these kinds of the phrases, victorian unions, husband, robert kagan, talking about the importance of leading the world and this again, this dichotomy between god and, and jungle. i didn't know whether i'm in the jungle here in the u. a because i'm not in one of the metric polls of west and you are well, this actually has a serious, has suggested a long history now. and we can, we say that the modern world order is based on this fall, the in which we're, every state was recognized to be sovereign. however, it soon became more evidence that we did not have sovereignty quality in those states at the same sovereignty. so sovereignty was something not just the right, but also responsibility and the only one who were capable of upholding this responsibility. work then your pm's, the christians, and the rest of the world. we're not civilized one of the your opinions through one of the christians. and so for this reason that they did not have the same sovereignty, this is again, just an objective reality. that is the system that was formed. and so under this system there was the directory wh

the real concern i think, roberts, kagan, others, was the consequences.hey used of affirming and their assumption that it would cascade and create an overall sort of, at best, crazy quilt pattern in the country. >> the chaos theory they were concerned about. >> exactly. >> it must have been fascinating to be in the court. harry and linda, you have been there many times. we all are fascinated by the supreme court. now we wait to see what they do on immunity. thank you for being with us, both. >>> the slow roll. aid for ukraine and israel advancing in the senate. what are its chances in the house? the latest on that coming up next. you are watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. tchec ♪♪ is she? playing with the confidence of a pro and getting all up in that grass as if she doesn't have allergies? yeah. nice. rsv can seriously impact breathing, even for the best performer. protect yourself with pfizer's abrysvo... ...a vaccine to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. it's not for everyone and may not protect all who r

former law clerks and all sorts of other repeat players take the roles of chief justice john roberts, elena kagan, brett kavanaugh, all nine, just to get someone ready for next thursday, kate. >> yeah, i mean, standing up before those justices, if anyone ever sat through those, it's a different beast. it's a beast all on its own. then with the unprecedented nature of what the justices could be deciding here and doing here, it adds an entirely new level to all of this. good to see you, joan. thank you. sara? >>> coming up, humpback whales, once on the brink of extinction, made a spectacular comeback. now, scientists say they're facing their biggest existential threat. this is a great story. we'll have bill weir come in and explain. bastian >>> this sunday cnn will take you to the far corners -- i know, corners, reaches, you decide what shape of the earth for a special report on the climate crisis. cnn's bill weir embedded with a team of researchers tracking humpback whales to reveal how the crisis is impacting them and how they might actually help beat it. bill is here. tell me more! tell us more.

i think the most likely person from the left who could join the john roberts colleagues elena kagan. she's as strategic as he is. this is all premised on the idea that they're going narrowly, that they don't want to go to the absolute question of was donald trump engaged in insurrection, and i think right now not having heard the arguments yet that's the conventional wisdom and it's the wise wisdom. this is the court that's not going to want to break a lot of ground, and it would be breaking ground. this has never been interpreted in modern times, especially to involve someone like donald trump and his chances to be on the ballot and essentially affect who would become president of the united states. >> we'll hear those oral arguments tomorrow morning. paula, you're reporting the trump team is taking a more disciplined, different approach this time compared to some of the other legal battles they've been fighting. what's behind this? >> over the past few months we have seen trump has brought the campaign and a circus to a lot of hearings sometimes represented by people who didn't hav

chief justice roberts, calling it a daunting consequence. justice kagan hammer rg home the same idea. all of them seem troubled by that idea, which is amazing if you think about it. that's not an argument about the text of the 14th amendment, about the history. that's an argument about consequences and political consequences, which for a court that for in many instances tries to sort of look at the original interpretation of things and focus on those types of aspects, they seem more focused today on the fallout of this potential decision. >> ari, i'm wondering, were there surprises for you in listening to these arguments? >> i don't know if it's a surprise. but we saw a real emphasis on pragmatism, as we heard. at one point you had justice jackson citing justice kavanaugh. we saw some cross agreement there that's interesting and could be a good thing for the country any time the court can substantively and in terms of perception be understood as doing something other than raw partisan politics, trying to decide who benefits. i will say it was very clearly

