, neil gorsuch when he was sitting on a federal circuit in colorado, they quote gorsuch for the opinionhat colorado gets to decide its own rules but who is qualified or not, is valid in colorado. gorsuch's opinion that they quote in the thing is of course if ideological consistency he would likely uphold the colorado state court opinion. but we are what we are about to see is just how, again, hypocritical and unserious the supreme court is when it comes to protecting the partisan sugar daddies like donald trump. >> let me read from. that we only saw this because if you point to get out. so credit where do. they say and this, they know that justice gorsuch will certainly weigh in on this. as then judge gorsuch recognized in hassan, it the case are citing, it is a state legitimate integrity in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process that permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally permitted from assuming office. judge cordell, i imagine you have the same interpretation, that this is not an accident to quote than judge gorsu

here's what judge neil gorsuch wrote. a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits that, permits the state to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. so, judge gorsuch is sort of 90% of the way there, already ruling that states have this authority. let's see if justice gorsuch agrees with himself from ten years earlier. >> yeah, that has to be fascinating to watch the potential flip-flop there. rick, i want you to take a listen to what main secretary of state had to say about threats she and her colleagues had to face center decision to bar trump from the ballot. >> the dehumanizing images that have been placed on line of me, the threatening communications to people in my family and to my staff, people who work for me, it is designed to instill fear and provoke silence, to keep people from speaking out. >> why is this not a concern for folks? seemingly fly pass this idea that trump's allies and sick

and when neil gorsuch, now supreme court justice was a colorado state supreme court judge, he held that the state of colorado was absolutely in the right in keeping someone off the ballot. it's a case called hassan vs. colorado. i will quote from the ruling tonight. several courts have expressly upheld states abilities. as then-judge gorsuch recognized in hassan, it's a state's legitimate interest in recognizing the integrity and political functions of the process that permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally permitted from assuming office. is that like a not so subtle message to one of the supreme court justices likely to take this up, mary. >> well, i think the colorado supreme court is pointing out now at least one person who's a supreme court justice now ruling on this has something that supports their ruling, that, yes, the state of colorado can keep someone off the ballot not constitutionally qualified. there is a big difference between objective qualifications like age and citizenship tln there are for things like, you know, whether someone has en

when neil gorsuch, now supreme court justice, was a colorado state supreme judge, he held the state of colorado was absolutely in the right from keeping somebody off the ballot. it's a state case called hassan versus colorado. i will quote from it. several courts have expressly upheld states abilities to uphold constitutionally ineligible ballots from their ballots. see hassan versus colorado. as judge courses -- recognized and has honors estates legitimate interest in protecting integrity practical and not so subtle message from one of the justices who is likely to take this up, mary? >> i think the colorado supreme court is trying to point out that at least one person was now a current justice was likely to be ruling on this case has said something that they think supports their holding. the holding that yes, the state of colorado can keep somebody off the ballot who is not constitutionally qualified. now there is a big difference between sort of objective qualifications like age and citizenship than there are for things like whether somebody has engaged in an insurrection or rebelli

that feels like a little bit of foreshadowing on at least how judge gorsuch, now justice gorsuch, will approach this issue. >> reporter: fascinating to see how that will play. out interesting tidbit there for certain. gwen, in the colorado case, th state gop, they are the ones who asked the supreme cot review the specific questions. if you would talk to us about their request and what it entails. >> yes, i think jordan, who was commenting a few moments ago about how we are all kind of just waiting for thisssue to land at the supreme, whether donald trump is qualified or disqualified from being on the presidential ballot. i think inevitably it will hit the supreme court and they will have to wrestle with the issue of whether the plain language of section three of the 14th amendment, which says any officeholder who takes an oath and swears allegiance to the constitution who then engages in insurrection or gives aid and comfort to those who do, that person is disqualified from holding office in the future. i am not sure how the supreme court might manage to work its way around what is the

