supreme court.en standing up for themselves july 1 the issued and decision the immunity decision we talked about on the show that said that presidents should be immune from prosecution for their official acts and there are three pages of that opinion the talk directly about that merchan prosecuthe merchanprosecution at use the evidence of what presidents do to prosecute them in state courts. merchan a blue that aside. he did it anyway and waited six months for white six months? so we could sentence donald trump there be no time for an effective appeal because he wants to make donald trump the first felon president in our history. mark: that's exactly right the idea of the supreme court is never stepped in like this before we talked briefly about bush versus gore they stepped in during an ongoing election to stop that count relative to the electoral college which resulted in bush becoming president. they did the right thing in my view but that's not the point. i think who you have on the court manisc

supreme court. >> peter baker, let's talk about that for just a moment, because the justice system, the jury system was really at stake here with the sentencing, according to judge mershon, according to the prosecutor, that's why they wanted to proceed. what about the court's reputation? you know, one of the arguments here was that donald trump has damaged the judicial, the reputation of the judiciary. but the court system, by talking about witch hunts so much. and what about the reputation of the supreme court as this continuest few years. is that, rightly or wrongly, courts and judges and even specifically the supreme court, look increasingly like just another political body. we talk about who appointed the judge, which president appointed the judge as if that was a d or an r next to their name. that wasn't always the case. you know, the supreme court until not that long ago, had republican appointed justices who were fairly liberal and democratic appointed justices who were fairly conservative or

. ~ supreme court do? what are the otions? ., ~ ,., supreme court do? what are the otions? ck- _ options? thank you for having me back. the _ options? thank you for having me back. the supreme - options? thank you for having me back. the supreme courtl options? thank you for having i me back. the supreme court has this morning the chance to side with the us government, who is arguing the slot is necessary on national security grounds, with concerns about the chinese owner of tiktok us, or to side with both of the app and creators are also represented in this case, suggesting that any such infringement on the use of tick—tock in the united states would equally be an infringement on their speech rights —— tiktok. the decision came from the court of appeal that upheld the slaw, i am tentatively expecting the supreme court to vote to uphold the law today, likely and put it narrow grounds. the supreme court in particular prefers to defer to congress and the executive branch, the president, both the current president, both the current president biden and incoming president biden a

back to the supreme court.see them showing up in flotillas of a dozen or more with coordinated amicus briefs. and this whole operation is constantly bombarding democrats, is constantly feeding a false narrative, is constantly at war with the facts. and here we are on our side, and we have no organized operation to oppose what is perhaps the most ferocious political operation and the largest political operation america has ever seen. it is funded by these billionaires. it has unlimited money. it's quite well hidden. there are probably 100 of these organizations that they can call up, again, like piano keys. and we need to just be better. you can't just go on the field against an organized operation like these billionaires run through the republican party and expect that you're going to win. you've got to have some planning center of your own. some way that you coordinate. some way that you figure out who's who and you expose them for what they are. we could do well simply with exposure, if people knew. one of my

supreme court hearing arguments about the future of tiktok. d if tiktok is banned. it feels like in the court it is not going in the direction of tiktok. >> we are only halfway through. the lawyer for the creator aspect of the lawsuit is making his arguments. the first hour was tiktok's lawyer. i listen to the whole thing. i do not listen to a ton of supreme court oral arguments but i get the idea that tiktok is in trouble. a lot pushed back -- it is also a data and security issue. they did not seem convinced on what the tiktok lawyer was presenting. caroline: certain analysts have theorized what would happen if tiktok is banned. money goes to snap but the key winners are meta and youtube. can you spell out the winners and losers? kurt: you hit the top three. i think meta, google and youtube are probably 1a and 1b because they both have products in youtube shorts and reels in meta that are tiktok clones. easy to migrate to one of these other services and they already have massive advertising services. they do not have to do a lot different to c

with the supreme court, we see them shows up in flotillas. this entire operation is constantly bombarding democrats and feeding a false narrative and constantly at war with the facts. and here we are with no organized operation to oppose what the perhaps the most ferocious political operation and the largest political operation america has ever seen. it is funded by these billionaires. it has unlimited money. there are probably 100 of these organizations they can call up again like piano keys. and, we need to just be better. you can't just go on the field against an organized operation like these billionaires run and expect to win. you need a planning center of your own. some way to coordinate and figure out who is who and expose them for who they are. we could do well for exposure. one of my favorite stories, one of these briefs came in under the name of a front group for another front group. and it didn't disclose to the supreme court that it was just a false name of another front group. so the scheming is actually pretty obvious and we sho

