. >> jason murray argued for colorado voters. >> president trump disqualified himself from public officestates have the power to ensure their citizens' electoral votes are not wasted on a candidate constitutionally barred from elect. >> that seems to be a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th amendment, and very a-historical. the whole point of the 14th amendment was to restrict power. >> reporter: and a ruling in favor of colorado and other states then following suit. >> it will come down to just a handful of states that will decide the presidential election. that's a pretty daunting consequence. >> reporter: even elena kagan asked this -- >> i think the question you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the united states. >> reporter: it was murray's first time arguing before the high court. he engaged in several contentious exchanges. even as a formal clerk, it disgust stop justice. >> reporter: he addressed reporters outside mar-a-lago. >> can you taye the person that's leading everywhere and say, hey, we're not going to

>> jason murray: that's correct. because there is no federal procedure for deciding these issues short of criminal prosecution. >> justice jackson: thank you. >> chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. ms. davidson -- ms. anderson no. , stevenson, i'm sorry. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. exercising power. colorado's legislator specifically directed colorado's courts to resolve any challenges to the listing of any candidate on the presidential primary ballot before coloradans cast their votes. despite this law, petitioner contends that colorado must put him on the ballot because of the possibility there would be a super majority act of congress to remove his legal disability. under this theory, colorado and every other state would have to indulge this possibility, not just for the primary but through the general election and up to the moment that an ineligible candidate was sworn into office. nothing in the constitution strips the states of their power to direct presidential elections in this wa

joining us now live after a very stressful day is jason murray.rt today and thank you for making time to be here tonight. >> thank you so much. i appreciate you having me on. >> so, i know this was not your first time in that courtroom, and you are very familiar with the supreme court procedure, and you have seen a lot of lawyers stuff up to the podium today. how is it for you to join for the first time? >> certainly a source of pride for me to get to argue in the supreme court for the first time. also to be able to appear before my former bosses. >> in terms of how things went today, i do not think that it will come as a surprise to you for me to tell you that most observers think that the case is not going your way, most observers think that president trump will be allowed on the ballot, that colorado's decision to take him off of the ballot will effectively be overturned by this court, i have to ask if you share that common wisdom, if you feel like you have a sense of where the justices are going after what you went through in court today? >> i

jason murray representing the colorado voters who want to keep donald trump off the ballot has neverod before these justices. jonathan mitchell, who is representing donald trump, has argued a few cases but never before these nine. so both of them lack the experience of the repeat players we often see in very big cases. so how do they get up to speed? as you mentioned, they have both moved their operations to washington, d.c. and are tapping into a network of sophisticated lawyers. the main thing they will be doing besides, you know, burrowing down into the issues is holding dry runs known as moot courts. for those the organizers get four or five lawyers who play the role of the nine justices. and this isn't just a practice session, dana. these are designed for the lawyers, for weaknesses in the cases to surface, to explore those and help the lawyer figure out a way to finesse some weaknesses, strengthen parts, and always in the end to try to figure out how to get theo justices no matter their questions to come back to core points on the sides of the cases. >> it is equivalent with th

jason murray. mr. murray, congratulations on your appearance of the court. >> thank you so much. know that this was not your first time in that courtroom, and you are very familiar with supreme court procedure, and you seen a lot of lawyers step up to the podium today. how was it for you to do it for the first time? >> certainly a source of pride for me to get to argue in the supreme court for the first time and also to be able to appear before my former bosses. >> in terms of how things went today, i don't think it's going to come as a surprise to you for me to tell you that most observers think that the case is not going your way. most observers think that president trump will be allowed on the ballot, that colorado's decision to take him off the ballot will effectively be overturned by this court. i have to ask if you share that common wisdom, if you feel like you have a sense of where the justices are going after what he went through in court today. >> i won't sugarcoat it. it seemed like the justices were asking difficult questions, mostly procedural questions, about whether