>>ustice gorsuch? >> would you agree that when the court opens a door, congress tends to walk through it? [laughter] >> i don't want to overgeneralize on the back and forth between the court and congress but if i am anticipating correctly where you'reoing -- >> maybe you are, maybe you aren't. usuay e. [laughter] but if the only bar to core from enacting a tax on millions of americans rirent accounts and mutual funds is administrative ability, they are pretty clever over there, are toy? -- aren't they? they know how to get around administration conces etty well. >> i think they would be good reasons for them to avoid the complexities. >> sure is a policy matter but isn'ithe case that would open a big door? >> that door is already open. congress can enact that tax. >> it has been open forevein your view. >> in terms of your argument of ere's no difference between inco and that reized capital gn, you are familiar wi the 1918 taxases. the government's brief in that case, one of my industrious low clerks p

and neil gorsuch took a strict, literalist reading of that.ided that hassan was not qualified to be president and decided that therefore colorado could exclude him from the ballots. this is the same case. this is exactly the same case that trump is now facing. and so the real question is not will the supreme court follow the law, but the question is will the supreme court follow their own ideology and logic. >> yeah. >> your question -- and that's really where the ball game is. >> indeed. and -- this is john roberts in 2010, noah, and this was a case called free enterprise fund versus public company accounting oversight. and this was the citation here is the people do not vote for the officers of the united states. the case was rather regarding whether the president has the authority to fire officer of the united states. could donald trump, you know, fire the attorney general. and that sort of thing. and in this ruling john roberts seemed to say that the president is an officer of the united states. so, if he and to elle's point neil gorsuch h

. >> justice gorsuch? >> i think the argument we hav heard from the other side is there is a realization requirement at is met here because the corporation realized the income. then it becomes a question of the realized income. the congress has a free hand there, the 16th amendment says nothing. your response? >> the court has always lood at questions of income from the point of view of the shareholder. cases involving gross income under the tax code, the court has looked at the individual circumstances the shareholder to ascertain as whether the shareholder has realized a gain. the court looked specifically at the fact of different types of customer security depots it was not an abstract inquiry were things might be assigned and so forth, it was assigned to decide srelder income. i thi t court would certainly haveo verse cumber, which the government has not asked it to do, to get beyond the idea that some free-floating notion of income is sufficient r e government to point at someinand tax it to a particu

so my perception that that tendency by justice gorsuch to use more contractions, for instance, has has had an influence on the writing of other judges, with it has tended to, i think, to make us a little bit less stilted because after all, if if if a justice of the supreme court can write in a conversational, folksy way, then why can't we? and is that what you go for, that that folksy way? and i'm specifically remembering back to the vaccine mandate case. you talk about deciding it on both the legal opinions, but the common sense and that they both pointed to the same decision, as i recall, in that in that opinion, i probably actually shied away from anything that could be considered to be folksy because the issue was of such grave importance to both sides. i tried to be crystal clear in my ruling and i tried to give some historical backdrop to the reasons for my ruling. but the flip side of that is that i also tried to avoid this. this virus that we call legal aids in my writing. and and i tried to accomplish that in everything that i write. and then for folks who aren't familiar with

so my perception that that tendency by justice gorsuch to use more contractions, for instance, has has had an influence on the writing of other judges, with it has tended to, i think, to make us a little bit less stilted because after all, if if if a justice of the supreme court can write in a conversational, folksy way, then why can't we? and is that what you go for, that that folksy way? and i'm specifically remembering back to the vaccine mandate case. you talk about deciding it on both the legal opinions, but the common sense and that they both pointed to the same decision, as i recall, in that in that opinion, i probably actually shied away from anything that could be considered to be folksy because the issue was of such grave importance to both sides. i tried to be crystal clear in my ruling and i tried to give some historical backdrop to the reasons for my ruling. but the flip side of that is that i also tried to avoid this. this virus that we call legal aids in my writing. and and i tried to accomplish that in everything that i write. and then for folks who aren't familiar with

they did say gorsuch to say, look, even conservative justice has felt this way.is an example of that. i think more so than anything, this was just a nod to letting people know, we are being as nonpartisan and our judgment as possible. i expect that the supreme court is going to try and maintain that as well. despite the super majority that conservatives currently hold on this scotus. >> let's move on to the new detroit news, they have audio of donald trump, republican national committee chairwoman, ro, pressuring to michigan canvassers not to certify th20 election. iwant to remind viewers, and d.c. as not independently heard this call. trump already faces criminal charges for similar actions, christy. mcdaniel has avoided any legal culpability. how much further trouble could get both or either of them into? >> well, this may be, if it is not already known to jack smith, and it was not one of the calls that is detailed in the indictment like the call to the secretary of state in georgia was, this was not mentioned in the indictment. so, it's possible that jack smi

