U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: Former President Donald Trump's Colorado Ballot Eligibility
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2024
- U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: Trump v. Anderson, a case concerning former President Trump’s appeal of a Colorado Supreme Court’s decision ruling him ineligible to be on the state’s presidential election ballot.
The Supreme Court's oral argument starts at 7:56.
Former President Trump's news conference begins at 2:25:41.
Download the FREE C-SPAN Now App. www.c-span.org/c-spanNow/
Discover the C-SPAN Video Library at www.c-span.org/quickguide/
Explore C-SPAN's Free Educational Resources at www.c-span.org/classroom/
C-SPAN: Created by Cable in 1979. Offered as a public service.
Support C-SPAN by Donating Today: donorbox.org/support-c-span?u...
Subscribe to our UA-cam channel: / cspan
Follow us:
Facebook: / cspan
Twitter: / cspan
Instagram: / cspan
Subscribe:
C-SPAN Podcasts: www.c-span.org/podcasts/
Newsletters: www.c-span.org/connect/
#cspan
I AM CANADIAN AND I AM PRAYING FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. STAY STRONG AMERICANS AND STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS. FIGHT BACK.
Yeah, can't believe Canadians surrendered to a bunch of freaks, God haters and Nazi liberals.
Watch President Trump win the Nevada caucus tonight by a mile. TRUMP IS A LEGEND. TRUMP2024!!!
Which once?
The conservatives. The liberals are the ones trying to take it away.
Some of us do care about our rights. That’s why we DON’T want Trump anywhere near any government office whatsoever.
So when will the court decide? I predict they will decide 9-0 against Colorado.
⭐️
Best way to get news, straight from the source. Thank you @CSPAN, just want facts, not pundits.
Absolutely
Why did we not see this in the media? Thank you for airing !
Thank you for posting this. The world is watching the supreme court.
Trump no.1 poor man him against the government.youre gonna win mr pres.
The next hearing will be that President Trump had immunity for actions he took while in office.
Thank You for having this broadcast.
Trump's attorneys missed a great Article 4, Section 4, argument - a guarantee of a State's Republican form of government. FE, if Trump is disqualified in Colorado he could lose the Presidency, which would be adverse to Texas, which voted overwhelmingly for Trump as President - hence denying it its republican form of government.
@billyboy9436 the GOP has the responsibility to make sure their candidate is qualified to represent the republican party. If they don't then they fail their base and an independent can represent a Republican because they are also on the ballot.
This hearing by the Supreme Court was discouraging. I have more respect for Republican
former federal judge Luttig for telling the American people the truth about the 14th amendment section 3. He should have been one of the attorneys questioning the Supreme Court.
I don't see the relevance to the 3 issue before the court.
@@billyboy9436 the decision will define the Disqualification Clause and will effect all future limitations of section 3. Trump is just the test case.
Thank you for this unadulterated hearing.
Now if the fake news monopoly would dare stop censuring by omission.
these are some smart and polished people, quite the show
...not smart but controversial...
@@logankneller exactly, both sides
@@wendysuemacdonald making decision you do not agree with does not make them not-smart.
Trump Opening: 8:00
Anderson Opening: 1:01:40
Colorado Opening: 2:01:12
Trump Rebuttal: 2:14:14
Legend
2:01:00 Colorado SG opening.
2:14:00 closings
U da man
💡 this is True Democracy (SC =9-0 ) -- let the people of the USA decide whom they want ! DJT by a friggin LANDSLIDE in November.💋Sweet Latinas for TRUMP ! !
What a magnificent country this is - that allows freedom of speech and the people's access to the legal arguments in the Supreme court1
I smell B S , our criminal justice system is for the elite, no one welcomed a court case in their life
Now all they need to do is allow cameras, as they do in lower courts
The Biden White House has disabled the comment section on its UA-cam channel. Now, I feel like speech has be suppressed. This is a 1st amendment constitutional violation that warrants heightened judicial scrutiny by the trier of fact.
In India , Supreme Court of India do live hearing in important cases both audio and video hearing , India have more freedom of speech than US
@brockmcintosh4508 For the sake of transparency, I agree with you. Because I do believe that it would (aside from being polarizing) allow the American public to actually view what takes place with their own eyes. I do tend to believe that the media does not do its due diligence. Controversy sells, and they know that. I believe that although not all journalists are bad, the majority of them now forego all of the truth when reporting events such as this with Trump's case. They should not be swayed by personal beliefs. If he's guilty, then be fair and honest, and if he's innocent, then say so without any bias whatsoever.
Half a million views, for CSPAN! That's very encouraging that citizens are taking this much of an interest in today's culture.
I'm proud to say I listened to the whole arguments. Did a lot of rewinding to make sure I understood what was being said. The ruling will most definitely be 9-0 in favor of Donald Trump, and any justice who does otherwise will lose all credibility.
@@doublewhopper67 The most important argument that all of the justices agreed upon is the language of the 14th amendment specifically where it says: one is disqualified from *"holding"* office for engaging in insurrection. The action being taken against Trump (taking his name off ballot) is election interference and it infringes his ability to run for office. He can still *run* for office even if he did engage in Insurrection- the amendment disqualifies him from *holding* office. He should be able to run for office, and if he gets elected, then CONGRESS, will have a vote to disqualify him from office.
