Harvard scholar predicts how Supreme Court will rule on key Trump legal battles

[@georgeblackwell2306]

What did the scholar say about Roe versus Wade? We were all assured that a Supreme Court would not overturn it. They were wrong then. I have little trust in them now.

[@usedtolovepotatoes8197]

Nobody assured you that...👈🤣

[@petert3355]

​@usedtolovepotatoes8197 Yeah, they did, but the blowback they got for that act is what they are thinking about now. Remember also the blowback over the bribes Thomas and Alito have been taking. The SCOTUS knows that they are on seriously shaky ground here.

[@b.t.2795]

When you finance a judge's luxury Prevost, you're not going to bite the hand that feeds you.

[@MikeR-pq8qe]

Lots of them confirmed it in their own confirmation hearings

[@michaelbayer5094]

The people you should worry about are not the scholars who look at precedents and then draw logical conclusions, but those who will throw out precedent and then write legal decisions to suit the moment or their political proclivity or other capricious whim.

[@bobknull7502]

It's ridiculous to argue that "the voters should get to decide", after the voters decided once, you refused to accept their decision, and incited a violent insurrection to try to over throw the "will of the voters".

[@moniho6907]

It's so annoying, talking about let's the voters decide. We did and they rioted!

[@skipstalforce]

we decide every four years, Remember?

[@moniho6907]

@@skipstalforce not when you did something illegal

[@drgeoffangel5422]

Excellent point, Trump forfeited his right to be a candidate, and as with anyone else who does not meet the criteria of being qualified to serve, the voters have no say in the matter!

[@thomaslevine405]

That is exactly what I am saying. That was his chance, he blew it, he's not getting another chance and does not deserve it, and we the people deserve a president that isn't a career criminal!

[@helanna9843]

I don't understand why "states rights" applies to abortion but "states rights" does not apply to the state's ability to determine eligibility on their own primary ballot. Is "states rights" only legal for conservative issues?

[@MattyDemello]

Running for president is Federal.

[@patriciacardona1781]

Voting is states right, whether continues is the question!

[@margo3367]

They pick and choose.

[@MarkSav1]

@@MattyDemello No the elections are run and administered by each state, the election is for electors.

[@timbeach2409]

Maybe it should then all the republican states can take off all democrat nominations.

[@jorilea_jarrasept6583]

We are where we are because of McConnell and other Republican Senators who chose their own ambitions over our democracy. They could have and should have ended this threat before it became the nightmare that it is.

[@carolesmith9235]

Cannot trust Republicans to do the right thing for the USA.

[@jd2799]

Absolutely!! If the Republicans would have impeached him the first time we would not be here. Instead they joined him in his criminality. Now we have the MAGA Cult in it for money and power.

[@Changethethinking]

Who's this old fart . He could hardly talk

[@scottk.3636]

MSNBC just framed why we are in a three year cesspool of inflation, crime, invasion, and POTUS comedy.

[@RobertSarrazin-vt6kl]

That is the truth and nothing but the truth.

[@dwightlee4315]

The problem is, the law professor is coming from a standpoint of law, and the current Supreme Court is just a political body

[@NikNicOnNYC]

Brilliantly said. Thank you.

[@ImGettingOld911]

Right?? Even though Alito has said he is a strict Constitutionalist. We will see if he is truthful in that statement or a bald faced liar.

[@broonybroony9564]

Yes it’s a fair political body.If it was Democrat biased it would be a totally corrupt body.

[@vicordecastro2851]

_ sober as a judge _

[@blackmetalgold]

🎯

[@patrickh8602]

It would be a lot more predictable if Supreme Court Justices were not political appointees.

[@frankcarone6]

lol!! you are hilarious ,you love your political appointed judges attacking trump you fascists

[@afry6400]

I don't mind if they are. I do think there should be specific guidelines such as abiding by the qualification letters from their peers and mentors. Word has it Barret was under qualified according to several of those in a position to add their two cents. A mandatory time frame (many years preferably) of actual experience in the legal system as a lawyer or judge should also be part of that. A minimum age would be good as well. Nobody under 45 should even qualify. I'd even push 50 with no more than ten years of service there.

[@Democraticdave]

​@@afry6400 Why should any criteria be applied ?, if you can simply appoint someone, who will do your bidding or is indebted to you? Personally, I don't think it would take that much, to set up a bi-partisan panel to make such appointments...

[@bertilow]

@@Democraticdave bi-partisan? What if one party becomes vastly bigger than the other one? What if there are three of four parties represented with different sizes?

[@AnonymouslyAware627]

Yup, from BOTH aisles.

[@AndyM_323YYY]

You don't need an expert in law to predict how the SC will rule. You need someone with expert knowledge in how corruption works.

[@bardsamok9221]

That's an excellent point. This channel needs more corruption experts on.

[@lornewazny7152]

Yeah, I'd love someone to pay for my mom's house or give me a European vacation every year.....

[@johnnyhb89]

​@@gmoney1592 They did, but unfortunately after including the two billion dollars, that billion, not million, that kushner got from the saudis, the 41 patents that china fast tracked for Ivanka, the 100 million dollars of trump apartments that russians bought (saudis also did this too, but i don't feel like looking it up) , massive amount of loan money from russian based sources , that Bidens massive corruption looked like a rounding error in comparison.

[@gabrieladebisi5828]

You mean if they don't agree with you then it's obviously wrong?

[@jimmyjames6487]

​@@lornewazny7152meet better people.

[@Dalfig71]

We find ourselves in a world that seems to have shifted away from upholding the rule of law, ethical standards, and constitutional values. Just look at what SCOTUS and our judicial system are facing - a historic low of public trust and confidence since the Dobbs decision that overturned abortion rights in Roe v. Wade. And questions about lavish vacations funded by political donors have made things worse. Regrettably, I fear that SCOTUS will disappoint us and should that be the case, it would solidify the decline of our Constitution and democracy. I pray that I'm wrong.

[@jaytmg5228]

The rule of law in this case is that the state didn't have the authority to remove him from the ballot. The court, in essence, found him guilty of insurrection without benefit of a trial. A court can't just pronounce someone an insurrectionist, especially given nobody connected to Jan 6 has even been charged with that crime. What's more, once a presidential candidate has met state technical requirements, he/she can't be removed from the ballot. A state court doesn't have that right. BUT THIS IS A NEW AMERICA. Our laws mean nothing in a politicized judicial system

[@CHANTARELLA]

I am frightened ....the real remedy is for a blue landslide in 2024. Not only for the presidency but all officers. the only way to clean up this mess without having to involve crooked partisan courts and judges is to vote blue

[@alexperkins8433]

sadly so depressing you. are. right. gop have decided they want to rule not govern scotus is corrupt & on board. heartbreaking for democracy worldwide.