host: newsweek has an article about neil gorsuch. apparently he made a decision that has some bearing on this case? guest: yeah, it's probably fair to anticipate that justice is thomases and alito would be on board with this decision and maybe justice kagan and justice sotomayor and justice jackson might be -- agreeing with the majority in part because it's a very conservative originalist writing. they use the plain language, they go back to the dictionary from the time of the ratification of the constitution. they look at -- they say states get to do what states should be able to do, very conservative approach to finding that donald trump is disqualified. i think the question is they are pulling out of a different case which is not exactly the same. gorsuch, cavanagh, roberts and justice coney barrett, where would they fall in that decision and you need five votes to get to the merit that is a full-blown consideration by the court. i think those of the justices in the mix. three of them were put there by donald trump. it's a little

do you think when this makes its way to the supreme court judge gorsuch will be that -- we'll stick toaw following constitutional law? or do you worry that, again, politics will get involved? >> stephanie, i don't even recognize politics within the judicial system, and i will not do that tonight. i believe that the sitting justices on the supreme court today, all nine of them, will apply the constitution as it is written. i believe that, as written, the disqualification clause, as applied to the former president, disqualifies him from holding the presidency again. based upon that view of the objective, constitutional law, i believe the united states supreme court will affirm. >> so, you don't believe supreme court justice clarence thomas should recuse himself, given his wife's reported efforts to overturn the election results, you don't? >> i don't have anything to comment on about that, stephanie. i regard the supreme court with reverence and i have my entire life, and i regard the court in the same way today. >> if they overturn this opinion, what would that make you think or feel ab

you mentioned neil gorsuch there, appointed by donald trump when he was president previously. judges wrote that they hadn't reached these conclusions lightly, that they were mindful of the magnitude and the weight of the question that was before them. do you think the victory you have had in the colorado state supreme court might encourage other states, voters in other states to take similar cases now? absolutely. and i think a lot have in other cases, there is one being heard in maine right now. i think what this helps them to do is to prove their cases. and i think it also it requires the supreme court to step in and say, ok, we need to make a decision for the country as a whole. there's been lots of diplomacy on the israel—gaza war, but no new deals yet. a vote at the united nations on a draft resolution calling for a cessation in fighting has been delayed again, and in the middle east, possible talks on hostage releases are making progress. it's the second time the un has delayed the vote with the language in the resolution standing in the way. in the latest wording, the u

the supreme court building, at the very doors of the supreme court, he called two judges by name, gorsuchugh, you sowed the wind, and you reap the whirlwind, then the keywords, almost a call to violence, so if they want to redefine riot, it will boomerang back at them. one more point , the first to try a private citizen of the ex-president in the senate when he had already left office, as was the case with donald trump, the interim director of the cia and anthony blinken, the current secretary of state, deliberately lied to the american people on the eve of debates and elections in order to influence this election, claiming that the contents of hunter's laptop in the fbi's possession were russian disinformation, we have it has never happened that the house of the ex-president... was searched by the fbi in connection with the question of secret documents, tucker says that this will become a precedent, because another question arises: how will the governors of the red states react, will they say okay, i guess states now have the right to disqualify candidates based on their opinion of wheth

you mentioned neil gorsuch there, appointed ljy neil gorsuch there, appointed by donald trump when heday the judges wrote that they hadn't reached these conclusions lightly, that they were mindful of the magnitude and the weight of the question that was before them. do you think the victory you have had in the colorado state supreme court might encourage other states, voters in other states to take similar cases now? absolutely. and i think a lot have in other cases, there is one being heard in maine right now the i think what this helps them to do is to prove their cases. and i think it also requires the supreme court to step in and say, ok, we need to make a decision for the country as a whole. make a decision for the country as a whole-— as a whole. given that donald trump lost — as a whole. given that donald trump lost colorado - as a whole. given that donald trump lost colorado by - as a whole. given that donald trump lost colorado by a - trump lost colorado by a reasonable margin in 2020, will his name not being on the primary ballot paper make any tangible difference to voters