They don't have any credibility already, and trump tried to overthrow the 2020 election.
Thank you for the broadcast. I appreciate it!
An insurrection that only lasted a few hours without being armed with tour guides WOW the one we had 155 years ago was a lot different from what I read
Thing is, the only ones calling it an insurrection or extremist both citizen, elected politician, and opinion news media keeping it going.
The government, in charge, knows better. I predict this is about to be a 9-0 vote, making fools out of all of them.
You were there?
@@ColorOfExcellence did I need to be it was on every channel if you didn't see it your either blind or dumb
@@ColorOfExcellence did I need to be it was all over the television every channel you'd have to be deaf and blind to not see and hear it
They broke into the room where the election was being certified but Pence had already fled, that was an attempt to over throw the government. In Germany, the Beer Hall Putsch didn't even make it past the capital steps and Hitler was arrested and put in prison for 5 years, after he got out they had no law banning insurrectionists from running for Chancellor, he ran and won. After the war Germany made a law banning insurrectionists from running for Chancellor. Do we have a similar law? Don't you realize how serious this is?
Jonathan Mitchell is a brilliant attorney…..What a mind.
I totally agree with you. I had never even heard of him, let alone saw him before this. But I did happen to read a couple "new articles" about his supposed performance in this hearing before watching the actual hearing.
Those articles were obviously left-wing hit pieces because I came away thinking that Trump's attorney in this historic case must have been a real dud. But when I listened to the entire hearing in detail, and very carefully, I was totally impressed with Mr. Mitchill's polished, commanding knowledge of the law and flawless, unhesitating delivery.
His delivery was legally sound. The Colorado legal team was tentative and, for the most part, constructed ad hoc legal theories to suit the occasion. They know this case should not have been brought.
Who picked Murray to present oral arguments before the Supreme Court? This clown couldn't win a high school debate.
Thatz's what happend when a lawyer has no case.
When you try to use emotion rather than facts, that's what happens
Agreed.…Rarely do you hear every Justice on the Court repeatedly shred an attorney’s arguments, like they did Murray…I almost felt sorry for him as Sotomayor & Jackson played “tag team,” with him, interrupting every argument he tried to make, their voices full of disbelief ( even sarcasm )
Exactly. That 🤡 would be okay if he was only doing what his client wants. But he ACTUALLY believes his buuuuull💩💩💩💩.😂😂😂😂
maybe, but he was handed an absolute dud. it is a shame there are almost no repercussions to this whole 'git trump' bs. the left and their guards are an absolute clownshow.
It is particularly funny for Mr. Murray to say that it is "unlikely" that a lower court could reach a different conclusion than SCOTUS the same actual day that Hawaii said: "Nope, the SCOTUS ruling on the Second Amendment doesn't apply to Hawaii!"
😂😂😂if Supreme Court agreed with the lower court, they would have taken the case.😂
@@michellec1866 history would prove you horribly wrong. They regularly take cases where they agree with the opinion simply to set the precedent.
Trump won the end
It's even funnier that the only reason you know of that story is because it was in the news.
Meaning that it was newsworthy.
Because it doesn't happen often.
Which means that Murray's position was correct; it's unlikely.
None of which even address the completely incorrect comparison being made in your comment.
@nuanil With some cases this is true, but not most of them. There's a lot of cases where SCOTUS will just not hear them because they see it as a waste of time.
in the end The founding fathers did not want a king or anything to do with a king.
Then they would really hate the permanent state because nobody elected them
You might want to tell Biden that because he thinks he’s king .he thinks he’s king shit but he’s not he’s just a piece of 💩
And what does that have to do with the subject at hand, removing someone from ballots?
@@wtfdoyoumean9341 Everything
@@johnmadison3472 So king Joe Biden not only kicked JFK and all the other democrats that wanted to run against him out of the party and off the ballots, he also wants to get rid of Trump or anybody that will run against him in the general election too. Sounds like Joe is more of a fascist/Marxist than a king.
No one has been charged with insurrection.
It's hilarious that when they are trying to hold the black signs up toward the end, all we can really see is "TRUMP" "TRUMP"!!! Lol.. thanks for the advertisements, guys!
Listen to our fellow Canadians stand up America fight back
We are!
Speak for yourself, anybody who supports Trump must be unbelievably stupid or gullible. The man is a depictable human being. This Canadian does not support him.
Yeah but fighting back is extremely difficult when 2/3rds of SCOTUS supports a megalomaniac narcissist that fantasizes about becoming emperor of earth. We'll win the fight at the ballot box.
@@ChristopherRunyon-ql5qereally? I have seen zero fight in anyone. A lot of social media smack talk. In reality who the president is make zero on my daily life.
Yes!
"Integrity is the very breath of justice. Confidence in our law, our courts and in the administration of justice is our supreme interest. No practice must be permitted to prevail which invites toward the administration of justice a doubt or distrust of its integrity."
Wheeler, Chief Justice of Connecticut, 1928
Unfortunately Justice Thomas has been doing his very best to undermine the integrity or at the least the appearance of it in the scotus.