[@talposdorin8266]

hey 17.on wich planet have you lived till watch the cklocks.begin and embrace,fishers as well boldiedramas of earthly US democratic cashinsystems 🤫

[@vincentokafor7282]

Stop attacking the Supreme Court. Enough liberal, Enough!!

[@harveyhenry3598]

I will just keep saying it: regardless of their decision on this isolated case. If in the end the Supreme Court decides that Trump or any other President is universally immune from prosecution or consequence, then that court has decided that it, The Supreme Court itself is no longer relevant.

[@drgeoffangel5422]

and will be disbanded once dictator Trump rules from the White House!

[@waldlaeuferinunterwegs6841]

AND Biden could just stay in office 😊

[@tesladrew2608]

​@@waldlaeuferinunterwegs6841 could maybe, but bidens not corrupt like trump

[@ff-cq5hh]

Bye

[@tomwaitsmencse]

Nobody is trying his innocence or guilt in the matter here. Do you really want unelected officials removing democracy from the people without due process?

[@RyanWehr]

I don’t have a degree from Harvard, and I believe the paid for Supreme Court will allow trump to run for president.

[@moreme40]

Imagine that

[@darylwaynebrady]

I sure hope so Brandon sucks

[@mattd5681]

Dont quit your McDonald's job 😂😂😂

[@keithm9337]

Why do you liberals think it should be you to decide who will be on the republican ballot?

[@dallasbagley]

Why wouldn't they? He wasn't charged.

[@josephburns9819]

I’m no legal scholar but, I bet I can guess how Clarence Thomas will rule…..

[@1polonium210]

Could it be that Clarence Thomas's grasp of constitutional law stands head and shoulders above yours?

[@gljshort]

So true! He will rule on the side of justice & truth!

[@dbaytug]

That's the paradox. Thomas is an originality which frames the US Constitution as it was intended back in the day with no scope for innovation. On that footing, Trump is cooked.

[@logicboard7746]

How about Sotomeyer?

[@kevinc6079]

With the law.

[@davepullin8572]

The justices will decide what answer they want and come up with a legal justification for it. The answer they want will be based on what the people who bought them want, and how they maintain their own power.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

They are appointed for life. They don't have to keep allegiance to maintain their own power. This is why it is a lifetime appointment.

[@marlonious7650]

​@ricardocabeza6006 They are picked and claim a party. They can be extorted and bought. Term limits will it better in situations like this. If they don't uphold the law or constitution they can be replaced. Look at Clarence Thomas. He's a perfect example of pay for play. Get rid of money in politics.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

@@marlonious7650 They can already be replaced if they don't uphold the law or constitution... term limits have nothing to do with that. They are picked by a president but confirmed by a bipartisan congressional body. You should enroll in a local civics class or something.

[@davepullin8572]

@@ricardocabeza6006 Losing their job is not the only way to lose power. They lose all their power if they give unlimited power to the president. And there might be a point to their partisan behavior which will cause the american people will decide SCOTUS should be ignored.

[@rebeccadinsmore4617]

Highly likely.

[@paulsolon6229]

The court lost its validity years ago, w its decision for Bush and the Florida vote.

[@drunkdriver]

Oh...so you are an election denier too

[@graphiquejack]

Facts… that was the ‘stolen’ election… or at least the election that was never 100% confirmed.

[@ludger05]

True but voter apathy in 2016 is also to blame for this current court who way worst then the 2000 court

[@larkinoo]

You were there, watching the count, determining whether a ' hanging chad ' was a vote one way or tuther, were you ??

[@MegaTraianus]

@@ludger05 I blame the Sunder's commies who voted for Trump.

[@hm5142]

"Law" at the supreme court level is about making up stories to justify choices based on self-interest and is deeply contemptible.

[@deedeebadee8157]

Exactly!

[@will-vi9pk]

It's a federal election you gonna tell 300 million people they can't vote for a canidate because YOU SAID SO and that is defending their right to vote huh traitor.

[@2greenify]

Time for change. Especially when we see how much Trump gets alway with in court.

[@Timba-w7f]

Clarence and Ginnie Thomas come to mind .. 💩🤡

[@michaelalbert8474]

Anyone who understands what this guy just said should never vote Democrat again. He literally said the Democrat Justices don’t care what the words or the intent of the words on the document mean, they rule based on what THEY would have written.

[@christinamangelo]

My one trusted man of truth and knowledge. As is Judge Luttig.

[@2Bouse]

Thank you, Chris and Professor Tribe!

[@richardeddy993]

If you're expecting this court to do the right thing it isn't happening

[@Gamble_On]

I expect them to do the right thing and overturn this ridiculous ruling

[@PerfectSense.]

@@Gamble_OnFDT don’t you get it?

[@donaldspaulding6973]

They'll rule in favor of anyone who pays them.

[@vincentokafor7282]

Again stop attacking the Supreme Court!!

[@RobertAllen-x4s]

You mean rule only in democrats favor?like all the time?

[@penneyippen7550]

Remember when we held our politicians accountable for their actions and behavior…what happened to that high standard we use to hold?

[@mypersonalstuff8456]

The answer’s pretty simple: Trump happened.

[@ricardocabeza6006]

And how do we determine if we need to hold someone accountable for a criminal offense, such as insurrection?

[@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf]

election fraud

[@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf]

@@ricardocabeza6006 that would be determined by a fair trial

[@GoMathewVideo]

Sad but true. The "experiment" George Washington described is providing more and more to be a failed one.

[@goshkruse]

Where's the prediction? There's no prediction how this court may rule, but just an overview how principled Justices might decide the case. Here's my prediction for this court, they'll do what they always do. Choose the outcome they want, then write an opinion that gives them that results. We no longer have principled and thoughtful Justices, but political wonks.

[@fcamiola]

Agreed.

[@donaldspaulding6973]

True. They are too pompous to recognize the joke and embarrassment they have become.

[@i-love-space390]

He predicted that SCOTUS would punt it back to Congress to create a mechanism to establish if an official is an insurrectionist. You know how well that is going to go, right? No Republican will sign off on any method that could possibly apply to Trump, which will render the 14th Amendment toothless. It will also take until after the 2024 election. Tribe is saying they will likely PUNT.

[@DuffyF56]

JUST like what happened in Roe v Wade. You know what Karma is don't you?

[@jameshisself9324]

He was explaining the nuance that they could use when they overturn the Colorado descision. So implicit that they will rule against. Which it really would be better if the people kept him out of the WH, but for me it's by any means necessary. As long as the people do the obvious right thing it all works out. They have let me down before though.