as to your question about justice gorsuch, i will not comment on the position it places justice gorsuch in. that would be inappropriate. i will just say to you and your viewers that fact that justice gorsuch, when he was a circuit judge, decided the case that he did that's referenced in the colorado supreme court opinion, is relatively inconsequential to the decision of this final decision of this case. >> neal, donald trump now faces the question whether he is eligible to be on the ballot, as you were saying. it seems contextually worth remembering. he rose to political prominence by pushing birtherism, floating the idea that president obama was not eligible to be on the ballot. this seems karmic. it's certainly a full-circle moment. >> absolutely right. taylor swift would have a field day, but the fundamental point, the text of the constitution and the original meaning of the constitution compelled this result. it's not trying to get back at him, or because people are aid frayed of him in the polls, it's a basic rudimentary requirements. you've gone to be 35, a natural-born citizens a

justice gorsuch is a wild card. than if you're looking at justice barrett, they could all go in different directions and you could have democratic appointees not in the conservative block voting with donald trump. >> catherine, it is worth noting that this conservative majority in the court back in 2020 and early '21, really dismissed all of the claims by the president and his supporters to overturn the 2020 election and found against him about turning documents over to congress. so can he count on a friendly hear fring from the conservativ? >> i think he will be friendly than potential alternatives certainly. particularly democratically appointed. democratic president appointed alternatives. whether or not he can expect a blank check from them i think we just don't know. at this point. particularly on this set of issues. there are a range of issues that could come before the court. i think on the 14th amendment case, i think there's sufficient ambiguity there that they could easily, sub consciously or otherwise rul

and i think that, in particular, we're all going to be watching supreme court justice neil gorsuch whoe when he was on the court of appeals for the tenth circuit. so the case was colorado,. he wrote and it is quote in the majority opinion in the colorado case that the date does have a right to kick someone who is ineligible to run off of the ballot. interesting in the dissent and hugh didn't mention this that the three dissenting justices did not refute the idea that donald trump played a part in this insurrection which under section 3 of article 14 should rule him ineligible to be running for office. they talked about lack of due process but they didn't engage with any of the evidence that was presented that a five day bench trial. they just said he didn't get his due process. >> bret: jessica, the other point he hasn't been charged official whether i that. >> no. that's also not stipulated in section 3 that you have to be charged. it's not there. i understand that's the case they will make. it will be very difficult for neil gorsuch to go back on something that he has essentially alr

justice gorsuch has filed a justice thomas joined.which justice kavanaugh has filed a concurring opinion. justice sotomayor is a dissenting opinion in which justice kagan and justice ja join. justicson has filed a dissenting opinion in which justiceomayor and justice kagan join. justice jackson did not participate in the harvard case. justice thomas: i joined the court's n in full, although it is not my practice to announce my separate opinions om the bench. the race-based discrimination against asian americans in this case compels me to doday. in the wake of c war, our nation amended our constitution abolish sla urther proclaimed all persons bothe united states are citizens entitled to the privileges or immunities of citizenship and the equal protection of the as justice harlan claim dissent in plessy versus ferguson, our conion is colorblind, and neither knows citizens.ates classes among e great failure and traf this country was slavery and its pr and the great failureis court was its misinterpretation of tonstruction amendments and rejection of justice harland'siew in plessy, thereby

justices kavanaugh and gorsuch are interesting. they have indicated some concern from protecting the president from invasive lawsuits. the criminal question remains very much open. and as mimi alluded to, it's a very different case. it's not one that the supreme court ever dealt with squarely when trump was president when it really did try to dodge these issues. so one thing that i think is important to understand about this appeal is that it goes to judge chutkan it was jurisdiction to hear this case. it goes to the question of whether she even has the power to carry on here or whether trump is completely immune, and so the entire case has to be thrown out. i think the gravity of that question, it's so different from can this evidence be introduced, can this witness testify. this is the whole deal right here, and i think the gravity of that will give some of the justices pause and make them want to take on this case and really hear full arguments, full briefing, and issue a decision on the merits. that could take until june, at wh