@@TheJoshgacksyou must be racist
@@TheJoshgacks and that very point is why there are more than 1 justice. Not all the power is in ones hands. Hes made some very good decisions and some bad ones. No one is without flaws. 5-9 is good as it balances the power better and forces discussion
@@touchmeharder1737 no, that's what recusal is for. His wife's ties to the insurrection should mean he recuses himself. But corruption is as corruption does and he won't.
@@TheJoshgacks im so happy supreme court will rule on yay or nay to insurrection. Because you can stop calling it an insurrection anf your entire arguement is dissolved
This Jason guy should be a politician instead with the amount of time he is not answering the question and replying back with completely something else
Actually, I was very impressed with justice Jackson and her non-partisan astute inquiry! Also justice Gorsich was very impressive as well. There was not a 'weak player' in this hearings and all the justices proved why they serve on the US Supreme Court with their brilliant collective analysis.
Facts and law that is what they supreme court should focus on... opinions or threats should never matter.
@iwantabetterworld1759 True. They need to go by what's written in the constitution instead of twisting themselves into pretzel logic.
Some believe the CO court twisted the pretzel.
3 of the 7 judges, all Democrats, did not agree with 4.
That's a lousy 4-3 decision that it takes only 1 person to flip it back.
Having read the 3 dissenting Democrat judges, their arguments are actually being argued now
Democrats are doing great harm while trying to win a election by kicking candidates off State ballots. Make no mistake this is a DNC plan.
@@frpgplayerI didn't read the dissenting opinion but the argument that the president and people in congress aren't officers is ludicrous. And to say the person can be elected but then "pending approval" from congress is just stupid - what happens *when* 2/3rds of congress doesn't override the disqualification?
Don't get me wrong, I think this should probably be reversed because it would be a dangerous precedent, but if this doesn't meet the requirements for disqualification then idk wtf would.
@@LuigiMordelAlaume hes not disqualified if he wasnt impeached for his insurrection. There was a way to properly convict trump it didnt work.
1:00:05 - 1:01:25 every American needs to hear this.
The nine Americans that are the Supreme Court did hear it, and they decided 9-0 that Democracy needs to be defended. I agree with them. What do you think about their decision?
Timestamps!
00:00 - Understanding the Situation
07:44 - Legal Disputes and Interpretations
12:18 - Congressional Role and Qualifications
19:11 - Enforcement Acts and Precedents
25:21 - Impact of Court Decisions
32:16 - Enforcement Mechanisms
36:12 - Historical Context and Precedents
41:34 - Constitutional Interpretation
46:08 - Debates on Disqualification
50:44 - Congressional Legislation
55:23 - Removal of Federal Officials
59:57 - Framers' Intent and Legislation
1:06:07 - State Authority and Election Procedures
1:15:18 - Supreme Court Review and State Powers
1:24:31 - Congressional Authority and Insurrection
1:31:30 - Judicial Process and Uniformity
1:39:11 - State Disqualification and Federal Law
1:45:25 - Preserving Electoral Integrity
1:53:09 - Safeguarding Democracy
2:00:02 - Legal Proceedings and Eligibility
2:08:52 - Ensuring Due Process
2:15:07 - Impact on Executive Actions
2:21:03 - Post-Oral Arguments Reactions
2:25:52 - Concerns on Constitutional Rights
2:33:38 - Policy Positions and Criticisms
2:38:25 - Presidential Immunity
2:46:16 - Election Security and Trust in Democracy
What a Load of Rubbish they are saying about D.T he will be back at the white House.
Thank you Andy!
Not doing anything after swearing to uphold and defend the constitution, which resulted in the death of several.....not guilty?!! Wow
It’s almost like there needs to be some sort of set standard for what insurrection is and how to determine if is person engaged in that act. Say like a law and a criminal conviction on that law.
Lol lawyer can twist any definition you come up with...in either direction
@@douglashanlon1975 right. That’s not 100% true. But it seems like that’s why you should use what’s in a statute. Instead of letting each court make up its own definition. Then used an agreed upon process that is due to each person instead of letting each court determine that
@@Aaron-fo1sy The barehanded Shaman by his lonesome as leader could take the Marines is the narrative. That sure was a close one.
There is. Several Jan 6 defendants have been found guilty of insurrection. The DC Supreme Court has just ruled Trump isn’t above the law so perhaps charges will be filed
Go back in time and tell the drafters of the 14th Amendment your thoughts.
Thanks, C-SPAN.
"We know what's best for you, but we can't trust that you know what's best for you. Therefore, we will remove your constitutional right to vote your own way. Oh and remember, it's all in the name of democracy."
So I can vote in a 22 year old tech bro for POTUS? Either we have rules for people seeking office, or we don't.
@@RisenTheYes, we do have rules, and the Supreme Court's job is to interpret them, so that they may be applied in a way that is consistent with US Constitution. They've heard from each group, and they will decide on this case. What rules haven't been followed?
@@haroldwhitney6130 The rule: You cannot hold public office after engaging in an insurrection. It's already been established on the record, for all eternity, that it is "clear and conclusive", Trump engaged in an insurrection. In my view, there is enough evidence to get him with treason, or seditious conspiracy, at the very least.
After seeing associate justice Thomas fail to recuse himself (his wife was involved in the coup attempt), any ruling from that corrupt bench on this matter is fraudulent, in my opinion.