that seems to be where they were saying, well, the pushback from the plaintiffs attorney jason murrayat we have never seen a president do this before. this is historical in and of itself. this is not something you are going to be seeing every day. >> you hear that a lot with a lot of the trump cases. we've never been here before. i think that you raise an important point. there is a lot of concern about these states choosing who is or is not on the presidential ballot. that gives states a lot of power over federal elections. that's why justice kagan raises one of these questions. do we want to have a state have the power for who run since presidential elections? i think it was judge alito that this is one of the reasons they took up the case, they don't want this ambiguity and 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 ma

are you satisfied with how jason murray represented your cause and do you see any scenario where you get the verdict you want? >> first, i'm absolutely satisfied with his performance. the justices asked tough questions in part because we have asked them to make a historic decision. not just for norma and the voters that we represent, but for the republican voters of colorado and perhaps the nation. so it wasn't surprising that both sides got skeptical and incisive questions but certainly, the stakes are higher on you know, if we prevail. and so it's not surprising that the justices had tougher questions for jason, which i thought he handled ably. >> lots of legal analysts think the other side is going to win and i'm wondering if you share that opinion or if you, if hope springs eternal for your side. >> i always wait till the end. because i can't guess an outcome. every time i try, i'm wrong. >> what about the argument that, i'm not going to go through the entire case again, that if your side wins this case whenever they rule, that just means that this will be something that the othe

>> jason murray, the lawyer representing colorado voters, defending that decision today at the united states supreme court, a big stage for your first time ever before the supreme court. i know that there's pride that goes with it, but i hope you get some rest thereafter and that the adrenaline come down is not too painful. >> thank you so much. i appreciate that. >> all right. good luck. much more to come in our coverage of the supreme court hearing today over whether donald trump is disqualified from the ballot. first, a moment for the named plaintiff in this case, whose lawyer we just met, she is 91- year-old colorado republican norma anderson. >> this is very personal to me. i've lived a hell of a long time and i've gone through a lot of presidents. and this is the first one that is trying to destroy the constitution. if they qualify him, they would have to work very hard to beat him. beat him. an alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly

and this is conservative justice brett kavanaugh challenging colorado's attorney jason murray. >> lastestion, and trying to figure out what section 3 means to the extent it is vague language, what about the idea we should think about democracy, think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide? your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree. >> this case illustrates the danger of refusing to apply section 3 as written because the reason we here is president trump try to disenfranchise 80 million americans who voted against him when the constitution does not require him to given another chance. nermeen: for more on this and other cases trump is facing we are joined by elie mystal, the nation's justice correspondent. his new piece is headlined "the supreme court is not going to save us from donald trump." he's the author "allow me to retort: a black guy's guide to the constitution." welcome back to democracy now! if you could just begin by responding to yesterday's oral arguments. >> it was a disaster. a

. >> it does, and it was a very interesting argument to listen to, very difficult argument for jason murray who took the brunt of the questions, and he was running the gauntlet. justices were lining up to hit him with tough questions. fascinating how many came from the left of the court. most interesting was justice jackson. she kept on pushing lawyers back to the first threshold question of whether the president is even covered by this provision. and she would not let that go. she kept asking about it, and she is someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about the 14th amendment, and she went in a bit into the history on that. but i think what really came out of this is that -- how seriously these justices took it but also they really proved how wrong many commentators have been. many other networks all listeners have heard six conservative justices who would have their day and we are going to be biased and partisan in every respect. this really put the lie to that, and it shows these justices once again are united in their commitment to the constitution. these were very good questions.