the supreme court again. the breaking news says the tiktok ban can be implemented, can go into effect on sunday. this has huge implications for americans across the united states who use that app. we'll have more after a short break. stay with us kobe. the making of a legend premieres january 25th on cbs. >> parent. >> nice going lou. nothing like a little confidence boost to help ease you back into the dating scene. of course, that also includes having a smile you feel good about. fortunately, aspen dental specializes in dentures and implants made just for you with affordable options and flexible ways to pay. and now they're $0 down plus zero interest if paid in full in 18 months. helping our patients put their best smile forward. it's one more way. aspen dental is in your corner. >> if you're living with dry amd, you may be at risk for developing geographic atrophy or ga. ga can be unpredictable and progress rapidly, leading to irreversible vision loss. now there's something you can do to slow it down and g

and that includes the supreme court. that is not to say the supreme court is perfect. certainly is not. it's to say it does not make decisions i think are wrong. it does. i spend a fair of time writing about that. it's not say that every justice behaves the way we would want every justice to behave. but one looks overall at the behavior of court, its role in our system of government, the role it has been performing and the direction has been heading. i think any fair assessment leads one to the conclusion that it is the institution that is failing the least. and i would also now, if time permitting, i will summarizes at the end that that also appears to be the view of the american people that despite who can continue to view the supreme court much more favorably than other institutions, whether we're talking about congress or whether we're talking about the news media, whether we're talking about other institutions that we rely upon. the one prominent exception being the military. now, when i say that the court is serving us well, what do i mean? well, the court has be

, or any past supreme court decisions involving the president-elect.o knows that donald trump will take any legal steps possible to try to block the release of special prosecutor jack smith's report and samuel alito knows it is possible those attempts could end up in the supreme court. alito has never had a telephone conversation with a more active litigant before the supreme court them donald trump, or a more predictable litigant before the supreme court than donald trump. i knew yesterday donald trump was going to appeal his sentencing to the united states supreme court. we discussed it on this program last night with andrew wiseman. there is no reason to believe samuel alito yesterday wasn't smart enough to anticipate that donald trump would come to the supreme court today, at the latest, very latest, with the emergency petition he filed. samuel alito is claiming, i couldn't possibly have figured out yesterday was lawrence o'donnell figured out yesterday. that's what he's saying. but samuel alito, one of the most politically compromised supreme cour

and you think the supreme court - point of view.ill- point of view. and you think. the supreme court will follow through on that?— through on that? post inauguration - through on that? post inauguration of - through on that? post| inauguration of donald through on that? post - inauguration of donald trump? through on that? post _ inauguration of donald trump? i think is anyone yes, but if you look at how certain supreme court decisions happened last year, including giving presidential immunity towards a certain criminal act, i think this supreme court will take its guidance from donald trump. they see him as a unitary executive, so i think they are going to listen to him and they will give him the benefit of the doubt to try to come up with a political solution. i will be surprised if they didn't allow him to do that. and what a change of events a3 when they were looking at a possible ban in a very important market for them. absolutely. the tiktok platform in the us has been phenomenally successful. it was an important part of the p

if they lose at the supreme court, assuming this does go to the supreme court, then .is a difficult process. it takes two-thirds approval in both the house and the senate and 75% or 3/4ths of all the state legislatures. so a lot of different moving parts here. but the bottom line was this judge was not persuaded by any means by the justice department to keep this executive order in play. john. >> sandra: david, if you could stay with us and jump in as you get any news. jonathan turley is joining us on the breaking news that we just heard this judge is blocking the birthright citizenship executive order that came from the president in his first days of office. jonathan, your reaction here. >> well, this is along the lines of what we just discussed on the air, that this is the most vulnerable executive order of all of those issued by president trump. the widespread expectation was this result. the trump administration knew that. there's every indication the trump administration invited a challenge because they want to get into the courts in order to eventually make it to

the president is for 4 or 8 years supreme court justices for life. and what is really differentiated, the right from the left. it seeing the courts as just another battle ground for political fighting. this political battle began in the 19 eighties and was largely orchestrated by the federalist society, a conservative and libertarian organization. the federalist society was founded in the early eighties by law students at yale and university of chicago law school, but really was incubated inside the justice department of the reagan administration . if you grew up in a conservative religious household and then suddenly you came onto an american campus in the 1980s. you had active as groups pushing for women's rights. you are active as groups pushing for lesbian and gay rights. and to people who came from a very conservative background, think of people who are teenagers may be in their early twenties. that's helped very, very threatening units inside. it's not an either or most of the students are liberal, but i believe that their ideas can be changed.