One vote per person not ballot harvesting change people vote.
@@dbptwg
No more freedom of speech in this country. Media is brainwashing people a sure way of thinks. Clinton was destroying 30000 emails was not put into jail. No justice at all is double standard.
@@dbptwgit's been proven. Ballot harvesting happened out in the open. Thousands found with multiple same name ballots
Electoral college selects president, so what all the crap about voting anyway?
NO electoral college
Found Fathers was smart men to put in electoral college that let only a few states based decided on outcome of President election.
Gotta love the same people asking about precedent when they’re all on record saying that RoeV.Wade was settled law and there was no way they would ever overturn it, and then did.
Cause it wasn’t precedent, it was the court at that time making legislation which the court cannot do. Court also said congress should have made it law anytime since roe vs wade. Since congress didn’t, court found it to be wrong for the previous court and sent it back to the states.
@@adamprater6216did you miss the part where they are on record saying it is. Are you suggesting that the people who have taught this are less informed than you or I?
@@adamprater6216or are you suggesting that these people lied before congress an act that not even theoretically but literally would make them able to be impeached and removed rhemselves? There’s no way around this.
The justices who ruled to overturn Roe never said Roe was settled law. Only that it was precedent that carried weight. Let's also not pretend the conservatives justices are the only ones who have overruled precedent though. Sotomayor said the same about previous rulings that were anti-gay marriage during her own confirmation before overturning them. Breyer consistently said he would rule to overturn the death penalty even though SCOTUS had ruled consistently in favor of it for decades.
Roe vs Wade was no overturned it was sent back to the states.. Judges uphold the law not make laws.
Thank you for allowing citizens to hear the case.
Colorado lost the case, I can see it a mile away
NEVADA? MAINE ?
@@adamcooper4188 they'll be challenged eventually.
Whos been charged with insurrection????......no one......
👍🏽👍🏽
ENGAGED IN, not CHARGED or CONVICTED
I looked it up to confirm too. He was acquitted of inciting an insurrection by the Senate.
Yeah many were and convicted. Semantics are a puny argument.
Ok doll. You obviously can read only captions lol
@@AndreVeaseyJr
Suddenly everyone is a legal expert ..
Im sure you are speaking as a cult member
Just know it all racist, antiamerican, threat to democracy, baby killing, God hating, antiamerican, nazi DEMONcrats. Love how the SCOTUS said today that Trump was denied due process.
There would be very few comments on UA-cam without the Dunning-Kruger Effect-on all sides.
🤣😂🤣😂
@@King-a-ling And you're speaking as a typical M@R@N...Isn't that right KING A LING?.....I'm sure you can't understand that!
I love being able to watch history in motion. thank you c span
Thank you C-Span.
That last caller is not very well informed
How so?
@@IgBtac0the number of indictments does not automatically indicate guilt....as caller indicated. A logical person knows that and also knows that it does not indicate innocence or conspiracy. It's a mute point.
I will never understand in America how a court that is suppose to be neutral are filled based on politics.
Because there is no such thing as neutral. Biases live in all of us.
You would think the Bar would nominate who got a shot at teh bench, who got elevated, had some input.
The Constitution sets the rules and not bars.
lol, you people are dumb!!! Colorado made it political!
@@JTH-hm8ew you clearly see they don't care about the constitution otherwise their arguments would not even have been spoken.
Listening to these fine people actually give me hope! Politicians and high level government officials have perverted this country But it seems we still have some really pure minds at the Supreme Court and each of these justices seems to be genuinely seeking the truth and nothing else
Jason Murray remotely answered any of the justice’s questions and raised no valid argument to enforce this case.
The fact that this case reached this court is laughable.
Grateful to hear this argument, however, he wasted their time.
They did not take this on the merit of Murray's argumentation - they took it because it is important debate to put to bed before the election.
Hooo these guys know their stuff! Interesting the intellectual back and forth going on...great job at the Trump Attorney's AND SCOTUS!
Does anyone remember the” insurrection” during the Kavanaugh hearings? banging on the Supreme Court harassing senators in their elevator disrupting Q&A?
Are any of those people former oath takers now running for president of the United States?
Please I'm not saying you're stupid you just have bad luck when it comes to thinking 😂
Even IF all of that was as real as you imagine it, it has NOTHING to do with what the SC is listening to today. Zero. None.
It’s OK you see the world through your leftist lens, where “words are violence, “but actual violence is just” free speech!”………” believe all women”” silence is violence” trans women, are women.!” And other such asinine phrases!
Spoken like a true Trump cult follower
Time for me to
Leave now and dust off my shoes
Removing ANY candidate from a ballot WITHOUT a conviction makes us a banana republic.
Have you no eyes?
@@Bobbert153 what are you referring to?
And allowing someone like +rµm¶ to even be anywhere near the white house also makes you a banana republic.
@@Bobbert153 Yes, do you? Did he get convicted of a crime? Why do you think he was not convicted? Because they have nothing.
Read section 3 of the 14th. amendment. It is self-executing, not requiring a conviction of any kind.
Judge Alito was talking about the Big Man.
After hearing both Anthony, i can say trump is a good recruiter cuz we all go to school but not the same way.