it was so significant when both chief justice roberts and justice kagan expressed concern, well, whattate goes after the democratic candidate and suggests that, for example, president biden committed an insurrection with his immigration policies. should they be able to decide the election for the whole country, and that sort of center of the court between the liberals and conservatives convering around that danger was very significant. we also saw some really interesting agreement between justice gorsuch and justice jackson about whether or not the president is covered under section 3 of the 13th amendment, and justice jackson suggested the core meaning of the civil war was to ensure that state insurrectionists couldn't couldn't to foment revolution. they just weren't thinking about the presidency. it's an invitation to think about the meaning of our history and civil war. we're now polarized in america more than at any time since the civil war. like then we're seeing violence on the streets as we did on january 6th, and the question is to what degree does the constitution protect dem

important, too. >> john: you know, ari, we pointed out before, too, that justice john roberts off the back of kaganaying if we rule in favor of colorado it's going to have a domino effect. call for number 4. >> what do you do with the -- what would seem to me to be plain consequences of your position. if colorado's position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed in very quick order, i would expect, although my predictions have never been correct, i would correct that you know, a goodly number of states will say whoever the democratic candidate is you are off the ballot, and others for the republican candidate you're off the ballot, and it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. that's a pretty daunting consequence. >> john: the way it works right now because of the politics there is only a handful of swing states that decide these elections but that's the way the politics blows in the country. this would completely fundamentally change how a president is picked. >> well, wha

roberts: justic e sotomayor? >> justice sotomayor: justice kagan? justice kavanaugh? justice jackson? anything further? thank you, counsel. >> thank you. >> chief justice roberts: rebutt al, mr. mitchell? >> poet rely on the elector's clause authority of each state to direct the manner of appointing presidential electors. that prerogative under article 2 must be exercised in a manner consistent with other constitutional provisions and restrictions. and justice kagan alluded to one of those restrictions that might be imposed by the first amendment. but there are others. a state cannot use its power under article 2's elector's clause to instruct its presidential electors only to vote for white candidates that would violate the equal protection clause nor can it exercise in a manner that would violate the constitutional holding of u.s. term limits against authorton. and they cannot use the elector's clause as an excuse additional qualifications for the presidency to go beyond what the constitution enumerous rates in article 2 the colorado state court changed the criteria in section 3 by making it a require

kagan. >> do you think because john roberts is who he is and likes to be seen as moderate and not republican or democrat, not conservative or liberal, do you think that that will come maybe even the same day with the decision by the u.s. supreme court to not hear the immunity case and to defer to the u.s. appeals court decision that donald trump does not have immunity for prosecution? >> you know, i don't think that they're going to want to do it on the same day because then it does look like gamesmanship. >> right. >> so i don't think it would be the same day. whether they decide to deny cert or grant and then you know, leave the district court or the circuit court ruling in place. i think they would uphold it even if they granted cert. so i don't know how he's going to do that as far as timing is concerned but i don't see where the supreme court is going to just overturn it. >> all right. tim, always good to have you, sir. thank you so much. an interview that i hoped we would get to have. i'm going to bring you now. in october, i spoke with a man in israel while his wife and children were

i was struck today when both justice ketanji brown jackson and justice kagan seem to agree with chief justice robertshe historical analysis and historical importance of the 14th amendment, not designed to give the states more power. it was designed to circumscribe the power of the states. they were singing from the same sheet of music. you could agree or disagree. that's fine, but it struck me that the more so called liberal justices were aligning with some of the more so-called conservative justices. >> this obviously jonathan lemire would be if it goes the way that many people are predicting, a huge victory for donald trump. obviously it keeps him on the ballot. but also there is, frankly, he's had some other cases go against him, some other rulings, some other situations go against him recently. and the way donald trump operates and we've watched it over the years and over the decades, this would be very big for him to be able to declare victory, to be able to move forward with some of the other things that we know from your reporting and other reporting have weighed on him quite heavily recently.