involving donald trump's appeal to united states supreme court. we will keep an eye of what's happening there this hour. as this hour proceeds. we'll have more from los angeles. we'll be right back. os angeles. we'll be right back. asthma. does it have you missing out on what you love with who you love? it's time to get back out there with fasenra. fasenra is an add-on treatment for eosinophilic asthma that is taken once every 8 weeks and can also be taken conveniently at home. fasenra helps prevent asthma attacks. most patients did not have an attack in the first year. fasenra is proven to help you breathe better so you can get back to doing day-to-day activities. fasenra is not for sudden breathing problems. serious allergic reactions may occur. get help for swelling of your face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop asthma treatments without talking with your doctor. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens or you have a parasitic infection. headache and sore throat may occur. get back to better breathing. get back to what you've miss

could the supreme court delete this ruling? it supreme court delete this rulin: ?lin: ? u, . supreme court delete this rulin: ? u, ., _, ruling? it could and incoming president _ ruling? it could and incoming president from _ ruling? it could and incoming president from asked - ruling? it could and incoming president from asked them l ruling? it could and incoming| president from asked them to ruling? it could and incoming - president from asked them to do so with the theory that once he is in office he could put together some sort of deal. i think that is unlikely to work for the supreme court because there is no legal authority to pause and otherwise valid act of congress because the incoming president finds it inconvenient that comes into effect before his inauguration. and how it is presented until now, i expect the supreme court sometime this week to uphold the law at least decline to block it until it goes into effect on the 19th. over to south korea — where suspended president yoon suk yeol�*s trial is set to begin in a few hours. the constitutional court wi

the supreme court was something that was very familiar territory to him. and i think he knew that's where this would lead eventually. it wasn't just district court judges or even appeals court judges or executive nominations, but it would eventually lead the supreme court. and he had a choice, though. he could have said, well, i'm not going to take that path. instead, he didn't. he took it as an opening and he remade the supreme court sort of in a right leaning conservative image. let's go forward three years to 2016 after this. and the death of supreme court justice antonin scalia. mitch mcconnell had become majority leader by then and declared this about the vacancy. mr. president, the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the supreme court and have a profound impact on our country. so, of course, of course, the american people should have a say in the court's direction. it is a president's constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice, and it is the senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold i

how do you think he'll do at the supreme court? eporter: well, i think he's in the best court that he could be in, john. now, he's got a lot of uphill here procedurally because to take a case directly to the supreme is court is, you know, highly unusual and highly unlikely. at the same time, really, only the supreme court to say its ruling in july which is based on this idea that we don't want president distracted and stigmatized in the performance of their duties by criminal proceedings, only the supreme court can really extend that. that's the thing that trump wants. i think he has a shot to prevail there in a way he probably never had a shot in the state. >> john: the supreme court did literally write the book on presidential i'm immunity. this court should before enter an immediate stay to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government. but here's what the supreme court wrote in that immunity decision: they wrote that presidents have absolute immunity for acts c

this is a state court matter which is another reason the supreme court may not want to get involved. her to leave because trump hasn't exhausted all of his remedies. he has simultaneously petitioned the court of appeals in new york state, the highest court in the land in new york, as well as the supreme court at the same time, just because of the time constraints here but the supreme court could really punt on this, saying you have not exhausted all the remedies you have in the state, so we are not going to rule on this. they could find a lot of other procedural reasons why they are not going to address this and then allow the sentencing to go forward. >> we will wait to see what the supreme court decides. thank you for joining us here on bbc news. here in washington, d.c., mourners continue to pour into the capital to pay respects to former president jimmy carter for his -- before his estate funeral tomorrow. the body of the 39th president lies in state at the capitol rotunda. you can see members of the public filing around to pay their last respects. mr. carter was in office from 19