I’m a Coloradan and despite the way this makes us appear, most of us are deeply disturbed by our local government and this attempt to take away our rights
Me as well
I'm also a Coloradan and many of us are happy our rights are finally being somewhat protected. The Constitution says no Insurrectionists in office!
@@kahlilbtthere was no insurrection! Was he charged? No, so stfu
@@alholds scream harder, it's funny
@@kahlilbt try harder
Listeners of scotus arguments should not use the frequency of justice inquiry as a gauge of efficacy or accuracy of arguments
America will never have a King period ‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️
GAHHH! WTF IS THAT THING AS YOUR PROFILE PIC?????
Trump for King of the USA! MAGA
Shut up
@@charleswhite758 I would hope you are joking but there are a lot of Americans ready to change our country into a clone of Russia. Some people are incapable of rubbing two thoughts together.
@@russk8091 I'm British, we have had kings for over a thousand years. We also have the world's oldest continually running democracy. America becoming a monarchy would not in any way equate to becoming "like Russia".
For some reason Americans are taught at school the propaganda that monarchy equates to despotism. Your experience of King George III is very different to ours, we British do not see him as a despot at all.
If Griffin's case was correct... What?
Griffin case (1869) is a case from the reconstruction era which held that the 14th amendment is not self executing meaning either congress would have to declare Trump ineligible or would have to delegate the job of deciding his eligibility to the courts by statute. Most would argue however that case should be ignored since it wad heard by a supreme court justice riding circuit and not the whole court and it has very flawed reasoning.
Someone doesnt get that other courts disregard supreme courts interpretation all the time. Especially with the 2nd amenedment 😂
The fact that the law is so complicated is really a problem
Actually, the lawyers make it complicated by interjecting their interpretation.
The Constitution is not complicated rather the interpretive approach of overthinking the texts is what creates confusion - the framers of the nation were flawless in their wordcraft.
Colorado got its head handed to it!... This could be a unanimous decision.
Unanimous because almost most of them are put in office by Trump?😅
@@jaytabao98you don't have faith in the rule of law in this country.
@@jaytabao98 Not so because it is unjust the only reason you think the way you do is because you've been indoctrinated like yuppies.
I'd like to be one of the first to say welcome back to the White House president Trump
Can I be the second. Trump 2024
Murray simply does not know how to listen with nuance and clarity. He became defensive and really angered several of the Justices and rightly so.
No Conviction No.Evidence, not guilty could never be pleaded
in this World in history. and also the World to come . ❤
E was waiting to see if any of them were effective in securing
the Presidency for him ….. 😢😢😢
TRUMP2024
TRUMP2024
TRUMP2024
In prison
🤡🤡🤡
@@rickdworsky6457 😅😅😅😅 Very original.
He did nothing?! He had been telling them to get the National Guard for weeks!!!
Thank you for this report.
Was Trump convicted of Insurrection? Did I miss something?
Nope, never even charged
You don’t need a conviction to see what he did
No but why not the charge never been chaged of it@Rileyahsom
YOU TO BE KICKED OFF & ONLY BY US CONGRESS @@Rileyahsom the constitution article 14 section 5 look it up TRY READING
@@Rileyahsomthat’s interesting. Because some people saw the same events and say it’s not an insurrection. It’s seems as if they need some agreed upon due process to reach that conclusion instead of relying on people’s opinions
When did a insurrection happen I'm lost who got convicted of insurrection
Nobody did. These people know Trump will absolutely obliterate them this election, just like he did the last time in 2020.
What planet are you on
Plenty were found guilty of seditious conspiracy which is the same thing. According to Websters dictionary insurrection is:a violent uprising against an authority or government. Similar words: sedition, rebellion, coup, insurgency.
@@rodneyharris6070planet earth. You? No one was charged or found guilty of insurrection. Insurrection is a buzzword from the far left love using.
Conviction isn't required under section 3 of the 14th amendment as it doesn't call for a conviction, just the action alone.
"He did nothing. Nothing.
He did nothing. Nothing.
All he wants is Wingstop"
So I'm hearing a lot of questions about how it would work practically, and across other states since they're not contesting the self executing part, just the evidentiary requirements that may vary from state to state.
Leaving out politics, leaving out the facts of the matter, and just deciding to address the right of one state to do this ... this is so purely constitutional that the justices all were probably having a good old time working together on a purely constitutional interpretation of the one thing they love and live for - the constitution.
it IS constitutional, yepper.
Except they'll have to violate the Constitution in order to side with Trump. Let's see if they "love" the Constituion as much as they love the Federalist Society. You know, the people that pay Supreme Court Justices to take their side.
You are a buffoon if you believe that.
I wouldn't argue that the entire supreme court loves the constitution. One of them can't even define what a woman is. I mean I'm not a carpenter but I can define what a table is.
How can politics be left out of a "Trump" court....never!!
Nobody knew…. Nobody seen…. Nobody heard….
I can't even listen to Jason Murray's argument without rolling my eyes. It must be really tough for the justices to keep a straight face.
Look at the tortuous exchange Murray had with Justice Gorsuch. Gorsuch had to repeatedly stop and correct him 3 or 4 times in the one question he wanted Murray to address. At one point having to admonish him "I won't ask you again. Put that (point) aside... and answer my specific question" (in so many words). How embarrassing.