justice kagan ask why one state should get to decide what amounts to a national question. and chief justice john roberts suggested that dumping trump could lead to chaos and revenge. goodly number of states will whoever the democratic candidate is. you're off the ballot. >> and others for the republican candidate, you're off the ballot. justice ketanji brown jackson question. the argument from trump's attorneys that what happened january 6th did not meet the criteria for insurrection. you it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government to friend insurrection. that needs to be organized, concerted effort. this was a riot. >> it was not an insurrection. the events were shameful, criminal, violent, all those things but did not qualify insurrection as that term is used in section both sides urged the court to come to a decision quickly. certainly before super tuesday, march 5th. >> the bottom line, the supreme court appeared likely to reject the argument that the 14th amendment bar startled trump from returning to the white house. the >> 14th amendment was written to restrict states powe

justice kagan why one state should get to decide what amounts to a national question. and chief justice john roberts suggested that dumping trump could lead to chaos and revenge. goodly number of states will say whoever the democratic candidate is. you're off the ballot. >> and others for the republican candidate, you're off the ballot. justice ketanji brown jackson question. the argument from trump's attorneys that what happened january 6th did not meet the criteria for insurrection. you it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government to friend insurrection. that needs to be organized, concerted effort. this was a riot. >> it was not an insurrection. the events were shameful, criminal, violent, all those things but did not qualify insurrection as that term is used in section both sides urged the court to come to a decision quickly. certainly before super tuesday, march 5th. >> the bottom line, the supreme court appeared likely to reject the argument that the 14th amendment bar startled trump from returning to the white house. the >> 14th amendment was written to restrict states

kagan: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice gouc justice gorsuch: i have not had a chance to talk about the offir int. mr. mitchell makes the argument that in e mmissionslae, all officers are to be mmissioned by the president. it seems to be all-encompassing, that language. i am curious your response to that. along the way, i pok athe difference between office and officer in the other dcussion. one point your friends on the outside woul make -- on the other side would make is that is how the constituti us those terms. when you're the president pro tem t senate and is bigger of the house areffers of the united states because the nstitution says they are. you also know they don't hold any office in the united states because of the incompatibility clause that says they cannot. maybe the constitution to u to delay reader might lk little od not prepositions, nouns, a diinion. maybe that is how it works. thoughts. mr. murray: i would start with the idea that the meaning of officer in the 1780's is the same meaning today which is a peon that holds any office. in certain contexts,t appears that is refein

kagan: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice gorsuch. justice gorsuch: i have not had a chance to talk about the officer point. mr. mitchell makes t argument that in the commissions clause, all officers are to be commissioned by the president it seems to be allncpassing, that language. i am curious your response to that. ong the way, i poked at the difference between oicand officer in t oer discussion. one pot ur friends on the outside would make -- on the other side would make is that is how the constitution uses those terms. when you're the president pro tem of the senate and is bigger ofhe house are officers of th united states because the constitution says they are. you al kw they don't hold any office in thuned states cae of the incompatibility clause that says they cannot. maybe the constitution to us to delay reader might look a little odd. not preposio, nouns, a distinction. maybe that is how it works. oughts. mr. murray: i would start with the idea that the meaning of officer in the 1780'is the same meaning today which is a pers

saying maybe 9-0 to try to, you know, john roberts would really push for that, the chief justice, bill. here is a little clip from the cag q&a. >> justice kaganto be president of the united states. >> bret: bill, thoughts? >> yeah, the supreme court is one of the few institutions in washington still doing its job. this is really not a close case as a frothy reception to colorado's arguments showed. if they rule for colorado, not only do they open the door to the chaos that justices mentioned they are really saying why not just shut down the ballot box. if we are going to allow people to rig it this way and to put -- get their opponents off the ballot based on the flimsy arguments, this argument depended on a lot of ifs. and i think the supreme court showed its very skeptic about them. >> bret: yeah. "wall street journal" writes it this way supreme court's colorado trump test the best to settle this narrow legal issues and not enter the legal fight whether january 6th was insurrection. the justices don't need to go there if they find that section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't cover the president. gillian, there were questions that dealt with