and that case line did all the way to landed in the supreme court. the supreme court clearly found at the national security argument, much more compelling than the free speech argument, and that will let us to the decision that we saw today. but again, donald trump has had a change of heart since on take talk you widely for e credits. take talk with the having helped him one votes, especially from the youth. and he has reportedly looking at ways or to overturn or delay the bad. so briefly, janelle, what would need to happen? so take talk to remain available to people in the us. i'm afraid that's not really a brief question. trump said that he will decide and that he will make a decision, but not quite what he is going to do. so he could, for example, force the d o j dot to enforce that bad. so that would mean apple and google would not be penalize if they consist, if they continued to host tick tock on their app stores. but if you're apple and google, you might not want to risk of, you might not want to risk running afoul of the law if it exists. and

here's what the supreme court said in a 5-4 decision. eral justices, along with the chief justice and amy coney barrett, they wrote the following. first, the elected evidentiary violations at president-elect trump's state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. second, the burdening that sentenci will impose on the president-elect's responsibilities is relatively substantial in light of the trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence up on conditional discharge after a brief virtual hearing. unconditional discharge. that means no fines, no jail time, no probation. we are getting your reaction to this this morning. jimmy in erlewine, pennsylvania. hi, jimmy. caller: how are you? host: morning. caller: good morning. i want to say i wish elizabeth were still on. she must be a dei hire or paid by george soros. i am just a straight guy, but you are going to tell me all of these illegals, does she know it is a felony to cross into our border? it is a felony. it is not a misdemeanor. getting back to what she said abou

reporter: a few minutes ago the supreme court ruled . ago the supreme court ruled that— ago the supremehe supreme court ruled that not going to slow down sentencing and it is on for tomorrow. sentencing and it is on for tomorrow— sentencing and it is on for tomorrow. ., ., . ., tomorrow. now what? we have called for _ tomorrow. now what? we have called for an — tomorrow. now what? we have called for an appeal _ tomorrow. now what? we have called for an appeal and - tomorrow. now what? we have called for an appeal and as - tomorrow. now what? we have called for an appeal and as you | called for an appeal and as you know they said, no penalty and is no penalty but we're going to appeal anyway just psychologically because frankly it is a disgrace, it is a judge that should not have been under the case, he is a highly conflicted judge and if they called for an appeal so i read it and i thought it was a fair decision, actually, so they can have fun with a political opponent tomorrow, as you know i am under a gag orderfrom a judge, this is an attack of a political opponent and if you take a l

and supreme court, three of the nine justices.ng that they might read the constitution differently again than the supreme court has for over a century. but i think if you look at these justices and the fact that they espouse something called originalism, looking at what the words of the constitutional meant when they were written, i still think it's an upward battle to have any court, including the supreme court, say that this executive order is constitutional. because of course in our system, everything has to adhere to the constitution. you cannot implement an executive order that would undermine the constitution. you need to amend the constitution.— the constitution. after the last election, _ the constitution. after the last election, donald - the constitution. after the i last election, donald trump the constitution. after the - last election, donald trump has a level of power, the republicans have a level of power, that hasn't been seen for a long time. so what would it take, or could they, amend the constitution?— the const

supreme court. we'll see if they take it. that's a long way down the road. so today we're focusing back on the trial court, where you're sitting outside of laura coates. >> and of course, the idea that it was a54 decision, we might not have even been at this moment, he has been pushing not to have it sentenced. and now the court is saying you can go forward. a lot of people wondering why he would fight so hard, given the fact that he's not going to get much more than maybe a verbal slap on the wrist. but he is very angry about this case. he always has been. even as recently as this week, i want to bring in chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid. trump has sounded off on how he has felt about this entire process, and why he continues to fight. you have been talking with sources this very morning. tell me how that trump team is feeling even heading into this today? >> well, i will say that his lawyers are feeling a lot more optimistic than the president elect, even though they fought to block today's sentencing, they believe that it's a huge win that thei

the majority also seems sketchy. >> well, first, on the question of whether the north carolina supreme court is going to make the decision, there is an appeal to the fourth circuit on the decision to send it back. we have to wait and see which court ends up with jurisdiction of the case. you have to remember, it's a game plan. you mentioned the things that trump and the republicans learned from 2020 and that is you do not go into court with crazy theories and weak lawyers. this has been teed up before the november election, to go in and challenge certain categories of voters that they arguably, at least according to the complaint, weren't eligible to vote. on the one hand, you don't want to see writers in the street like we saw on january 6 four years ago, but we also want, if they are legitimate legal questions, to let the court system play out. >> i was talking to the professor at harvard who writes about democratic backsliding. he said this thing that stuck with me. fundamentally, this consensus about this loser conceding and peaceful transfer of power is just a difficult consensus to ref