Even the judge who did griffins case took it back sir omg he even took it back 19:07
Just a question... Why would CO make a ruling that abnegates all the other state's rights?
Justices decide on whether to let it stand for CO (states rights) or apply it to all states or none at all.
Easy.
Just like Texas, ignoring the judicial system.
Well the state of Colorado can say that trump can't be on the ballot but another state can allow him on the ballot. It doesn't hinder the ability of other states to put trump on their ballots
@@atrailmckinley4786 It also allows Biden or ( Whoever) to be removed from a ballot based on "subjective" opinions.
@@jspr98 that doesn’t fly with the American people, one state cannot dictate what other states can and cannot do, looks like this is down the toilet already
What is funny is that Murray is essentially arguing that the Union states would have trusted the former Confederate states to have unilateral authority to remove Grant from the ballot in 1868 while also having military deployments in the south at the same time to assure fair and equal elections. The fact this is even a Supreme Court case is hilarious.
It is ridiculous.
This is what you get from law schools these days, what a idiot
well then you won't mind having any protection of a government to defend you when putin sweeps us up. trump is stupid and putin knows it...and your are helping to lose our democracy.
Under what grounds? The CSA didn't win.
So true….
1:58:59 this part is really making my f****** brain hurt right now😂😂😂
When did CSPAN start having commercials? It use to be viewing our government in action was free from commerce.
The ads are from UA-cam not CSPAN I think
Thank greedy UA-cam. ( C-Span would like to have no commercials )….I gave in, and purchased UA-cam Premium-just so I don’t have to deal with commercials.
Why wasn’t he outside of the court shaking his tambourine this time? Because he’s a coward! 😂😂
Other than name calling, which liberals are very good at, give some reasons as to what Trump did to harm all Americans. We can name MANY about what has happened the day biden took office. Or do you only listen to the VIEW or CNN
How can they call this an insurrection when they refuse to legally charge him for an insurrection. Charge him then.
That's not how it works. The insurrectionists, as officially documented in the courts, have been charged and convicted of their crimes on that day that went towards the act. Trump was impeached twice for treasonous acts, yet "treason" was not the charge.
And even if he’s charged… being charged doesn’t matter. Not until proven guilty and convicted of insurrection. Which he hasn’t been. So I’m genuinely confused as to how (and WHY) they’re using this as their ENTIRE basis for disqualification and removal. If someone DOES understand please feel free to chime in. This isn’t a R vs D debate. It’s constitutional.
I only want to know how they can claim ineligible or disqualified and remove him from the ballot based on premise that he committed insurrection when he hasn’t been CONVICTED of insurrection.
In fact of the four cases against him - 91 TOTAL CHARGES (2 cases are directly related to the election) and there’s not a single charge of insurrection. So why is it being reported as if he has already been charged, tried, and found guilty? AND how can Colorado use it as a disqualification?
If anyone has answers pls let me know. Genuine question. Thanks!
It was a set up. Who storms in without weapons?
@@ScottOlson-0u812 agreed
Because they know it won't hold up in court.. The burden of proof of intent would be on the state and they can't prove that.
< push the icon Freedom
Trump 9-0 win 🏆. Period
Trump personally appointed a 1/3 of the judges ruling. I'm sure it'll be a fair ruling 😂
They’ve ruled against conservative interests repeatedly. What are you talking about? You now who hasn’t though? “Progressive” justices who have ruled in lockstep with what the democrat cult of personality wanted. I’m just waiting today to see if they finally do what is right.
Lol. He will find a way to discredit them and say they are poisoned by the Biden administration
I’m gonna laugh when they vote 9-0.
Me too.😊
@@lizaaltizer7775I love seeing the two party system sheep bicker bout which herd is right
Gorsuch is solid...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Solid feces?
Ms. Stevenson was the most effective lawyer, in my opinion. She was concise and clear. 👍
Both sides were amateurs.
i miss being able to watch C Span. I have youtube tv and I don't think they offer it.
Why U cut it off ?
Cuz it was spewing bull💩
Because C-SPAN is an snake head of the government hydra
The court heard the call and hung up on it.🤬
Kisah kes dalam Chrome,bila di tugaskan untuk menilai mengkaji semua aspek dalsm filem tersebut ,adekah boleh di jadikan kes hak hasasi manusia ,,iaitu wanita atau lelaki...soalan yg di tanya,jika sesiape yg di tugaskan untuk menilai adekah ia kes atau tidak ????
It's so obvious that reading the Constitution and understanding the amendments be required and taught in school.
Correct, no one state shall decide who can be president.
No one state has, ever.
Also correct, each state of the democracy has the right to approve each candidate on the ballot in that state-not deciding the president.
Each state has the right to err with the Supreme Court’s decision on the appeal made in that state.
Again, all this is true under the premise that no one state should be able to decide the president.
Republic!!! Not a democracy
Correct. But even if some candidate were to have a totally objectionable qualification to becoming President, then it would HAVE TO BE adjudicated as such. Not simply "claimed" by his political adversaries.
One of the most SACRED absolutes in our country is You are INNOCENT - until PROVEN guilty. You are Not guilty (legally) by popular opinion.
