ogram is being broadcast by the duty department. in the studio maxim movchan. metropolitan police are looking into the details of a massive accident involving a taxi. a yellow car flew into oncoming traffic, hit several cars, and hit pedestrians crashed into the road barrier. it was only by miracle that everyone survived, details from olga mazurak. these fragments from the tail lights of a car on the roadway of azovskaya street in the south-west of the capital, like an echo-mass azal, involved at least four cars in an accident. one can only guess how strong the blow was? cctv cameras helped restore the picture of what happened. bujol. a taxi car is taxiing into the oncoming lane, the driver has clearly lost control, blow after blow the cars scatter in all directions along the way an out-of-control taxi car rammed several cars, here is one of them, now they are trying to load it onto a tow truck, this is quite problematic, the rear wheel was severely deformed, the participants in the ac

so, jeff, what was alito's point there? >> just in terms of the argument itself, you know, jason murray represented colorado, and i would say his argument was somewhere between a calamity and a disaster. >> wow. >> it was everything he was selling, they weren't buying. he didn't do a bad job. it's just that every argument, you know, whether trump was covered under section 3 of the 14th amendment, whether colorado had the right to do this, whether colorado had the -- used the right procedures. the argument that justice alito was making there, it was related to an agreement chief justice roberts made at another time, which was, what happens with other states? do other states feel they are bound by colorado? and they have to throw trump off the ballot? that's what alito meant by collateral estoppel. chief justice roberts made the point, what happens when red states start throwing biden off the ballot? is that the kind of arms race we want? i thought maybe justice sotomayor votes for colorado, but it looked like 8-1 or 9-0 to m

. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> justice alito?using section three of a way to bar federal officers? >> not that i am aware. >> not that i am aware, justice alito. he says it happened before. i wonder why that is. welcome back to our primetime recap of today's supreme court proceedings on whether former president donald trump is eligible or ineligible to ever again stand for office in the united states after what happened the last time. what you just heard there was a nice jab from conservative justice samuel alito. answered by president trump's lawyer, jonathan mitchell today. the real rejoinder to what justice alito was asking, came a few minutes later. from the lawyer on the other side. the lawyer for colorado voters, jason murray, and a back and forth with chief justice, john roberts, in which they essentially say to the lawyer that this is crazy that we have to decide something like this. isn't it? the lawyer that essentially responds yes it is crazy, the reason it is crazy is because they are running against a guy who just re

justice alito is in the 70s, justice thomas is in his 70s. if the republican president is elected they will be replaced by probably teenagers who will be on this court for another generation and a half. and is conservative supermajority will literally rule forever. >> the court is on the ballot. and they are not very popular, i think that we can all say that every poll tells us that. thank you both so much for everything you are doing out there and for explaining this case to all of us. that does it for me tonight. alex wagner tonight starts right now. hi alex. >> hello, my friend. you know what always shocks the conscience? beyond this principle and stakes here. the reality that republican families use ivf. republican women often have to have abortions. this crosses partisan lines. and if anyone thinks that this is going to be neatly divided between left and right, men are they wrong. >> it certainly -- it is the opposite of that. the majority of people in this country probably support ivf. i have not seen data on this, but they do support a

two justices disented conservatives alito and thomas. >>> downtown los angeles has received more than 85% of its average annual rainfall. liz kreutz zb zblush. >> reporter: massive boulders, drivers needing dramatic rescues. los angeles has seen as much rain as typically all year, more than seattle, new orleans and memphis. deluge and storm after storm hitting california, taking a toll on the infrastructure, and some of the already eroding coastlines this area of rancho palos verdes in moving now by feet. >> started with a crack, and sinking, gotten worse and worse. >> reporter: water mains continue to break. the city is asking for help. >> i feel sorry for this part of our neighborhood. >> reporter: the historic wayfarers chapel closing, 175 weddings canceled. >> our structures are heaving, foundations are cracking everything on the property is being affected by the ground that is moving >> reporter: from fallen trees to thousands of potholes to the multimillion dollar cliff side home teetering on the edge, california still feeling the brunt of mother nature's force relentless winter

. >> sandra: so here is more sound from alito inside the supreme court earlier. >> i'm not taking a positionne way or the other about whether the experts' testimony should have been admitted or anything like that, or the meaning of president trump's words. i'm just trying to get you to grapple with what some people have seen as the consequences of the argument that you are advancing, which is that there will be conflicts and decisions among the states, different states will disqualify different candidates, but i'm not getting a whole lot of help from you about how this would not be an unmanageable situation. >> sandra: quite a moment there, ari. >> yeah, and it was just repeated question after question after question which is heartening. i hope the justices will issue their ruling soon. i don't know if they'll wait all the way to the summer to do it. we really need as a nation to move beyond this, get it behind us, and if this were to hold up, i don't think it will, it punishes all republicans in colorado and maine, republican office holders and candidates. without a president at the top of

. >> justice alito? >> did the plaintiffs raise overbreadthtbew? i couldn't find the word over breah their pleadings. we are in the record should i ok to find a list of all of the platforms that are covered by this statute? >> i'm afraid that doesn't appear in the record because i think the platforms are fairly cagey about which of the members they thought thetate applied to in the record only contains three platforms with spific declarations. facebook and youtu a in there so that's part of the prlein this case is that we don't have a sense -- threrd has not been fully developed to answer that question so we are titing in the dark here. th was litigated on a culinary injunction at breakneck speed without the state having to take discovery in this part of the reason why these div -- questions are difficult to answer. >> i will ask mr. clement that argunts well. as to the ptforms that are covered, where in the record what i look to find a list of all of the functions those platforms perform? >> i'm not awarinhe record, your honor of an all-encompassi

alito has inspiring sales on electronics and discounts of up to 70%. where else can you turn dance into a world heritage? sport is an invincible machine. let's go, go into space, send mom a star from the sky, be the best for your own people, and not for everyone in the world, turn the department into an application, knowledge into a vocation, technology into live communication, work into a dream. tradition in innovation, only here, in a country on which the sun never sets. tinkov - 40 million customers in the largest country in the world. cheerery tiga 7 pro max. the unique design of the sporty character will set your heart on fire. and all-wheel drive and intelligent systems will ensure comfort and safety on any trip. pro max cherry. what are men silent about, painful urination, erection problems? these are symptoms of prostatitis. longidaza promotes the breakdown of fibrous tissue and helps eliminate the effects of prostatitis. langitaza against prostatitis. divide in half. prices on yandex market. discounts up to 50%. when paying with an alfabank ca

two justices dissented, conservatives alito and thomas >>> in alabama, the highest court ruling thatmbryos frozen in labs are children, nbc's senior legal correspondent has more. >>> gaby rodriguez like many others is undergoing fertility treatments. >> we're a traditional family who wants a kid. >> reporter: but now the highest court decided that frozen embryos are children and people can be held legally responsible for destroying them. rodriguez worries knowing that doctors may find some of her embryos not viable. >> i don't want to implant a child that's going to miscarry i worry about the ones genetically abnormal and if my clinic shuts down. >> reporter: in a wrongful death case, they found parents could sue an ivf clinic after their embryos were destroyed finding them no different than unborn children in the womb. it could have massive ramifications. frozen embryos are regularly created and discarded as fertility treatments >> patients will be harmed by this decision. >> reporter: a fertility specialist has been fielding messages about the decision. >> we'll have to limit ferti