[@agustinhernandez6504]

WE NEED A SCOTUS THAT RESPECTS THE CONSTITUTION REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY ARE AFFECTING, djt, DESERVES TO PAY FOR HIS NUMBERLESS MISTAKES WE NEED ADULTS TO MARK THE WAY FORWARD,, NOT VERY OLD KIDS LIKE THE OJ. !!!!!!!! .

[@markkozlowski3674]

Tribe was my best professor in law school thirty-five years ago. It's great to see him still going strong.

[@Angie2343]

No way!

[@leepeezy]

He has had 7 strokes since

[@whatevergoaway]

Still smarter than Trump

[@harold9394]

@@leepeezyit’s crazy how sick and depraved you people are.

[@Ceedee0906]

All this dude did was talk and talk but he said absolutely nothing at all.

[@-Evil-Genius-]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:17 📜 *Framing Legal Questions in Trump's Ballot Exclusion Case* - Discussing the adoption of "questions presented" in the Trump ballot exclusion case. - Examining the broad framing of the adopted question by the Supreme Court. - Exploring potential approaches and exit ramps for the Court in deciding the case. 01:49 🔍 *Legal Perspectives on 14th Amendment Section 3* - Analyzing the interpretation of the 14th Amendment Section 3. - Contrasting views from textualists, originalists, and more prudential approaches. - Highlighting the historical and contemporary debate on the impact of Section 3 on democracy. 03:32 🛣️ *Potential Legal Pathways for the Supreme Court* - Speculating on potential legal pathways the Supreme Court might take. - Considering the Court's stance on technical off-ramps and textual interpretation. - Discussing the challenge of applying originalism in a contemporary context. 04:47 ⚖️ *Easy Questions: Presidential Immunity and Impeachment Acquittal* - Addressing straightforward legal questions regarding presidential immunity. - Discussing the Court's likely stance on Trump's impeachment acquittal. - Contrasting the complexity of the Section 3 case with easier questions for the Court. 05:34 🤔 *Plausible Decision and Pragmatic Approach* - Proposing a plausible decision for the Court based on pragmatism. - Balancing presidential immunity, criminal court proceedings, and state procedures. - Considering the potential impact on the Court's reputation and public perception. Made with HARPA AI

[@denisecrookshanks3892]

We can hope they will stand against trump and his lies.

[@Usernotvailablerror]

Thank you

[@Marc_Remillard]

Giving Trump " Presidential immunity " ALSO Gives it to BIDEN ! Hasn't ANYONE on the Right thought it through ? Biden could then strip SCOTUS, REPLACE everyone, and start again ! I am sure SCOTUS will agree with Trump and rule his way, that President's are immune from the legal system........ Making ALL Presidents BEYOND the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. ( so a President CAN replace them )........ REALLY ? 🤔😏😅 ( the irony is "sparkling" ) Biden could then jail Trump "On his word alone"..... And the ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM COULD NOT CHALLENGE THE BIDENS DECISION !

[@IronskullGM]

@@denisecrookshanks3892 Yeah, isnt it wonderful how Biden has not only removed Trump from the Ballot but his own political rivals in the DNC as well like RFK Jr.... Man, nothing says democracy like the state removing all political opposition from the installed puppet..

[@eyesseeyou803]

fools too stupid to be afraid

[@CindyHooks]

@ SCOTUS Truth Matters 🇺🇲 Justice Matters ⚖️

[@ejholt]

Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig need to argue this case before the U.S. Supreme Court in Feb.

[@ScienceNotFaith]

What good would that do? It's like trying to argue logic and the law to the fox while he has chickens in his mouth. You don't really believe they'd vote against themselves?

[@Mike-y4s2q]

So.. congress has the power... not justices?

[@johnmcevoy3598]

And Neal Katyal!

[@Scaadoo]

"Anyone or any entity may file an Amicus Brief; however, the Counsel of Record must be a member of the Supreme Court Bar"

[@JR-pr8jb]

As for sheer legal competence, I think we're covered pretty well. But law and logic are nothing when the judges are paid, ideological whores.

[@erincaitlin1655]

Forget the experts and pundits. Just get out to vote, and take all your family and friends with you. 💙💙💙

[@hitmanhatton]

Absolutely. I don't care who you vote for and for what reason you do it. If you believe its the best decision. Then so be it even if i dislike it

[@edschultheis9537]

Democrats would have many more voters on their side, but they have systematically killed off 10s of millions of them through abortion.

[@mitchhills4747]

@@hitmanhatton True, but Trump didn't like it when he lost did he? And that's why we are all here, because he didn't accept the decision of the people last time around...

[@pluto124]

❤❤❤

[@sweetdickwilly]

RED MAGA TRUMP 2024

[@clownsheep22]

No matter what happens, half the country will think they're wrong

[@fairdinkum5556]

Less than a third.....

[@patricksummers5126]

it isn't even close to half.

[@clownsheep22]

Which is in the 3rd?

[@ReadyFreddie5523]

​@@clownsheep22Magamorons

[@Marc_Remillard]

Does anyone realise Giving Trump "TOTAL Presidential immunity " ALSO Gives it to BIDEN ! Hasn't ANYONE on the Right thought it through ? Biden could then strip SCOTUS, REPLACE everyone, and start again ! I am sure SCOTUS will agree with Trump and rule his way, that President's are immune from the legal system........ Making ALL Presidents BEYOND the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. ( so a President CAN replace them )........ REALLY ? 🤔😏😅 ( the irony is "sparkling" ) Biden could then jail Trump "On his word alone"..... And the ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM COULD NOT CHALLENGE THE BIDEN DECISION !

[@dominiccastro6483]

For everyone who calls Trump a bully, I'd rather have the biggest bully on our side against the other bullies than a "nice person" against the other bullies!

[@citizen_of_earth_]

Watched the video, but I still don't know how the "Harvard scholar predicts the Supreme Court will rule." 😅

[@rebeccadinsmore4617]

They will rule for Trump by asserting that ballot issues are states' rights.

[@mistiecantey1]

Me either

[@vashdesperado1232]

You're an MSBC viewer you should already know what they want you to think and have a single-minded opinion.

[@chrisp4170]

They won’t allow disqualification case by case and won’t allow immunity either

[@goodcitizen3027]

Bad thumbnail.

[@jpdj2715]

What a mess - the legal system. No certainty of justice. No certainty that the law protects even the most valuable.

[@tonyliridon4993]

Justice? Who are we kidding? Lets talk what it's all about: LAWS Laws are by design crafted so convoluted that only the well to do can avail themselves to protect and advance their interest. As long as people do not take a direct interest in the political process, those few that do will control the rest of us. @jpdj, it's complicated to say the list

[@MichaelKrinsky-hx1vu]

There's nothing at all "convoluted" about Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[@fifermcgee5971]

How far America has fallen into the gutter.