the state supreme court ruling goes back and quotes neil gorsuch in this ruling. it's specifically targeting a decision that neil gorsuch made, a ruling he made in 2012 as an appellate court judge in colorado where he recognized it is a state's -- it is in a state's legitimate interest to protect the integrity and practical functioning of the political process that permits the state to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. in addition to being strict constitutionallests, these justices tend to love to send things back to the states and be proponents of state rights. >> right, we heard this after the 2016 election, right? when people complained donald trump had lost the popular vote, the conservative response was we're in a republic, not a democracy. really the states are in the drivers seat when it comes to federal elections, and that really should cut both ways for republicans in 2024 because if the states are in the driver's seat, if they're the ones making these decisions, i don't see why a state shouldn't

neil gorsuch apparently read it in ten minutes.that he either saw an earlier version or the final version of the draft in advance of it being circulated among the justices and he was on board and we gave his assent at that point. or that he didn't read it at all for this outcome. either way, neither is a good look for this court. i imagine that this reporting is again, another part of john roberts no good, terrible, very bad year at the supreme court. >> earlier this week, the supreme court decided to review the mifepristone, putting the future of abortion access back in the hands of the supreme court. what are you watching out for in that case? >> the one thing i'm watching out for is whether this court was serious whether it said in dobson this is an issue that should be left to the states to decide for themselves. because a ruling on the mifepristone case would essentially be a federal ruling, deciding whether they were acting appropriately and whether they had a subsequent reauthorization of it or new rules regarding its distri

justices alito, gorsuch, and thomas, were very eager. they wanted to hear the case that term.fore it was actually held, whereas justice kavanaugh and justice barrett were a little reluctant. justice kavanaugh suggested a plan to realest it. in other words, to withhold from the public the court's decision to take the case. and actually justice barrett made a really strong stand. she said to the others, if you try to take this case, this term, i will change my vote from a grant, i yes, to a deny, and no. and then one of the biggest surprises of the reporting is that this is what she actually ended up doing. she opposed hearing this case. >> it is key here, let's just set the context when you quote that, the perception from the outside is, the anti roe justices are sitting around waiting for their colleague to die and then be replaced with a new person. so even before her body is in the ground they can get to planning their long desired goal of overturning roe v. wade. as i'm reading into things here that you didn't report and i'm saying this is what it looks like to me. it looks

>> so, again, we saw that the colorado majority cited justice gorsuch liberally, literally from distanceare these your commitments and this is a court that has been very clear about their commitments to textualism, their commitments to strict interpretation, their commitments to this idea of federalism that there are certain things that are prerogatives and are for the states to decide including election law and all of this is going to be tested in this case because there is also this outstanding tactical concern that if they allow this decision to stand, whether it's because of textualism, federalism, or would not, it means that there is going to be a patchwork quilt of disqualifications all around this country, a patchwork of ballots. and the selection will probably not seem super legitimate to the people that it needs to seem legitimate to. i mean, that is real concern. and it's not like the kind of concerns that guided the courts in bush versus gore, back in 2000. >> bush versus gore, let's talk about that -- >> that's the thing. you know, what it means to be a conservative is to bel

you mentioned neil gorsuch there, appointed by donald trump when he was present previously.ges wrote that they hadn't reached these conclusions lightly, that they were mindful of the magnitude and the weight of the question that was before them. do you think the victory you have had in the colorado state supreme court might encourage other states, voters in other states to take similar cases now? absolutely. and i think a lot have in other cases, there is one being heard in maine right now. i think what this helps them to do is to prove their cases. and i think it also requires the supreme court to step in and say, ok, we need to make a decision for the country as a whole. a volcano in iceland is still active following a dramatic eruption on monday. the flare up is gushing lava and smoke from the mountain filled with magma. more than 4,000 residents of the nearest town, grindavik, were evacuated after a spate of earthquakes last month. reports say lava is flowing at a rate of around 100 to 200 cubic metres per second, despite iceland's meteorological office saying the power

and gorsuch, you weren't even a judge: pretty sure i found you playing frankenstein at six flags halloweennights." and let us not forget, there's also clarence thomas. [booing] in the news a lot this year for all the free stuff he's hiding under that robe. according to propublica, conservative billionaires have given him free trips on their jets, luxury vacations, and one guy bought his mom's house but she still lives there. now, they've unearthed thomas' graft origin story. it goes back to the year 2000, when thomas was speaking at something called awakening, a quote, "conservative thought weekend." always nice to spend the weekend learning a new skill. guests at awakening enjoyed golf, shooting lessons, and aromatherapy. which is why their mascot is shooty, the golfing bullet who smells like sandalwood. on the plane ride home, thomas hinted to a gop lawmaker that he'd quit if he didn't get a pay raise. keep in mind that, at the time, thomas' salary was $173,600, equivalent to over $300,000 today. now that "sounds" like it should be enough to live on... [laughter] congress never gave thom