donald trump to block the sentencing, and that did not work, and the supreme courtjudges decided supreme courtnute bid from donald trump so today the sentencing went ahead and the breaking development, i will repeat it, thejudge decided to development, i will repeat it, the judge decided to sentence donald trump to an unconditional discharge over the conviction in the hush money case and he has imposed no jail time money case and he has imposed no jailtime and no money case and he has imposed no jail time and no fine but the sentence means it is a sentence of guilt on donald trump's record and i suspect thatis trump's record and i suspect that is why donald trump was so keen to go to the supreme court to avoid that eventuality. donald trump taken to court and convicted in the first place, that was the first for a living president, and these other scenes outside the court. our correspondent has been inside and we will talk to them very shortly. donald trump made an appearance before we got the sentencing and it was the first time he was able to testify in this case. in may he did not testify th

caroline: we look at the supreme court decision on tiktok.s, it has to be banned or divested. it does not have much of an effect on competitors. meta's platform is up, alphabet up. snap had been one of the most volatile stocks. everyone waiting with bated breath with what lawmakers do and what trump does. he takes to true social to see a decision is imminent. let's get more from bloomberg's kurt wagner. kurt: there is so much that will happen over the next 72 hours. the supreme court did uphold the law but this is what we expected. the ball is in donald trump's court. the ban should kick in sunday. everyone expects an executive order when he takes office, maybe give tiktok more time to find a buyer. tiktok since they do not want a buyer. there are many unique elements to this thing. it would be premature to say anyone knows what will happen. this is one thing that is at least off the table. the idea of the supreme court could save tiktok and we can focus on the other options which mostly centered around donald trump. mike: those options on do

but the problem is, you don't usually make a bee line right to the supreme court. they like you to go to the district court and second circuit and then you get -- >> dana: in this case isn't it a little unusual? the supreme court has discretion as well to say and yet we understand the timeline here. >> there is an instinctive federal notion that you shouldn't interfere with state criminal proceedings. you are dealing with lawyers -- justice barrett has been not forous for this in her time on the court. she doesn't like the emergency docket or like things come to the court. she likes regular order and like the feds should stay out of it unless they really have to get into it. >> she doesn't like the word interlock tore. the normal process you wait until a conviction after sentencing and appeal everything. i do think there is some reticence to extending this immunity to someone not yet the commander-in-chief. i don't know if he will prevail on the merits. his argument as you have made me a felon and about to have control over every weapon in our arsenal. i don't know

uh, the supreme court. uh, mark let's. so let's listen it. let's see the . okay, so this may be the musical prelude the ceremony, as we said, is gonna start minutes from now. the so the we're hoping that this time there will be no need to redo the end of office, but famously brock obama had to do it again. once in public. there was a little bit of a slip up. you have to do it again in private with mr. roberts, this spring quartets just has to, has to give the, of the oath of office in a very specific way. and he missed a word or 2 in that process. so he had to return to the white house later that day and do it one once again. so even if you're a supreme court box lead, sometimes you're not is up verbally dexterous as one should be in that type of extremely diplomatic report. if loved it, it's fine. he flip did they redid it. uh no big um, but of course this just such a big magnifying glass on that moment. i know the number of eyes that are on this just because of how significant it is because of course, the president of the united states is one of the most o

affects some 170 million americans who currently use the app. >> nbc's ryan riley is outside the supreme court reading into this decision. what can you tell us, ryan? >> so the so the court has upheld the ban. so tiktok will not be allowed in the united states. >> these fines would go into place. >> but the but joe biden and the president has said that for the one day that this would be effective before he leaves office as president of the united states, that he is not going to enforce that. so the law itself has been upheld. this is a major blow for tiktok, and overall, it will be removed. the app store will have to remove the app. the app will no longer update to existing accounts, and essentially it will become defunct within a matter of months if enforced. but donald trump, of course, has said has asked in an unusual move had asked the supreme court to even he has expressed some support for tiktok. in fact, the tiktok one of the chief executives is coming to trump's inauguration and he has asked he has had an unusual filing before he actually became president to sort of let give him room t