[@HaydenLau.]

​@@fifermcgee5971 Laws has never been certain. It was designed this way and has been this way since 1215

[@CM-ve1bz]

@@MichaelKrinsky-hx1vu Section 1 of that same amendment makes it clear, the accusation alone is not enough to deprive anyone of anything.

[@Apple_Teck]

I wonder where their allegiances lie? Everyone knows what the right thing is to do, but only few will do it.

[@Marc_Remillard]

Their allegiance is to SELF PRESERVATION ! Does anyone realise Giving Trump "TOTAL Presidential immunity " ALSO Gives it to BIDEN ! Hasn't ANYONE on the Right thought it through ? Biden could then strip SCOTUS, REPLACE everyone, and start again ! I am sure SCOTUS will agree with Trump and rule his way, that President's are immune from the legal system........ Making ALL Presidents BEYOND the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. ( so a President CAN replace them )........ REALLY ? 🤔😏😅 ( the irony is "sparkling" ) Biden could then jail Trump "On his word alone"..... And the ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM COULD NOT CHALLENGE THE BIDEN DECISION !

[@chetthehoss]

Unfortunately NOT everyone knows or admits what the right thing is. Millions of people are deluded into believing a false reality. That's why there is the current problem.

[@jschuler53]

@@chetthehoss I honestly do not understand how this guy Trump is 1) still running around free2) not in jail, 3) won't shut up, and 4) why we are giving him even more attention. Why don't we just ignore him? He's a humbass and definitely not presidential material so what is the problem.? If no one else can see a criminal, the gov is blind.

[@BrianBurns-x4r]

​​@@chetthehossIt's sad! I have traditional values that are obsolete today and those conflicting values are a source of a lot of friction in America today. So it's good to know that Jesus is coming again! Regardless of whatever anyone thinks. This whole political mess we were told was going to happen. So keep up the fighting and will see who's right. In the meantime I wanna live in peace with all of God's people. P.S. conservatives aren't into burning down cities, promoting other than strong family values. Pretty simple stuff!

[@rachelgarber1423]

You may be right but I’m not so sure they like being told that they “owe” him. Kavanaugh certainly went against him in a case last year, and Trump made a point of letting Kavanaugh know he was there because of him

[@Diana-jx1ju]

Well if we're listening as we should be, we're all getting excellent coaching on Constitutional Law!

[@user-bz5io6ph8w]

Wonder how Justice Harlan Crow will decide this case

[@Mike-y4s2q]

TRUMP 2024

[@johnmcevoy3598]

@@Mike-y4s2q Lock HIM Up!

[@HughJaxident67]

@@Mike-y4s2q Trump in jail where he belongs 2024

[@richardlamar5010]

He needs to recuse.

[@Mike-y4s2q]

@@richardlamar5010 why?

[@TacomaRodeo4]

In it's interpretation and ruling of Section 3 of the 14 Amendment, the Extreme Court only needs to ask themselves the rhetorical question, "How would we rule on this if it were Biden and not Trump?"

[@amercanmade2685]

No they have to decide if Jan 7th was or was not an Insurrection. Now the FBI says NO. The DOJ says NO since not one of those arrested were ever charged with the Insurrection.

[@PointofConnection]

What are you talking about? Biden is about as clean as used toilet paper.

[@relicofgold]

They won't do that because that includes fairness and impartiality. They are fascist stooges and will do as they were "hired"...........they will vote with trump.

[@Lucky_McHugh_38C]

As if it would make any difference. The conservitarded "judges" will do what ever it takes to keep the orange buffoon in power... Even if its imoral and wrong and against the constitution.

[@DissectGibberish]

@@PointofConnection You are seriously deluded, Trumpist.

[@S.L.S-407]

When you are beholding to someone you may just do something to prove to the world that you are not beholding. Unfortunately that's too lofty for this Supreme Court. Remember when each of the conservative judges said UNDER OATH that they would NOT reverse Roe V Wade ? Just reminding . . .

[@homerroad]

Indeed. Unethical judges are unethical, and those conservative judges who declared under oath they would not reverse Roe - should be fired. imho.

[@HughJaxident67]

@@Mike-y4s2q In jail 2024

[@yvonnecampbell3283]

@@Mike-y4s2q🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

[@arthurtennessen9680]

That is not what they said under oath. No Supreme would pledge how they would rule on any certain point ahead of time. Instead, they said they had no goal of overturning Roe V Wade, and they did not, as it turned out. You see, none of them started the process of overturning Roe V Wade. Instead, they ruled as they saw it when asked by others to rule on the question. It is an important distinction. They were asked to overturn the Mississippi abortion law by a woman's health organization located in Jackson, Mississippi. In overturning that law they in effect banned abortions everywhere as it was a Federal Court ruling. Much like the Supremes if they ruled President Trump cannot be removed by a state from any ballot then it would affect all states. So, if they had not been asked to rule, they would not have. In effect, they ruled that an American human fetus is entitled to the same rights to life we all have. If you don't like it, use birth control.

[@annakingry9157]

*beholdened

[@jam4288]

He tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. That is all i need to know.

[@dumalucky]

There is an abundance of proof that the last election was stolen.Taking at face value what is reported. 64 cases were brought. But in fact as 14 cases were dropped by those alleging fraud we are left with 50 cases. From those 50 cases 40% were dismissed without any viewing of the merits or viewing of any evidence that could have been presented! Does that sound right to you? So we have 40% of cases where a court refused to even take the very first steps in fairly deciding if a case should proceed! That can not be right in any legal system. The judges in those cases probably used all kinds of loopholes to avoid doing there duty for political reasons. We are left with 30 cases where at least the merits were presented. But how many cases proceeded. It is my understanding that none of them did. This is very suspicious. One case is reported where Trump supporters won. So I am not 100% correct when I say no cases moved to trial. But all in all glancing at the various cases it’s clear that all kinds of procedural rules and pre-judgments were made in these cases to avoid them actually going to trial. But that does not matter.. its very easy to see that the election was stolen. The US has approx 100 bell weather counties that only got it wrong one time during all that time. These are remarkable 20 always vote the way the country as a whole votes, They have got it right for decade upon decade.. some of them for a hundred years ,So they vote for Bush or Clinton or Obama or Trump. They really are not partisan in their voting... But what happened at the last election? Wow so these bell weather counties that collectively NEVER EVER get it wrong. all of a sudden 95% get the election result wrong. Now if you are honest at least with yourself.. You now know the election was rigged.