The court would be opening the door to chaos, where states would find reasons to disqualify candidates, impacting all future national elections. The consequences of Colorado winning would be the end of our Republic.
Not sure if that is correct. Different states have different laws on elections. One cannot kick someone off the ballot for a spurious reason.
@@alunevans2377that’s literally what Colorado is doing
@@alunevans2377 trump was not convicted in his 2021 IMPEACHMENT TRIAL about the very insurrection we are talking about.
@@alunevans2377you are mistaking categorical differences for objective determination. Colorado is trying to say they have the right to determine the eligibility of trumps candidacy without due process and the claims are not even in their jurisdiction.
@@adamprater6216
Simply not true. That "spurious" reason is clearly and factually inciting an insurrection.
You want to argue that this is Colorado kicking someone off the ballot for no reason not only is afactual (and clearly partisan), it's also incorrect legally. Not only can we use the evidence we have available to cleanly make that determination, multiple courts have already accepted that. SCOTUS could rule otherwise, but they won't, because they know they would, almost certainly in a 7-2 decision, rule that Trump is an insurrectionist.
Finally, the reason Trump's defense isn't that he didn't engage in insurrection, but rather the semantics of the provision, is BECAUSE they know it's a lost cause to argue that point.
Exactly gorsuch hinges on some sense of uniqueness as cause for reversal or at minimum inaction on part of scotus
Imagine the office of the Presidency is not mentioned in article 3....😂
128:30 Gorsuch just wrecks Murray
You're right. The only time in the whole hearing when I felt embarrassed for one of the counsels was when Gorsuch gave Murray the third degree. Gorsuch was was spot on and relentless. And poor Murray was flailing and grasping at straws.
At one point Gorsuch even had to (embarrassingly) admonish him "I'm not going warn you again" about trying to evade a direct answer (in so many words). How degrading.
The Constitution provides eligibility mandates for anyone who seeks to become President of the United States. To be eligible, one must be born or naturalized in the United States. One must be 35 years of age or older. No President is eligible to serve more than two consecutive presidential terms. Anyone who has any of these restrictions, no matter how popular, is ineligible to be President of the United States.
That is not a political determination. That is the law. If any of those fail, the election official must reject the application to be on the ballot because those eligibility requirements disqualify the applicant and are self-executing. In other words, the election official need not seek a court’s determination.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides a constitutional command that the states provide two individual electors to provide the list of all persons voted for in their state, the number of votes of each, that the list be signed and certified, and that list of certificates be transmitted sealed to Congress for the constitutionally mandated count. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution then provides a constitutional command that “the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted.” That is what takes place on January 6.
There is no dispute that this procedure is a constitutional mandate. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President or Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Note that section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not talk about insurrection against the United States. It talks about insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. If the events of January 6, 2021, do constitute insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, then anyone engaged in those actions or anyone who gave those so engaged aid or comfort would be implicated in the terms of section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A President of the United States takes an oath of office and becomes Commander in Chief of the armed forces, a military office, and Chief Executive. So, any person who held a governmental office, civil or military, who took an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, but later engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution or gave aid and comfort to those who did engage in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, loses eligibility to ever again hold a public office.
Former President Trump and a group of his supporters began during the election telling their public that if President Trump loses the election, the election is rigged, but if he wins, the election is not rigged. In other words, he actually told his supporters that the only way he could lose is if the election was stolen by voter fraud. During the election in November 2020, as the votes were coming in and it appeared he was falling further and further behind, Former President Trump began saying that he was actually winning by a landslide and that if the results showed otherwise, the election was stolen by voter fraud. When the votes of the American people were counted and all the votes were in, the results were that Former President Trump lost the election by a significant amount. According to the Pew Research Center, Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump 306-232 in the Electoral College and had a 4-point margin in the popular vote.
From that moment on, Former President Trump continued to preach to his supporters that the election was stolen by voter fraud. He and his vocal supporters also alleged they had irrefutable proof that the election was stolen by voter fraud.
The process of transition of power from one president to the next in our nation is that on January 6, our Congress meets, the votes of the electoral college are counted, and the new president is announced based on those votes. That process is officiated by the Vice President of the United States, who also acts as the Senate President.
Former President Donald Trump claims millions of illegal votes cost him the 2020 election. From November 2020 until January 6, Former President Trump filed 64 election challenges in courts of law throughout the country. In Pennsylvania, attorneys were able to convince the court to throw out 270 provisional ballots lacking proper signatures, an insignificant result.
Former President Trump’s lawsuits included the big lie claims of voter fraud, illegal polling procedures, and errors with ballots and voting machines. Former President Trump’s attorneys were unable to provide any evidence in any court of law to evidence the big lie allegations. His followers naturally believed the big lie because they simply could not conceive of someone with such power outright lying to them.
The way it works, the votes are counted in every state. Those are the popular votes. Whoever wins the popular votes is assigned a group of electors as a part of what we call the Electoral College. The number of electors each state is permitted is based on population counts in the census taken every ten years.
So, thousands of supporters of former President Trump were compelled by lies to believe the 2020 election was stolen and that it was their patriotic duty to rise up as a group, to come to the Capitol on January 6, and to be prepared to storm the Capitol in order to prevent the transition of power from President Trump to President Biden. January 6, 2021 was the date on which all of Congress met to officially and ceremoniously count the electoral college votes and to usher in the transition of power from one president to the next. Former President Trump and his supporters had it in their minds that if that January 6 event was prevented, the ensuing chaos would provide an opportunity to prevent that constitutional process and leave him in power as President.