justice gorsuch has filed a concurring opinion in which justice thomas j justice kavanaugfiled a concurring opinion. justice sotomayor is filed a dissen opiniwhich justice kagan and justice jackson join. dissentingon in whichiled a kagan join.omayor and justice justice jackson did not participate in the harvard case. justice thomas: i joie court's opinion in ful although it is not mctice to announce my separate opinions from the bench. the race-based discrimination against asian americans in th case compels me to do so today. in the wake of civil wr nation amended our constitution to a slavery. it further proclaimed all persons born in the united stes are citizens entitled to the privileges or immunities of citizenship and the equal protection of the laws. as justice harlan claimed in dissent pssy versus ferguson, o constitution is corbnd, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. the great failure and tragedy of this country was slavery and its progeny. and the great failure of this court was its misinterpretation of the reconstruction amendmen and its rejection of justice ha

but all, gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett. whatever the court decides, it will leave a whole lot of american voters bitter. the court doesn't have the same popularity shall we say that it had back in 2000. ethics questions. the unraveling of precedent. that had a tad bit to do with all that. right? let's be honest though. either way, the supreme court's reputation is going to take a hit. and you can't ignore the obvious. all these cases moving through, their way through the docket as you at home are of course getting ready to vote. by the time they have decided you might have already cast a ballot. the court's term doesn't end until june? maybe it's the black robes. maybe they just love to wait to the 11th hour to make a decision because often wait until the end of the term which means you might not know the whole picture when you step inside the ballot box and any delay, no matter how small that delay is, it puts donald trump one day closer to simply being able to at least for the federal cases maybe make them go away if he i

diplomacy adding hundreds of positions to the department training flow and creating dozens of neil gorsuch and successful development opportunities. we established a global paper based model for staff and established student loan repayment programs and extended positions for eligible family members among other steps we have taken to invest in the department's greatest resource, its people. as you heard the president xi, we are at an inflection point. for our country, and for the world. what we do, what we fail to do, in this moment, will have profound consequences for decades to come. the states -- the stakes could not be clearer. to do liver on issues that affect the lives of the american people we have to invest in ourselves. in our lives -- in our allies and partners, in our ability to solve global challenges and to do that we need congress to pass the presidents additional national security funding request. here are the benefits. if congress passes the supplemental. our fellow citizens, our businesses, our workers, our allies and partners, people around the world are looking to the uni

even cites justice gorsuch in an earlier opinion. but when it comes to how the conservative group uses the origina originalism, they really just wield it for any purpose that they want and i think that is where the problem is going to be. because ultimately if you are interpreting the text and you say i'm interpreting it with the originalism in mind, you can still interpret it anyway you want. so i don't know that that necessarily will sway them philosophically. plain reading i think it is an easy one for them and if they will be intellectually honest about it, they could say that words mean what they mean. i think really interesting point here about these counter arguments saying not enough due process for trump before he is removed, also the idea that you might have to have a criminal conviction, he wasn't charged with insurrection, a professor made a good point which is that the disqualification is not a sanction. it is not a punishment. and so arguably you don't have to deal with these issues of you needed conviction, how much pr

. >> his fate may likely rest with those justices, including neil gorsuch, whose only words were quoted in the majority opinion of the colorado supreme court's decision to kick trump off the ballot there. trump's very first pick for the supreme court had ruled as an appellate judge that states can, quote, exclude from the ballot. candidates who are constitutional prohibited from assuming office. trump's campaign says he plans to file on appeal before the high court imminently. but in another case, trump is in no rush to put his fate in the hands of the very people he gave lifetime appointments. just today he asked the supreme court to hold off on the issue of presidential immunity that special counsel jack smith asked the court to expedite. >>> in california, a number of democrats are pushing for their state to follow colorado's lead. and that includes our first guest tonight, california lieutenant governor eleni -- we should note you sent a letter just hours ago to california's secretary of state to, quote, explore every legal option to remove former president donald trump from califor