[@nateg2468]

Trump questioned the legitimacy of the election results, including Zuck bucks and its door-to-door election interference, thousands more ballots for Biden from Georgia than there are registered voters, ballots submitted and counted from deceased and unregistered voters, etc. He never called for political violence or insurrection. Hillary questioned her election results and even created a false smear campaign. That is all you need to know...

[@davidcomito505]

Can't wait to hear what kind of obscure decision based on tangential reasons that blows past and ignores the clear and obvious.

[@reason6835]

The dissenting opinions in the Colorado case are actually legitimate legal concerns. If SCOTUS makes a decision based on those legitimate legal principles, I’ll have no problem with it.

[@kimlion13]

@@reason6835 such as?

[@reason6835]

@@kimlion13: Read them.

[@Brasswatchman]

​@@reason6835 Which one? Didn't each of the three dissenting justices write their own separate opinion?

[@reason6835]

@@Brasswatchman: All of them. That’s why I said “opinions” (plural).

[@robertluong220]

He kept saying "it couldn't be any clearer," then he goes on to give a long-winded non-answer. I have a law degree and I couldn't understand what he ultimately concluded. UPDATE: 01-08-2024: I listened to Tribe again.... twice on a long drive today. Now I understand. He's basically saying that the case boils down to the narrow issue of determination of whether a person has engaged insurrection. That determination was easy when the 14th Amendment was written, because it was easy to know if a potential office seeker previously served under the Confederacy. However, under the current set of facts and circumstances, it is not as easy to determine; therefore, new standards must be set to determine whether a person has engaged in an insurrection. He went on to say that the Trump atty's (if they were smart) would need to argue that the issue must to be passed on to congress to enact legislation regulating the determination of whether a person has engaged in an insurrection... so that Trump can achieve delay. He didn't get into what the atty's representating the State of Colorado needed to argue, but I assume they would argue that irrespective of the above, in this case, the determination of insurrection has already been made by the Colorado trial court, and, under U.S. law, (factual) determinations made by trial courts are generally non-reviewable.... meaning, appeals courts only get to review errors in law, not (alleged) errors in fact(s).

[@R0bstar-YT]

That they are going to toss it out on an issue of an individual state's supreme court's standing regarding Trump's complicity in an insurrection. Basically leaving the whole concern as unanswered as you felt this question was, which is going to baffle a lot of people because we will be left wondering what would be the correct procedure of upholding the constitutional clause that would have the backing of SOCTUS.

[@juicephillyboy753]

Old guy danced like Fred Astaire. Everyone has some clever way of interpreting the Constitution except the exact way it was written. Now it's meaning is up for grabs.

[@uweschroeder]

I think he made the point that SCOTUS will kick it back to Congress to define whether a legal conviction in a trial is required or not. Since Congress is completely dysfunctional, that will probably put this question into eternal limbo - which would suit Donald just fine and not compromise the SCOTUS judges trying to appear impartial.

[@harrydemkee3580]

Agreed but he did hit his point with one quick comment in saying the court will split the finding and not give Trump immunity but then implying they would not disqualify him from the ballot. I think he was trying to sound to much like a professor of law and not just speaking to the answer

[@phrogme2450]

The 14.3 is exact & unequivocal. No insurrection or REBELLION allowed. I don’t have a legal degree and I understand that. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@wraithflaire1639]

Promising pardons to insurrectionist is giving them Aid and comfort That's all you need to prove to disqualify him from running You don't have to prove he was insurrectionist himself.

[@thomasw.eggers4303]

I prefer to give weight to what somebody has actually done rather than to what they say they would do in the future. Promises are cheap.

[@amercanmade2685]

OK what insurrectionist are you talking about? I would guess the last one died around the end of the 1800's. Now if your talking about the Protesters that got Arrested. many of them deserve Pardons. The SCOTUS will probably use the FBI statement that Jan 6th was NOT an Insurrection as part of the one Opinion/Ruling

[@wraithflaire1639]

@@thomasw.eggers4303 The very promising of pardons is comfort enough whether he really intends to pardon them or not is irrelevant.

[@stevenmeadows6917]

Ummmm,,,,yes you do.

[@onebuc5874]

@@thomasw.eggers4303By your own logic bomb threats shouldn’t be investigated

[@paulfairchild8375]

Thank you Professor Tribe for your insightful knowledge of the Constitution and the court system.

[@donnaprout8711]

Hahahahaha 😂. Yeah what a great help that answer was 🙄

[@almostthere2024]

This Supreme Court decision is the most significant in American history. It will determine the pathway for the country's democratic future beyond any other decision. Let's hope they meet the hour.

[@eimaiakominzontanos]

Totally agree!!! I would hate to see this country turn into a one party dictatorship where they can just remove the opposition from the ballot by decree!!!

[@FC-qe1wl]

And if Trump is allowed to stay on the ballots, and the democrats riot, loot and burn, Will Biden be charged with nsurrection and rebellion too ?

[@pauldedwards80]

All I can predict is that it won't be unanimous

[@paulmoss7940]

We have a Constitutional Republic ,as much as you all want it to be YOUR democracy. Sorry.

[@hitmanhatton]

@@pauldedwards80 SCOTUS needs to be unanimous on this in order to restore faith to the public. The constitution is not up for debate. They need to decide if taking Trump off of the ballot is politically motivated or not.

[@bathuong9087]

He need to get lock up, sick and tired of that traitor, period.

[@supermovietimebros6770]

Wow what an original comment

[@hitmanhatton]

Agreed! lock up Biden!

[@mirella5465]

I think you meant to say trump not Biden

[@Gamble_On]

He will be your President again sparky! When he gets put back in the Oval Office, expect great things again!

[@berniesbend]

Our founding fathers would not have quibbled over this, there would have been a quick trial and swift justice!

[@Rocketpower713]

Your founding fathers were a bunch of slave owners, am sure they would've rally behind Chump

[@theteardropphase6822]

For Biden? For Trump? Or both?

[@theskyehiker]

Tribe has way more confidence in the supremes than I do.

[@GoldenbanjoDJ]

they get these dipshits on to get their base charged up and confident. then when the inevitable happens and the scotus acts as it actually should, the lefties who consume this content lose their minds. "but MSNBC, my totally reliable news network that never gives us misinformation, had experts on who told us everything was going to be ok :( :( :(" and start getting their antifa mobs ready

[@joepatriot363]

Look no matter what your stance on the Colorado ruling to NOT allow Trump on the ballot, do you even contemplate the ramifications of what could eventually happen "LONG TERM" to this country? Soon we may have EVERY INDIVIDUAL STATE deciding who they will "ALLOW" their residents to vote for. Why are you people so ecstatic when these POLITICIANS attempt ti REINVENT THE WHEEL?

[@RJNoe]

I hope Professor Tribe and Judge Luttig submit an amicus curiae brief and are joined by other legal scholars and attorneys of note. I look forward to reading it!