. >> jason murray argued for colorado voters who won their case at the lower court. >> by engaging in insurrection against the constitution, president trump disqualified himself from public office. states have the power to ensure that their citizens electoral votes are not wasted on a candidate who is constitutionally barred from holding office. >> but the justices appeared much more skeptical. an ominous sign the chief justice said murray's arguments were at war with history. >> it seems to be a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th amendment, and very a historical. the whole point of the 14th amendment was to restrict state power. >> and question the consequences of a ruling in favor of colorado and other states, then following suit. >> it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. that is a pretty daunting consequence. >> even liberal justice elena kagan asked this. >> i think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the united states. >> it was

and the moment that i said to myself i've seen enough was when elena kagan point-blank asked jason murray her former clerk, why is it that you think that one state should be able to decide the presidential election for all states? that was the moment in which i knew that this argument was going exactly where we thought it was. everyone is just searching for something to hang their hat on interpretively or otherwise to get to that place. one thing i also found interesting in looking ahead in terms of what's coming down the pike, this is a court that heard argument today about the 14th amendment and trump's qualification for office while it knows that on monday or before former president trump will ask them to stay a d.c. circuit's ruling so that he can appeal their decision with respect to his immunity from prosecution. and that seemed to be very much on the justices' minds today, in particular justice kavanaugh searching to understand are there other ways in which barring impeachment, a former president can be made ineligible to hold office and he invoked a particular federal statute, 18

now arguing for the voters who brought this case will be jason murray.his will be his supreme court debut. quite a case to make your debut on. he's only in his late 30s, but he is a very experienced lawyer. like you said, he's clerked for justices on both sides of the aisle. now if he had his way, it would just be two lawyers arguing today, but the justices have allotted some time for the solicitor general of colorado to argue on behalf of that state's secretary of state. shannon stevenson will also be arguing. this is the way they will difficult up the time. jonathan mitchell will get 40 minutes and jason murray 30 minutes and stevenson will get ten. as we know, these justices, they have lifetime appointments and no box they do what they want. this could go on for hours. >> it's the supreme court. what's so interesting about jonathan mitchell he's not a household name but he is also the attorney who underwrote that opinion essentially arguing that when the texas abortion law, that you could go and others could be held accountable for that so he is well

i tweeted about that in this moment, and as soon as i tweeted it 2 minutes later jason murray brought up that argument and then kind of walked away from it. so while i'm a lawyer staff, i used to do the talking points for the lawyers i'm very well versed taking what the lawyers have to say, and taking what the lawyers say and repeating it. and i think the effective argument about a full throttle defense about why, what the colorado supreme court came down on, the decision that they made was correct was not presented there for the people to see. i do think the justices were quite tough on all of the legal counsel, but the justices usually are. i watched supreme court cases, so i wasn't surprised at the tough questioning. i was surprised by the defense that was brought forth, all the conversation and interviews and press calls that the counsel -- that the cocounsel for the colorado voters had done in the lead up to and frankly after -- because jason murray was on earlier today with our colleague rachel maddow. and i thought he made an effective case in his post-interview, not so much de

jason murray is now addressing the court on the behalf of the colorado ruling that prevented donald trumpe and that is what is at issue here. that was decided by colorado supreme court, does it stand? it has huge applications for the rest of the us. we will get the latest from our correspondence just as i was reading that, the reuters news agency dropping a line saying that the supreme court appeared sympathetic towards the trump appeal of the colorado. everyone looking and trying to interpret from the questions where the justices are drifting. we will not get any immediate decision today but they haven't got long because colorado has a primary on the 5th of march so a small time frame. they have to make thatjudgment one way or the other pretty soon. we are expecting donald trump's lawyers to appear. we were told early in the day that donald trump would speak but we are now told his lawyers were talked on the steps of the supreme court. we will also bring you that as and when that happens. as the fighting in gaza continues, and a new round of negotiations due to start later in cairo, spon

one of the lawyers, jason murray, representing colorado voters who want to keep trump off, has never argued about the justices before. jonathan mitchell, representing trump, has some experience but nothing that compares to the record of big-time appellate advocates who appear before the justices in major cases. they simply have not stood at the lectern and faced these nine justices. they moved their operations to washington, d.c. and are tapping into a network of lawyers who can help them prepare for the nine justices and their intense, rapid-fire questions. they are undergoing dry runs known as moot courts. rather than nine judges, there will be four or five lawyers pretending to be the justices. these moot courts work to expose the weaknesses in a case. so a lawyer can amend what isn't working. there are so many legal issues. these lawyers need to be ready for all manner of question, but they also need to keep the core legal points right at the forefront that will help their respective side. who do attorneys get to help them ensure they can keep some control during these arguments?