According to the congressional committee investigating what happened on January 6, 2021, the four significant Title 18 federal crimes stemming from what happened on January 6 are Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Make a False Statement to the Federal Government; and inciting an insurrection, assisting in an insurrection, and aiding and abetting an insurrection.
It’s a federal crime to “corruptly” obstruct, influence or impede any official government proceeding, or attempt to do so. 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). The Joint Session of Congress to count electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, was an official government proceeding. It’s a federal crime for two or more people to coordinate to defraud the United States, if at least one of the people does some act to carry out the conspiracy. 18 U.S.C. § 371.
It is a federal crime to incite an insurrection, assist in an insurrection, and aid and abet an insurrection. 18 U.S.C. § 2383. Former President Trump commanded Former Vice-President Pence to not certify the electoral college votes but to instead permit a group of self-appointed fake electors into the Capitol to challenge the electoral votes and to stop the transition of power. Former Vice-President Pence refused to do so. Note that some came prepared with an actual gallows with a noose designed to hang those the mob might drag from the Capitol.
During the attack on the capitol, former President Trump tweeted that then Vice-President Pence is a traitor for not breaking the law on Trump’s instructions. Immediately after that tweet, the folks in the crowd rallied behind that idea that Vice President Pence is a traitor and they should hang Vice President Pence. At no time during that four hours, and despite numerous ongoing pleas from those in all offices of power, former President Trump took no action to stop the attacks. Participants in the January 6 attacks have been found guilty of felonies that include assaults on federal officers, obstructing law enforcement, and seditious conspiracy.
Ma'am, this is a UA-cam comment section.
HE SENT TO NANCY PELOSI AND TWITTER THE TOOK IT DOWN AND WOULD NOT LET IT BE SHOWN !
A lot of "subjective" opinions and not a lot of "objective" facts as it concerns what Trump did on January 6th or prior. Especially as we now KNOW the election was rigged, and onion voting machines can be manipulated as shown in front of a Judge in Georgia case.
Do states rely on "subjective" opinion to set ballots? If so, what is to keep each state from removing Biden from ballets from "subjective" opinions?
Well said. These "conservative " judges hate the freedoms we enjoy in the United States and are working towards turning this country into a theocracy. They are complicit along with the rest of the Republican establishment in conspiring with Trump, who in turn conspired with Putin. The evidence is everywhere.
Former Special Agent in Charge of the New York FBI Counterintelligence Division Pleads Guilty to Conspiring to Violate U.S. Sanctions on Russia. Agent Charles McGonigal plead guilty for conspiring with Oleg Deripaska. Oleg Deripaska hired Paul Mannafort for numerous jobs over the years. Paul Mannafort was Trump's campaign manager, he worked for free too! Mannafort plead guilty to giving polling data to Oleg Deripaska.
@@ruthiesmith6770 Uhhhhh
Isn't it illegal in America to pass yourself off as an official - police officer, lawyer, police?
Why is this my 5th time listening to this lol😂😂
Do they not need to prove there was an actual insurrection ? Yet we still can have officials not reply on if there was any officials privately being involved in the actions and events that day. Disgusting.
That an actual insurrection occurred has already been established as a fact in Court. Lower Courts are fact finding. The SCOTUS is a reviewing Court, not a fact finding Court. Ignorance is disgusting.
Colorado Supreme Court says it was an insurrection so it's been proven.
democrats are used to expecting people to believe something just because they say it over and over and over again but it didn't work when they said transwomen are women and its not working when they say Trump is an insurrectionist. sane people are refusing their gaslighting
Only congress
The earlier court had to decide if there was an insurrection, the SCOTUS is only to determine IF the State has a LEGAL right to remove the ex-president from the ballot.
The section of the Constitution is the issue, being self executed.
Colorado had a horrid performance. Even the democrat judges were getting frustrated with its attorneys inability to even answer basic questions. I think it will be a 9-0 decision.
There are no democrat judges on the Supreme Court. Go with "liberal justices"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Do you mean Democrat POTUS nominated Justices?
Doubtful. I think at least Sotomayor and Jackson will say Trump can be removed. They’ve been reliable Democrat rubber stamps.
Depends if the opinions of court decided if state allowed utilize 14 amendment section 3 for the purposes of already trial determined by Colorado courts that he did commit insurrection and that his elected position is considered an Officer of the US government.
Which means that it could be determined by that one court and not changing the language in previous SCOTUS that have said President was an Officer of the US government even though elected that the trial holds that fact he committed insurrection by their legal merit standing and the states per constitutional law by the courts decision on Amendment 14 section 3 and by the law to disqualify other candidates from ballot by other amendments that the State has the right to disclude him ballot.
Although it doesn't mean like New Hampshire with Biden write in that Colorado would not accept write in votes that would only be valid if Federal courts (not state ) determines his guilt of involvement in insurrection to prevent those votes from being null and void.
Nobody I have heard will say they maid the wrong decision
They need a Talking Stick or something. They keep interrupting each other lol