[@michaelblankenau6598]

Wouldn’t make any difference. Trump’s base is inured to the truth .

[@Angie2343]

Me too

[@missmarya747]

Luttige did already

[@LoraxChannel]

Yep, we sure need a rambling old professor to tell us what to do.

[@paradoxmo]

@@michaelblankenau6598it’s not Trump’s base that needs to be convinced, it’s the Supreme Court who in this crisis of legitimacy would not want to look like they’re pulling legal rulings out of their a** so to speak. A well-placed amicus brief would put that pressure on.

[@SageVallant]

There is no reason to include Trump in the next election until he acknowledges the legitimate outcome of the last one.

[@ANUNNAKI19]

Not a legal argument! Only u announcing your BLIND HATE

[@charlescarter3595]

@@ANUNNAKI19 No, we don't want a baby in diapers, that stinks like $hit. Now that is a legal argument. I bet you got your Depends on in support.

[@JamesBuster-v7d]

Legitimate wake up stupid USA is sinking under Biden

[@curtd7117]

@@ANUNNAKI19Reality demands it!!

[@vovan8695]

Candidates don't need a "reason". As long as they win their party's primaries.

[@robertalker652]

Forget the question about states seeking to knock Trump off their ballots, for the priority for SCOTUS is to answer the question "Is Trump immune from prosecution?"

[@Autumn938]

robertalker652. Yep, that part!

[@reason6835]

That’s a separate case. I think they’ll say no to Trumps immunity and overrule the Colorado decision.

[@catdaddy8603]

If he is, the trump cult sheeple would scream if Biden exercised that immunity.

[@Brasswatchman]

They've put that one off. I expect them to continue to do so as long as possible.

[@cbrashsorensen]

Just as the "Supremes" have a lifetime position they believe that TRUMP should. No other president but this one.

[@mariateran932]

It's always such a pleasure to listen to Professor Laurence Tribe. I had to look up "paean'. I think Professor Tribe deserves one. Thanks Chris Hayes. Thanks Professor Tribe.

[@leroyrozell7495]

Harvard and all legal educators need to teach how to close loopholes on the privileged.

[@TheSoloAsylum]

If they did that the entire Biden family would already be doing life sentences.

[@roystonmason9125]

crime family trump - ,HOLD OUR BEERS @@TheSoloAsylum

[@Grandizer8989]

I didn’t go to Harvard, but I drive by the campus a lot. I have no hope that SCOTUS will do the right thing.

[@annsmith7207]

Hoping Professor TrIbe and Judge Luttig will be filling amicus briefs and many scholars sign on. Democracy is on the line and do believe the Supreme Court justices are well aware these will be historic opinions unlike any other in our history.

[@missmarya747]

Littig did with others

[@nyccowboy7563]

How, specifically, is democracy on the line? If Biden wins, he retains office. If Trump is allowed on the ballot, and wins, democracy worked. If Trump is NOT allowed on the ballot, the democracy you are concerned about is already gone!

[@ranaway9307]

@annsmith7207 Absolutely DEMOCRACY has been on the line after the CORRUPT DEMORATS came up with that strategy of calling a trespassing incident a insurrection !!! Now they are continuing their attacks by REMOVING a CANDIDATE OFF a STATES ELECTION BALLOT !!!!!

[@kingdoppless2938]

​@nyccowboy7563 are you daft? It isn't "Trump" vs "Biden" it's who the democrats pick vs Republicans. Republicans could easily sercomvent this issue your talking about by selecting another candidate. Democracy won in 2020 and they tried to make it fail in 2021. If Biden killed someone and was arrested he wouldn't be the democrats pick. But 6 people die because of what one man wanted and now he's facing the consequences. If trump isn't allowed but is still the Republicans pick, it's the PARTY'S fault they lost. If he didn't want the smoke he shouldn't have lit a fire

[@briancostich4288]

Because what the Supreme Court decides wil reverberate through the rest of our countries history, it will be written in the history books.

[@donmoroz5502]

"Preserve, protect and defend"! Look up similies for these words and "support" appears twice. What more needs to be said!

[@Timberwolf0952]

I don’t think I need a law degree and tenure to predict how THIS one is going to go.

[@ziff_1]

True. But at least the SCOTUS will go on record as officially establishing a dictatorship and ending U.S. democracy. Because that's what will happen if Trump is allowed to run and he wins. They better then start looking for other work, because the Orange Fuhrer will have little use for them going forward.

[@vovan8695]

The Colorado ruling will be overturned. It will not be close. There is a possibility of 9:0.

[@GoMathewVideo]

Sad but true. The SCOTUS is concerned with keeping decisions like this within the national government and not allowing states to decide their own set of laws especially ones pertaining to the constitution.

[@roystonmason9125]

BS! @@vovan8695

[@sigmundson]

Then why not give your prediction?

[@scottlund4562]

I hope they point out the author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham of Ohio, specifically said this applies to POTUS.

[@paradoxmo]

Yes, this was in the Colorado rulings so they’ll be aware.

[@bugwar5545]

I hope that he is actually charged, and receives a trial by jury before he is sentenced, if convicted. But that ain't the Democrat way, is it? Sentence first, then don't bother with all the other stuff.

[@lousialb8962]

​@@bugwar5545He has been charged with 91 felonies. The trials are pending (delayed by his tactics). Your outrage here is misplaced not only because he IS receiving due process in the justice system but also because the 14th amendment to the Constitution does not require a conviction. Not only have you conflated issues, you're also mistaken on the things you've conflated (he is getting tried, and that's independent and unnecessary to be ineligible to be on the ballot).

[@paradoxmo]

@@bugwar5545 it’s two different things. He’s not being sentenced with anything by being taken off the ballot. That’s not a question of life, liberty, or property. You need a conviction in order to take away one of those three basic freedoms. Taking him off the ballot is just a refusal to consider him for public office. Just like a potential employer doesn’t need a conviction not to hire you if they hear that you stole things from your last company. You do need a conviction to send him to jail, though. But that’s not what’s happening here.

[@alexvaraderey]

@@paradoxmo Perfectly said.

[@garick]

Question is.. how is Harvard still considered a legitimate academic institution?

[@DisappearingNightly]

The republican party, in spite of its allegiance to authoritarian ideals is still considered a viable political body, so I suppose anything is possible.

[@ThW5]

Because, in spite of its hugely overinflated image, it is producing scholarship which is NOT significantly worse than the median of similar institutes in NATO territory. I mean we have no reason to consider Harvard any less (or more) of a legitimate academic institution than Utah State University.

[@poorboyjim6392]

Wow! Thirteen other idiots agree with you. Congratulations.