jason murray, who is representing the colorado voters who want trump off the ballot, has never appeared before these justices. jonathan mitchell, who is representing donald trump, has had a couple cases up there but none of this magnitude. both these lawyers have other strengths, but in terms of just going up there and facing these nine justices, they need practice. this is what they're doing now. they both moved their operations to washington, d.c., as of today, to do all sorts of networking with sophisticated lawyers who argued many cases before the supreme court. one of the most common practices for a lawyer getting ready for the justices are dry runs known as moot courts. these feature four or five lawyers who play the role of the nine justices, and not just give the lawyers practice but help them expose the weaknesses in their cases, maybe figure out ways to amend things that just don't land right. to also strengthen the points that the lawyer wants to get across because, kate, these lawyers will field dozens and dozens of questions, so they have to be ready with answers. they've a

my colleague jason murray, although he's never argued before the supreme court before, is an extraordinary advocate. as you might imagine, people were coming out of the woodwork to argue this case once it was granted here. we all unanimously on our team decided even though he had not argued before, he was the right person, the only choice to argue this case. >> thank you very much, sean. i appreciate your time. we will all be watching tomorrow. >> thank you. >>> david axlerod is here with me now. you hear sean laying this out. they're calm, they're confident but i know you warned this case could tear the country apart. those are the exact words you used. you don't use them lightly. why do you say that? >> first of all, let me preface this saying it is stunning three years after president trump left the capitol in disgrace having sold this lie of the election having been stolen from him, inciting a riot, that he is in the position he's in and we're in the position we're in. i'm not here as an apologist for donald trump and i'm certainly not here as a lawyer, but i'm sure that one of the thi

host: let's hear from jason murray, the lawyer representing the case against former president trump on behalf of colorado voters. [video clip] >> president trump's main argument is that this court should create a special exemption to section three that would apply to him and him alone. he says it three disqualifies all of breaking insurrectionists except former president who never before health any other state or public office. there is no rationale for such an exemption and the court should reject the claim that the framers made an extraordinary mistake. section three uses deliberately broad language to cover all positions of federal power requiring an oath to the constitution. my friend relies on a claim to difference between an office under and an officer of the united states. but this case does not come down to mere prepositions. teh tw-- the two phrases are two sides of the same coin, referring to any federal office or to anyone who holds one. president trump's other arguments for reversal ignore the constitutional role of the states in running presidential elections. under articl

one lawyer, jason murray, representing the colorado voters who do not want trump on the ballot, has neverrgued before the justices. he has strengths we will get to. but he never appeared at the lectern there. jonathan mitchell, appearing on behalf of donald trump, has argued a handful of times before the justices but nothing like this kind of case. how are they getting ready? they are both, as of today, moving their operations to washington, d.c. and tapping into a very sophisticated network of lawyers who have argued many times before the justices and can help channel the justices. one of the main devices they will use are these dry runs called moot courts. that's where four or five lawyers, not nine as in the real venue, four or five lawyers sit up on a mock bench or at a table and fire questions at these individual lawyers. it gives them a chance to not just practice their presentation, but to expose weaknesses in their presentation so they can fix things ahead of time. there's an adage that says the tougher the moot court, easier the actual thing. there will be the kinds of individual