it is in play with roberts and gorsuch sometimes siding with trans litigants. imagine trump replaces sotomayor or kagan with another alito type, all protections for lgbtq people fall away, not just transgender right, but marriage equality, the right to engage in same-sex intimacy. the right to live as an equal citizen as an lgbtq person, all of that would be under assault, and i'll note, katy, there are a lot of states that have refused to repeal their bans on sodomy. if the supreme court overrules pro gay precedents, those sodomy bans leap in force and thousands become criminals overnight. >> what about contrceptives? >> probably the easiest one. i think this supreme court would allow bans on iuds and plan b, deemed abort afacientes, there's medication abortion, abortion bills. i have been paying attention to the briefs filed by antiabortion groups. they are not just talking about abortion pills. they are talking about contraception, not just plan b but regular old daily contraception, they are arguing that those actually have the effect of terminating human life and arguing that this supreme court sh

that was a position that elena kagan seemed to embrace, that chief justice roberts seemed to embrace. there's a lot of paths for trump to win here and for the colorado voters to lose. i was struck by the unanimity. it appears it'll be a lob-sided decision, not as close as some people imagined it to be. lots of reasons for that. i found it very interesting. i'd be very surprised, jonathan, as i sit here, if mr. trump didn't prevail. >> ken dilanian, "the new york times" headline says, "supreme court appears set to rule that states can't disqualify trump." the headline on the "wall street journal," "trump ballot spot appears safe." do you agree from what you heard yesterday. >> yeah, 100%. chuck got it completely right. it was so interesting listening to the liberal justices because, you know, it's clearly against their partisan interest to argue the way they were and to see it the way they did. it is a lesson for us all, right? be intellectually honest. when elena kagan spoke first yesterday, i remember the moment, she really took the care out of the balloon of people that want to see

kagan and sonia sotomayor. so that puts a lot of pressure on someone say like on a john roberts on gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett, maybe so. you're going to be 2 of those who say that the issues are so important moving forward. you read this opinion. it's a strong opinion that unanimous opinion. it's a love letter to the rule of law at this. 57 page decision is huge and strong and goes against fully. the audacious claims made by the former president. so in that sense, it has both political impact in legal impact. >> so this you know, for people out there might not pay close attention is related to the january 6th incident. do think that because those 3 judges, you know, ruled unanimously one was appointed by a republican president. hw bush 2 by democratic presidents. do you think that the supreme court will most use that as a playbook if they do, in fact, take the case. yeah, i think there's going to be to be fascinating to read the history on this later. but if there will be some internal pressure to to go into this case and the decision says >> that the former president has to make his appeal to

do we see justice kagan trying to pick up on questions asked by jeff justice roberts or kavanaugh?o we see justice gorsuch ping on questions asked by george sotomayor. if the court is going to find a consensus way through the question it seems like argument will be a fascinating preview in how the justices reccoing each other, enforcing or, jake, not as case may be. >> george, i agree with that, and i agree with everything that i've just heard. i think the -- i do wonder how much they are going to get into the engaged in an insurrection argument because there are legal off ramps and as elie said the legal issues are primarily what this court decides, but here the legal off ramps aren't particularly strong. they -- the argument that the president isn't an officer of the united states is not particularly strong nor is the argument that the 14th amendment cannot be enforced without a act of congress, and so i think the court may find itself in the uncomfortable position of focusing on the words engage in an insurrection. i don't think there's any question that there is an insurrection

many others cases, justice kagan defended democracy, but brett kavanaugh and his conservative brethren have not. it was a little ironic hear justices like kavanaugh and robertsy come out swinging for voting rights and democracy when they have spent much of their careers allowing situates to restrict or revoke voting rights. >> there was a question about that. one of the justices asked if this would be a disenfrancement and the response from the lawyer for colorado was donald trump participated in insurrection and part of that was trying to disenfranchise millions of voters by say their vote department count and he should stay in office. he shouldn't have a second chances. >> i think that's a very powerful argument. really an argument from the 14th amendment, which according to murray and the plaintiffs in this case, was designed to protect democracy against office holders who would subvert it, who would wield the power of their office to affect antithe democratic results, to nullify the rights of the people, including access to the ballot. but the justices did not seem to be buying that argument. and they resorted to this kind of argument from humility. they