[@laurieevans9628]

On January 6th Trump encourage his supporters to march down to the capitol and let their voices be heard PEACEFULLY!!!! that one word PEACEFULLY will have absolve him of any wrong doing, CNN , MSNBC ABC CBS, cut his speech shortleaving out the word PEACEFULLY look it up. Trump 2024😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@Kentavious444]

Whether it is used in the Civil War era or present day, the intention of the law is the same. The disqualification should stand.

[@sladeqr2760]

Lawyer in the house 🤦

[@Mike-y4s2q]

There was no insurrection! TRUMP 2024

[@Aveeguides]

Agreed. When you look at how the Senate edited the original House version of the 14th Amendment, it’s clear they intended for it to be an evergreen amendment. The audio recording of Trump asking GOP ballot certifiers to “come up with” 11,000+ votes is all the evidence we need to know he tried to overturn the election-which was an act of insurrection. January 6th, and all the other violent stuff is just the cherry on top.

[@Parathion2246]

It should not. Let's use your reference to the civil war for example. If every state can decide what insurrection is, if it has no defined criteria and no legal process to declare, then using the same logic of the states making these rulings, what would have stopped former confederate states back then from just declaring the confederacy as the former legitimate government of the US and barring anyone from the side of the Union from running in their states? Now what is stopping red states today from declaring Joe Biden as an insurrectionist and barring him from their ballots over, say, shirking responsibility at the border? There have been state officials saying they will do just that using that argument. Should the SCOTUS step in again when that gets tried? Should we look at every single instance of this with every single candidate? That might be difficult because it will absolutely be the precedent going forward. Every state will bar candidates they don't like in every single election from now on if this stands. It must be defined and have a legal avenue of declaration and conviction or you are effectively eradicating any notion of free election in this country. States will only run their chosen candidates and bar all others. No more swing states. No more flipping states. National elections will be set in stone and predetermined, and even if its favors Democrats for a time, all it takes is one state congress to flip locally and then the pendulum will swing and there won't be anything anyone can do about it. If everyone doesn't stop thinking about short term party politics we have a very bleak future ahead of us. People who think this is a good thing are marching us towards catastrophe.

[@Kentavious444]

@@Parathion2246 Section 3 of the 14th amendment has been in place for a long time. Why hasn't this already become a problem? Maybe because it was perfectly written and did not require a definition of "insurrectionist" but only that an attempt to "engage in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" was enough. It has been used several times since the civil war. In some cases it was defeated through litigation. But Donald Trump clearly falls under this description and has given aid and comfort to enemies of the state. If ever there was a reason to use this disqualification, this is it.

[@MrMarkOlson]

This Supreme Court needs a better than 6-3 decision on this to not be viewed by anyone serious as a compromised Supreme Court.

[@uberfu]

I am not a fan of a loaded SCOTUS as much as the next person - but if you've been watching cases since the Trump Judges have been added thay have in fact made cross-party decisions (where some conservatives have decided in favor of Liberals). Just not exactly the key high profile cases that evferyone has been watching like how the new judges said one thing during their confirmation hearings and made different choices after the fact. The fact that ANY case goes before the3 SCOTUS is a big deal and reaches across the entire nation. Don't kid yourself that all their decisions have been one-sided - maybe pay more attention to every decision they make collectively.

[@FC-qe1wl]

Dont worry Biden will drop the hint to expand and pack the court and the entire court will rule in Bidens favor....Works every time

[@nortonvandepoele2359]

split vote doesn’t mean compromised

[@paradoxmo]

@@nortonvandepoele2359 split vote doesn’t mean compromised, but if it’s a split along “party” lines, it definitely will be seen as suspect. Especially because in this case the originalist and historical interpretation really favors the states’ rights to set election law, and the lack of conviction needed for 14-3. So it really would be seen as political if the professed originalists on the court came up with some lame excuse not to be originalist.

[@tyreeabdalah]

You can't change s h I F T! 😂😅😂😅

[@BunnyDarko]

Laurence Tribe is a *national treasure* 🙏

[@RichardMiller-tq6ut]

And not biased at all

[@ARIZJOE]

Well, before this Trump nightmare, everyone used his constitutional law textbook in law school, and knew very well of Lawrence Tribe.

[@BonnieHaynes-gg4nk]

Hello Prof Tribe. He is always good.

[@nocoder93]

So basically, anyone rich enough to delay their trial long enough, can do whatever they want and get away with it. Roger that...

[@raptoroptical2991]

exactly...at least we are all clear on that...ugh

[@rileysmall4317]

Trump's never been charged with an insurrection (neither has anyone in this current era) and the states don't have the power to take someone off the ballot underthe 14th amendment.

[@bigblue3568]

Need a tissue? May have to put down your BudLight and take off your mask first.

[@mrsmagoo5710]

If SCOTUS majority goes the unprecedented "due diligence" route for 14.3, then the ruling should be that Trump is "disqualified/ineligible pending outcome of Federal Election Intervention trial".

[@raptoroptical2991]

@@bigblue3568 you can’t drink bud light with a mask on dummy

[@lotusmanb3832]

The controversy surrounding this particular amendment seems selective regarding Trump. Apply the same importance to the 14th - sec 3 as you do with the 2nd amendment and there's no debate that Trump is gone. We can't pick and choose which amendments are inconvenient to one party or one man.

[@MattyDemello]

You say that yet democrats are destroying the 2nd amendment smh

[@bfox138]

That's exactly the first thing I thought of.

[@RichardMiller-tq6ut]

"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"

[@bfox138]

@RichardMiller-tq6ut right it was a very short speech.

[@RichardMiller-tq6ut]

@bfox138 I guess that part doesn't really fit the narrative. It is unlikely that a judge or jury would miss that, however. Surely you understand why

[@gjazz22]

The states rights argument is only applied when it works for republicans!

[@dantheloanmanvegas]

Omg...lol

[@peterharris38]

Always the same hiporacy

[@JuanSanchez-zg7ti]

I am not a Harvard Graduate in Law, but it is clear that since TRUMP did not swear to protect the Constitution of the USA, he was not the legal President for 4 years; nor the Commander in Chief of all the US Armed Forces. Therefore , he was an impersonator of the President of the USA; a SPY who obtained illegal access to Top Secret Documents, Secret Military Installations, Secret Weapons and their amount and location, Deployment , strength and numbers of US troops around the World and Nuclear Weapons Deployment Codes, and all sorts of Top Secret, Secret and Classified Material that could put the US at risk in the event of an International Conflict. It is then of the Jurisdiction of the Military to seize and jail immediately this person and all of his illegal appointees. This means that the appointment of all FEDERAL JUDGES, The SUPREME COURT JUDGES , and all other civilian and military appointees that he named as part of his Cabinet are all illegal, and they should also be treated as SPIES working for FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS like TRUMP and his ADVISORS. It is not for a civilian court to decide the crimes committed by TRUMP; is the US MILITARY who has now the jurisdiction to do so. SPIES can not be qualified for any civilian or Military positions within the Government of the USA. The only thing these collaborators are authorized for is for wearing a federal jail uniform .