one of the three lawyers, jason murray a clerk not just for kagen on the supreme court but he clerked for gorsuch and hear from jonathan mitchell representing trump and shannon stevenson, the colorado solicitor general. they will all be groping around to see if the justices are latching onto any particular narrative or angle. it will be interesting. the lawyers cannot be robotic in this argument. they have been very responsive to take indicators from the justices. the justices are trying to build a case from their perspective and you are there to help them, not necessarily redirect them. so they will be listening very carefully to what kagen, for example, is raising. >> bill: thanks to all of you and stand by. if history serves, the first time we heard these audio arguments was bush versus gore in november of 2000. 23, 24 years ago. our audience at home just recall that moment when that sound inside that room bounces off the granite marble walls. it is quite a moment. if you never thought that audio could be so compelling, just stand by because it can be coming up next hour. stand by,

when jason murray steps up to the lectern representing the colorado voters he is going to pound and pound and pound on the events of january 6th and donald trump's role in what happened that day, and the fact that lower courts have said that he did, indeed, engage in an insurrection. >> pretty good time for people to read your book, the chief, joan, i think, because all eyes are going to be on roberts. we'll get back to you soon, and of course you're a key part of our special coverage at 9:00 a.m. kristen holmes outside mar-a-lago where trump is staying. among them he's not going to be to go this court, going to his other trials recently. he's not going to be there. talk about the strategy today. >> good morning, poppy, and phil, the biggest part of the strategy as you said, he's not going. he has really used these various cases as campaign symptoms. opportunities for him to cry out election interference or political persecution even if his legal issues had nothing to do with politics. in this case, he's not going. actually, he was going back and forth about whether or not he wanted to at

and what i think that jason murray was very effective in saying is that we can't have a situation where there is no avenue for effectively challenging whether somebody engaged in insurrection and was therefore disqualified. this is the one we've got and we've got to use it. >> noah, thanks very much. noah bookbinding for joining us. it was fascinating and really riveting to listen to and you got to be there in the court. i'm mildly jealous. >> absolutely. >> thanks very much. >>> just mildly. >> just mildly. >> candidates trying to replace george santos went head to head in their only debate. we will have the highlights next. >>> and ahead i sat down with notre dame basketball legend muffet mcgraw about so much, especially that viral moment she made we be she said men rule the world. hear it all straight ahead. >> women need female role models, we need more women leaders, we need to see more women in power. i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great

because, as jason murray, who is arguing the case for colorado supreme court pointed out, donald trump had the opportunity early in the case when it was still at the local level to present witnesses. he opted not to. it didn't seem like he fought that case as the early as he could have. do you think that was a mistake in letting it get that far? should the trump team have gone after this case earlier? >> the trump team brought witnesses, they brought their own experts, they even appealed the initial trial decision to the supreme court. the findings as well. they did present a case and the defense for what was being accused by the petitioners. i don't think they made a mistake i just think they understood that the court system in colorado will probably be biased against them. >> there was a hypothetical but i found interesting that was brought up by chief justice john roberts. he asked jonathan mitchell, who is arguing trump side, whether a self admitted insurrectionist, someone who says, i want to undo constitutional -- of the united states could wind up being eligible to be on a ballo

>> 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 me. what it means in real terms is donald trump is going to be on the ballot in 50 states, period. >> t

the liberal justices, kagan, sotomayor, have specifically been asking very pointed questions to jason murrayho is representing those colorado voters who sued to try to remove donald trump from the colorado ballot. you can't see it on television behind me but from where i am at least, you can see the capitol dome across the street, the supreme court right across the capital and those could ask of donald trump say he committed insurrection in the shadow of the us capital. these arguments are been going on for 2 hours and very pointed questions to this attorney that is representing the colorado voters which also the pointed questions for the attorney representing donald trump, donald trump's attorney sata support, taking them off the ballot deprives him of his rights as a presidential candidate. we heard a lot about a key provision of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution specifically section 3. it bars those from holding federal office in the future who engaged in insurrection while an officer of the united states. the question is whether it specifically applies to the office of the pre