knows that justices kagan on the left and alito on the right can throw these wild hypotheticals that will target the real weaknesses of a case. you also have to keep your eye on john robertst the ideological center. those are the ones to try to win over. >> the moot court is so, so, so important. for attorneys, this is like preparing for the super bowl, if you want to make -- right? going in front of the judges is extremely rare and huge, especially in -- this case -- you are looking at some of the most exciting times for the supreme court as a reporter. this has to be incredible for you to watch all of this happening. i can't wait to hear what it's like in there. >> i will be right there in the courtroom watching. >> i know you will. i appreciate it. thank you. >>> authorities searching the scene of a small plane crash in florida where several people were killed. we have new details on the investigation. >>> new this morning, authorities are investigating a small plane crash that killed several people at a florida mobile home park. officials say the plane was found predominantly in one home, and three others then ignited in a fiery crash. the faa says the pilot reported

kagan, appointed by obama, who like her republican-appointees counterparts was skeptical of colorado's effort to ban trump from the ballot. we are joined by a special guest i previewed earlier, robert former independent counsel in the clinlten area. he replaced ken starr and defended donald trump during the first impeachment. he wrote a brief in support of trump's position in this case. welcome. >> thank you. it's always a pleasure to be with you. >> great to have you. one thing i've found all lawyers like is to be heading toward a win. i mentioned you're amicus because you said colorado was wrong and it seems like you have eight, maybe nine votes agreeing with you. what did you think of what we heard in the oral argument? >> you know, it's always, of course, hazardous to guess just based on oral argument what the outcome will be because every good lawyer knows, you know that there are times when the questioning doesn't necessarily reflect the outcome or the thinking of the justice. but i think in this one, i think i agree with some of what you had previewed about the case, that the supreme court is looking for an off-ramp here for practical reasons. i think justice kagan is right

justice roberts i don't maybe, you know, but do we have any idea the dynamics behind the scenes here as to who? because i can't imagine that the three democratic appointed justices. so to my your and kagan and jackson i can't imagine that they would agree with this. how many people need to hold the position of no, let's just delay delay, delay for that to happen. >> okay. under normal circumstances, it takes just four justices to grant a case, but it also takes five to adhere to any motion and there was a motion, of course, to block the effect of the lower court judgment here in a lower court judgment that i just want to stress again, was unanimous by a panel of the dc circuit that included an appointee of the late president george hw bush and to appointees of president biden, it was a very robust decision against the former president because the former president was really really pushing an extreme argument about absolute immunity once he left office. but you're right. there were probably justices on the left and maybe in the middle of the court who might not have thought that they needed to weigh in on this but at least five thought that this was the way to go to stop all the proceedi

roberts i don't maybe know. but what do we have any idea the dynamics behind the scenes here as to who because i can't imagine that the three democratic appointed justices so to my your and kagan and jackson, i can't imagine that they would agree with this. how many people need to hold the position of no, let's just delay delay, delay for that to happen. >> okay. under normal circumstances, it takes just four justices to grant a case, but it also takes five to adhere to any motion and there was a motion, of course, to block the effect of the lower court judgment here in a lower court judgment that i just want to stress again, was unanimous by a panel of the dc circuit that included appointee of the late president george hw bush, and two to appointees of president biden. it was a very robust decision against the former president because the former president was really, really pushing an extreme argument about absolute immunity once he left office but so you're right. there were probably justices on the left and maybe in the middle of the court who might not have thought that that they needed to weigh in on this. but at least five thought that this was the way to go to stop all

kagan's point. bedlam and chaos ensues if we affirm, and yet, how exactly are we going to reverse and it will be chief justice roberts' job to try to get the -- i tend to agree with andrew, 9, but it could be 8 justices to endorse a single position because it's the sort of moumental case where you want the supreme court, if you can, to speak with one voice, not just with result but rational. >> putting aside the exchange that andrew and i were talking about vis-a-vis january 6th, the language around was it a riot or insurrection. you had had trump's lawyer calling it criminal. it really wasn't the center piece of what we heard today. january 6th itself did not seem to take up the majority of the air time was not what was being reckoned with. talk me through why that was. >> i think trump's lawyer made a very smart, strategic decision. remember the colorado trial court here after a 5-day hearing, trump had the opportunity to evidence and the like, and that's what that factual finding was. when cases go up on appeal, there's standard of review. and the standard of review here for when you're trying to contest a factual