but all three of new gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett, they did hand trump losses in insurrectioncted cases. so much for assumptions, but whatever the court decides, it is going to leave a whole lot of american voters busier. the court does not have the same popularity, shall we say that i had back in 2000. ethics questions, the unraveling of precedent, that had a taboo to do with all of that, right? let's be honest though, either way, the supreme court reputation is going to take a hit, and you can't ignore the obvious, all of these cases are moving their way through the docket, as you at home are getting ready to vote. by the time that they have actually decided, you might have already cast a ballot. after all, the courts term does not end until, what, june? i don't, know maybe it's at the black, ropes maybe they just like to wait until the 11th hour to make a decision, because they often wait till the end of the term, which means that you might not know the whole picture, when you step inside the ballot box, and it means any delay, no matter how small that delay is, it puts don

>> >> the more's recent proposal discourage release, along with gerald ross street reporter evan gorsuchas also flatly rejected by the russians. i >> hope that will leave find a solution, but i think the merrick inside must hear us and, make a certain decision one that seems the russian side is all. >> whelan silvester elisabeth at her brothers day-to-day struggles have been overshadowed by the international efforts to get him back, and says she will be fighting until he is free. >> people tend to think an american who was wrongfully today it oversees is just sitting like a toy on a shelf, waiting to be exchanged when they are actually dealing with horrible criminals, terrible prison situations, every single day. there must be some way to get paul home. >> the desperation clear and whelan's voice on thursday, as she pleads with the white house to do everything possible to bring him home >> abby in recent weeks, whelan has increasingly expressed fear for his safety telling my colleague jennifer handler, he was being targeted by an official at the prison camp. but for now negotiations betw

. >> on a rush to judgment in this situation and maga supreme court and neil gorsuch and amy coneny barretthy -- amy combmy barrett and trying to directly impact and interfere with the presidential election and listen to sane and sober legal analysts and jonathan turn turley that jk smith does not have the right to deny due process because he says so. he can't simply demand the supreme court to push everything else aside and hear his case. griff: joe mentioned we'll find out the situation in colorado quickly and the deadline for colorado to print their ballots is january 5. you know, talking alaska the cases, there's 31 separate pieces of article 3, 14th amendment under the clause of insurrection and 31 different pieces of legislation against trump. you've got maine was supposed to tell us whether or not they'll take trump off the ballot and it'll happen early next week and colorado lieutenant governor was an ambassador under obama to hungary is writing to her secretary of state saying find any reason to get trump off the ballot and openly politicizing the process. at the end of the day, it

host: newsweek has an article about neil gorsuch.pparently he made a decision that has some bearing on this case? guest: yeah, it's probably fair to anticipate that justice is thomases and alito would be on board with this decision and maybe justice kagan and justice sotomayor and justice jackson might be -- agreeing with the majority in part because it's a very conservative originalist writing. they use the plain language, they go back to the dictionary from the time of the ratification of the constitution. they look at -- they say states get to do what states should be able to do, very conservative approach to finding that donald trump is disqualified. i think the question is they are pulling out of a different case which is not exactly the same. gorsuch, cavanagh, roberts and justice coney barrett, where would they fall in that decision and you need five votes to get to the merit that is a full-blown consideration by the court. i think those of the justices in the mix. three of them were put there by donald trump. it's a little st

joining me now is mike davis, former clerk for justice neil gorsuch and founder of the article iii projectso with me is stephen miller, former senior adviser to president trump and founder of america first legal. mike, i'm going to start with you. what's your take on what happened today? >> well, jack smith is used to getting unanimously slapped down by the supreme court like he did when he brought a bogus criminal prosecution against former virginia governor bob macdonald. a likely presidential or vice presidential candidate in 2016 and the supreme court today unanimously said we are not going to hear this case. we are going to go through the normal process. we are not going to go along with your election interference, jack smith. you are going to take this through the normal process and that's the right decision. >> steven, these are not normal times. i keep saying this. but this level of election interference. this kind of persecution of your opponents, whether it's, you know, donald trump or rudy giuliani, it just keeps going on and on. why do i feel like republican leaders are not ful