so because i think we can touch on the supreme court in a moment. the judge who's o, o did this, john cook noise array, you can a point t, so that for in see real republican, he questioned what from lawyers with thinking off to even bring vis a vis advice to the, to the president. is there a question here about such a time during legally, to the things that president trump might want to the lawyers really all the thinking clearly about the damage. this is going to cause in the much wider american society about how laws can be changed. it's a whim. well, i don't know that that, that is a pandering argument. i think there is a good faith basis. there was, there was a reason dispute among costs peaceful scholars. now are some attorneys more amenable to these views and it makes it more famous? yes, but the laws change even a lot of the question is, are, is this it is president trump interpreting the 14th amendment or is he changing the 14th amendment? clearly he cannot change the 14th amendment. but let me just tell you this. so here i am always very, v

the supreme court has already ruled _ that?itively - that? the supreme court has already ruled definitively on i already ruled definitively on that over the course of the last century and said that what that simply means is that people who are subject to the laws of the country, and that is the case for anyone who is in the united states other than the rare exceptions like people who have diplomatic immunity. so that language means simply that anyone who was born here in the united states, subject to its laws is a citizen. that is something that has been clear for generations is something that has been clearfor generations in is something that has been clear for generations in this country. the supreme court has said it, congress has reaffirmed it. it is not something that president trump can get rid of simply by signing an executive order. what would the impact to be of removing birthright citizenship from the us? it removing birthright citizenship from the us?— from the us? it would be enormous. _ from the us? it would be eno

the first will be the appellate division the supreme court of new york, and then there will be an appealrk court of appeals, the state's highest court. this case may end up before the u.s. supreme court again, because there are constitutional issues when it comes to presidential immunity. we know the president has a receptive audience, because at least four of the justices were willing to grant that emergency appeal, which would have been extraordinary. the supreme court typically does not hear appeals like that until he conviction is finalized. the president will have three chances to get this conviction overturned on appeal. caitriona: we heard from trump that he had tried to use the supreme court ruling on presidential immunity. will it likely have any impact on the appeal process is outlined? -- they appeal process you have outlined? >> i think so. that is the strongest argument the president has, because a different majority of the supreme court, 6-3, ruled last summer that a president's immunity is very broad. anything that is arguably an official act is subject to immunity. even e

but the supreme court had a responsibility to defend the supreme court. to defend the federal judiciary and the federal constitution. you have an elected left wing bomb throwing prosecutor, you have a completely rogue state judge at every step he orchestrated this thing just like he orchestrated today's a bomb nation. four justice is wanted to take up this case. they had enough reason to do it. the arguments were laid out not just by president trump's lawyers but also by former attorney general meece's brief. this court if it had rehnquist as the chief justice or scalia on this court it would have been a 6-three. taken the case and fixed it. what do i mean by fixed it? depending on what the state appel at go do. this case is going back to the supreme court. what's the supreme court going to say? we aren't going to take it? of course they'll take it. what will they say then? they said let the process play out. that's all we know from this order. let the process play out. no, you don't let a corrupt process that these gentleman have been talking about from

the supreme court, a let's say bipartisan or at least cross ideological segment of the supreme court, said, let's let this play out in the future sentence. this defendant, if he has other arguments in the future, he can raise them. so it's a quite straightforward legal matter. now, there's all kinds of politics around donald trump, and i get it legally. >> i have a question, though. that the court said that it because the judge had indicated that his sentence would not include any jail time. it was going to be just an unlimited discharge that that also gave them the flexibility to to make this ruling. do you think if mershon had not sort of foretold what his sentence would be, that the court would still rule this way? >> that's a great question. they might have, but there were two different arguments trump was making, which is a legal one. i have other arguments to make and a practical one, which is, well, i you know, i might go to jail. and that's problematic for me to be president. and, you know, frankly, he's he's right on that, i think on that practical point, they were saying, lo