then, the court is going to hear about 30 minutes from a lawyer named jason murray. plaintiff in this case, a woman named norma anderson, a 91-year-old lifelong republican from colorado who sued the state to have trump's name taken off the ballot under the 14th amendment. after those 30 minutes, there will then be ten minutes for the colorado solicitor general, his name is shannon stevenson. she'll be representing the interests of colorado's secretary of state who oversees colorado elections and ballot. so that's how it's going to go. 40, 30, 10. if you have never heard an oral argument before the supreme court, you should be prepared for the fact the justices tend to interrupt a lot with their own questions. sometimes they don't let the lawyers get a word out. so the timing and the order of voices you will hear could change a bit, but you can generally follow it. we don't exactly know how it will go, but people who do know these things generally expect the court on thursday is going to focus on a handful of questions, basically three main ones to keep in mind. they'

with the colorado voters, the attorney for the colorado voters, jason murray. , dean of a law school. what do you make up the criticism about how jason marie argue this case? and he was not as forceful, but there are lots of things on the table to support his argument and he did not give a forceful defense of the decision of the colorado supreme court. you are in the room. did it come off that way? what do you think? >> i think there's a balance have to strike between recognizing the very legal approach the justices were taking. they're taking it very seriously and it was clear to me they wanted to provide consensus, wanted to provide maybe even union numidia no decision and wanted to be rooted in the law not politics. coming to the court with arguments that are more political than legal could be problematic in cases like that. but i was really grateful that the court kept bringing back for all of the litigants the legal issues at play. that we have to look at this, as for countless of the players on the field in this particular moment, what is the best decision

we know the challengers here, their lawyer jason murray, his first time going before the supreme court. trump's lawyers argued five times before. did you recognize the disparity in terms of their experience there? or did you feel like both lawyers gave their strongest case and strongest arguments here? >> i don't want to chalk it up to experience. as you say, i have had a lot of experience. i will mess up arguments. experience is no guarantee of anything. i don't want to say that. i want to say in a case of this gravity, you need to basically call out the other side and you need to call out the court even. so you need to say about the other side, you are gutting the constitution, donald trump. you need to say to the court, look, for years, you have staked yourself on strict construction of the document, on the original intent of the document. the original intent is to clear against donald trump. you need to be using their methodology that they have used to say, look, you have to be consistent with what you have said before. we heard none of that today. i'm not sure why. that makes it,

. >> but george, to these arguments, the lawyer for the colorado voters, jason murray, said the followingon three has been dormant for 150 years. it is because we haven't -- anything like january six since reconstruction. insurrection against the constitution is something extraordinary. you know, george, to what andrew just said, nobody need donald trump crime, nobody made donald trump make the law, and if the consequence of breaking the law was disqualification from the ballot, so be it. so why is it that if there is some almost like consideration with the court of public opinion might perceive what the doj is doing, then everybody knows that everybody thinks this is a political prosecution anyway on the republicans. why not actually go for the jugular and get as much as you can against somebody like donald trump if it indicates probable cause? >> in this particular case, because they want to conviction, and when you are charging things, i am not a criminal lawyer, i didn't prosecute, but i wrote complaints in the civil route. you don't always put everything you possibly bring. you focus

here are two other individuals who will be present today, jason murray and jonathan mitchell.mitchell will be the lead attorney for president donald trump, a former solicitor general of texas. a clerk for antonin scalia jason murray is a colorado trial lawyer he represents the six colorado voters and he clerked for elena kagan. those two individuals, they pictures in the washington post. this is leo from woodstock new york. caller: i am one of the uneducated. a couple of your callers stated about the uneducated and they have referenced anglo-saxon white guys. i am irish-american. who is uneducated here? host: what are your thoughts on the case? caller: john, my reference material. you cut people off with their reference material that you're allowed to reference the wall street journal. that is bias. what has donald trump been convicted of? host: william from illinois. caller: i am calling about one specific point in this case. donald trump is not an officer of the united states. let's follow through how a bill is passed. when congress signs a bill a passage to the president fo