supreme court upholds a law banning tiktok.nt trump moves his inauguration ceremony indoors because of freezing temperatures forecast for monday. ♪ sumi: a very warm welcome to world news america. israel appears to be on the brink of ratifying the country's cease-fire agreement with hamas. the country's full cabinet is meeting into the night, unusual on a friday evening when religious jews begin their sabbath. the cabinet signed off on the agreement. the government has published 95 palestinian women and children it plans to release if the deal comes to form. hamas would return 30 three israeli hostages over six weeks. as the footage shows from egypt trucks are lining up to bring aid into gaza. israel will allow 600 trucks in every day, a 12 fold increase on the current flow of supplies. the deal is proving controversial in israel. people voiced their opposition. inside there are differences between benjamin netanyahu and his coalition partners but he is under huge pressure in israel to bring remaining hostages home and he is pu

supreme court has upheld a law that bans tiktok. updates continuing to come out of washington around the story. we will bring you the latest. first, check on markets. s&p 500 is hitting a session high just a moment ago, firmly above that 6000 level. the last day of trading before president-elect trump begins his next term. it is the best week for the s&p 500 since the u.s. election. nasdaq 100 also just flying, up 1.8%. the 2-year yield hang around 4.27. the 10-year yield have been fluctuating a bit throughout the day but standing at about 4.61. one of the big stories as we've been talking about that we are following today, that u.s. supreme court decision upholding the decision to ban tiktok. with that, in the future of the app is uncertain and president-elect trump says that he will try to save tiktok but the law now says that the company must be shut down or sold by sunday. we talked about why the story is very far from over. >> there is another lesson for investors to go well beyond what is happening with tiktok. there is no oth

and then the supreme court on the emergency docket, either six three or five three. we don't know because there's no opinion said that stayed the lower court's opinions and allowed the governor to continue. we're talking 600 people. most of them could go ahead and register same day. so it wasn't a game changer. but the issue is there is on the supreme court docket, we don't know if they thought the statute meant something else or is there a constitutional problem with the statute? so that's there absentee ballot issues there, a whole series that are sort of lined up now. the fifth circuit issued what i think is an outlier opinion that said that it is violates the federal statute, called for states to count ballots that are cast before the election. but arrive and are therefore opened after the election on the basis that election day is tuesday. and so that's a live issue going forward. big push in two states on overseas. voters presumed play a political calculation. they were more likely to be democratic. but in both pennsylvania, north carolina, there are challenges

the republican challenger, of course on the north carolina sprinkler, is trying to get the state supreme court of a federal court. griffin is more than $60,000 from his 2024 election after two recounts showed he lost to democrat alison riggs by fewer than 800 votes. the north carolina board of elections moved the case to the u.s. district court because of its implications for federal voting laws. now griffin is trying to move it back to the state's highest court, saying it would better understand the specifics of his case. >> gee, i wonder why he wanted it in the state supreme court. is it because they have a republican majority that may want to expand? well guess what did i say trump appointed federal judge did just that, kicking the case back to the republican controlled north carolina supreme court, the very court that griffin ran to join and lost. and today the republican majority on that court blocked the certification of that loss, opening the door to them just flat out stealing an election the democrats won narrowly fair and square. do not be fooled for one second and think that republi

out of this chain try to get to the supreme court get it out to the supreme court to take the path thereto take. butch bush versus gore late great ted olson on behalf of the bush campaign filed what he called an emergency appeal. even called a kumquat these are common law asserts its assertive mandamus or something like that with the court knows what you are doing for this no official name for these things because they are not statutes. call it whatever you want you get it to the supreme court you give it the opportunity it takes for justices to decide if they're going to take up the case or not. i mean i could write the brief case after case after case of violation of federal authority, federal jurisdiction violation of federal constitution violation of the position to the nicest department of justice. the attempt to damage in fact cripple incoming president or presidential cam that, it is all federal and the violations of the due process clause, equal protection clause of the fifth amendment the sixth mm of the eight, the 14th from the violation of the federal constitution and has spla

curiam, which means unanimous from the supreme court. and essentially it breaks down into sort of two main features. the first thing is that the court is saying that the first amendment concerns that tiktok raised are not as serious as the type of first amendment concerns that are raised when someone tries to regulate a particular type of content, or even a particular group of speakers. rather, this was a content neutral law. and in light of that, content neutrality, they said that the national security concerns that animated congress is passing this law and are embedded in its text. those are serious enough for the law to be constitutional. in particular, the court being very concerned about tiktok's harvesting data from its users, all sorts of data about not only their viewing habits, but their address, their phone number, all sorts of things that, given tiktok's proximity to the chinese government and alleged control by the chinese government. congress had a right to make this law and enforce it. now, of course, chris, the big question