i think so, yeah, yeah, right, okay, well jason, mean, do you think murray was punching above his weight with with with this attempt then? it's interesting that david talks about the privilege background that that murray have, because obviously he went to eton and oxford, but he actually did start off in a in a comprehensive school, which is his parents took him out of after a short period of time. time and he's since that time talked about it being inner city sync school so he has that very privileged perspective from up high in which he looks down on on people and suspect it's probably because he got the scholarship e that he's able now to to say and do some of the things that he's he's saying in terms of punching against above his weight um obviously as galetarians we prefer not to to to label people in such terms. perhaps, but in terms of a skill set, it does seem very strange that some of the things that he comes out with in terms of identity, excuse me, um, from somebody who hasn't got a sociological background, he's very much fixated on obviously right-wing philosophy, so it's not

your honors, jason murray for petitioners and i will be handling for 20 minutes the issues presented in petitioners, affirmative appeal. >> all right. thank you. good afternoon. >> your honors, eric olson, also for petitioners. i will be responding to trump's appeal. >> all right, welcome. >> good afternoon. your honor. scott gessler, on behalf of president trump. i'll be handling all argument for trump and the other side of the matter. >> all right, welcome. all right. the matter has set two hours to each side will have one hour for a given. mr. murray, you have indicated for 20 minutes. -- you have indicated 20 minutes. that is aspirational. you will have to keep track of your own time. and then depending on how you want to handle it, you can leave any for rebuttal, you will have the argument first and then there will be a response and then you can reply. mr. murray, begin when you're ready. >> may it please the court section three of the 14th , amendment is our constitution's self-defense mechanism. it stands for the idea that those who took an oath to support the constitution and

. >> jason murray, the lead attorney for the colorado voter seeking to have former president trump removedrisis looming. if the court doesn't act now, it's all happening in the backdrop of a crisis of the court's reputation. multiple justices having ties to activist who is worked to overturn the election. justice clarence thomas began today's questioning. thomas has ignored calls for his recusal over his wife's efforts to overturn the election. she was deeply intertwined in the lead up to the january 6th insurrection. texting mark meadows urging him to be relentless to posting on facebook, cheering on the capitol rioters saying, god bless you. to pressing 29 arizona lawmakers to overturn trump's defeat to actually attending the rally itself. a poll from the university of massachusetts found that 64% of americans belief that thols should have recused himself from the case. the concerns over the stench, those are the words of justice is sotomayor, go far beyond this specific case. the belief that the the supreme court has been politicized is ethically compromised has caused faith in the cour

at one point events of justice gorsuch even bringing jason murray, the attorney, to task over some verytical points. so i think that it shows that the momentum is on our side and we're going to, knock on wood, we're going to have a 90 decision in our favor. >> i'm not gonna get bogged down in legal arguments. i, mean the idea of all the services office, office of, there is a lot of nuanced discussions happening today. but, big picture here, dave, if he were to be disqualified at taken off of the ballot, and say the justices decided that that should happen, what is your biggest concern there? >> well, this was talked about even during -- but there will be a cascading effect all across the country where a secretaries of state and other states would seek to disqualify donald trump and blue states. but there is also a potential for retaliations or republican states might very well disqualify joe biden. it's something that we shouldn't want to see in our country. we should want these candidates to be on the ballot is a ultimately the voters should decide. >> there is a moment where justice k

host: let's hear from jason murray. [video clip] >> his main argument is that this court should create an exemption that would applyo him and him alone. he said section three disqualied all insurrectionist except a president who never held any other offe. there is no rationale for that exemption. section three uses deliberately broad language to cover all sitions of federal power needing an oath. this case es not come down to propositions. the o phrases are two sides of the same coin referring to any federal office or anyone who holds one. his other arguments ignore t constitutional role of the states to run elections. states can make sure that there votes are not wasted and they are allowed to safeguard their ballots by excluding those who are under age, foreign-born, running for a third term or those who engage in insurrection. host: back to the phones to jerry in virginia, a republican. caller: what that special counsel said was, joe biden is guilty of sharing classified documents but we will not prosecute him becaus