[@gregtennessee8249]

Remove trump from the Ballots...no insurrectionist should be able to run fo a Authoritarian Dictatorship.

[@alphacharlie65ms]

He was never convicted.

[@Jean-qu1qw]

Supreme Corruption Court will do whatever he tells them to do. Bought and paid for...PERIOD.

[@paleocon777]

Remember.... _"Go Peacefully & Patriotically"_

[@tanakehoe4495]

Vote Marianne Williamson president 2024. Give her a chance to debate!!!

[@tabularasa]

I had to rewind this several times to fully grok what he said, but wow, Tribe is outstanding. What a great guest. It's going to be an exciting year. Hoping for justice and rationality to prevail 🇺🇸

[@thomasw.eggers4303]

"Grok." Haven't heard that SF word in decades. Perfect usage.

[@PersianDiamond]

Lol me and a very good friend use the term all the time. In fact, my nickname for him is Grok.

[@EmilyTienne]

You have that much time in your life?

[@joeciavarini9508]

Quoting Robert Heinlein, I grok this so much! May your underwater pool meditations be peaceful and enlightening :)

[@Mike-y4s2q]

TRUMP 2024

[@anderxale1]

They took the case. If they agreed with the ruling they would have dismissed it with comment.

[@Emlizardo]

Oh, thank you, armchair legal scholar!

[@amergrant-ns5cr]

They take cases that impact several states, this could be the reason.

[@mahumike7531]

or they want to "seem" impartial

[@mikeb5664]

No.

[@tritun5154]

Shouldn’t supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh recuse himself too?? and we have one month. When are we going to learn if Thomas recused himself or not

[@silmarcristo6575]

That's is the problem...none of these justices will recuse themselves and they will rule in Trumps favor so we're cooked!!!

[@Teeveepicksures]

oh, please. clarence isnt going anywhere

[@Foram-h5v]

MSNBC, tired of hearing bad things about Trump. Please start talking good things about Biden. We are desperate. You will make Biden lose in November 2024. Thanks.

[@riparianlife97701]

Mike Johnson, a man who ran unopposed for his House seat, who says he hears God's voice, is going to keep the House from making any determinations regarding Trump.

[@robertward8035]

Mike Johnson is the scariest one in this. Poster boy of the antebellum evangelic Christian nationalist.

[@catdaddy8603]

I've heard that, if God hears you, you're praying. But if you hear God, you're bonkers.

[@riparianlife97701]

@@catdaddy8603 "God" is the name of the cold, dead silence that answers the prayers of a Ukranian child who wants the missile explosions to stop.

[@zxdrty]

@@catdaddy8603 And you are ‘DOOMED’!!🔥

[@norb.engineering]

Mikie, has no roll at this point!!! NONE

[@ShirleeKnott]

Make Accountability Great Again

[@changestartsnow5116]

Surely not in America

[@ShirleeKnott]

@@changestartsnow5116 lol I see what you did there! not many get my screen name well played!

[@bugwar5545]

Glad to see a fellow Republican. Cuz that sure ain't what Democrats are doing.

[@sherryobar5750]

Touche!

[@ShirleeKnott]

@@bugwar5545 hope yer sitting down.......I'm surely not a Republican

[@justinperkins6802]

This country is over, it's done, if we can't use the 14th ammendment for this, then we can never use it.

[@ulfrinn8783]

Use the 14th amendment to rig elections by calling what ever you want an insurrection so you can accuse anyone you want, without trial, of engaging with it so you never have to run against them in an election? Are you people daft? Of course you can't use the 14th amendment to do that.

[@leonardarchuleta8896]

If he would have been charged and convicted it be different. The problem is the left likes to play word games this was a protest that got out of hand. No more no less.

[@robertdrake1756]

Consider the logic of potentially ruling Trump can be held accountable for his crimes, having a law on the highest document of the land stating anyone who engaged in trying to overthrow the government can never be in that government, then stating the very law which he is not immune from...???...he is immune from. Yes, we are done for because citizens voting are not supposed to be the ones to hold insurrectionists accountable in a working country.

[@Dos_Caffeine]

That's why we vote, vote and organize in your communities

[@drgeoffangel5422]

There is only one answer; Trump is not qualified to run or be President ever again if the S.C. follow the constitution; as to absolutely immunity, again no one is above the law is the only decision, the only ruling that they can make!

[@windycitygarden3463]

Clarence Thomas should recuse because of his wife’s involvement in trying to keep Trump in office. They should affirm the Colorado decision. The constitution doesn’t have leave questions about this.

[@verilyveronica8430]

Sorry it doesn’t work that way.

[@lynnallen1242]

Kavanaugh should also recuse...Trumps "lawyer" Alina Habba said she was confident Kavanaugh will support Trump since Trump went to bat for him during his confirmation hearings...that's a "quid pro quo"...which Trump uses quite often!

[@AndromedaBARNARDINO555]

Are we in a Banana Republic? 😅

[@Contrarymary-pc9hm]

And because she was in attendance on January 6th.

[@verilyveronica8430]

@@AndromedaBARNARDINO555 Yes we are. That means you can start your own resistance cell now.

[@nuffdoggiggey4103]

In my 60 years, I've never seen such an obsession over 1 person in my life next to elvis...😅😅😅😅

[@fifermcgee5971]

Only in America, only in America.

[@kjay5056]

It's because they know if Trump is on the ballot he will win the election and all the corruption will be exposed from the past 4 years.

[@garyharper2943]

Yeah , only Trump and Hitler.

[@Mark19766]

@@garyharper2943sad but true! I agree

[@maryjodesario3788]

People are obsessed with him because it is soooooo shocking that someone so morally bankrupt and so obviously mentally disturbed has such a cult following. And every day he texts or says something sicker than the day before. I find him and his followers psychologically fascinating as well as very scary.

[@jonathanchartrand3351]

I would hate to have this Harvard scholar as my professor. It takes him 10 minutes to say what can be said in 30 seconds.

[@tinamcivor2996]

So no need for foreplay with you?

[@fcamiola]

lol

[@NandRam-t3v]

Legal. Versus Politics

[@JamesKite-r9o]

At least everyone that knows what is going on can laugh at the hypocrisy.

[@johndoran3274]

I love to laugh at hypocrisy every day, that’s why I watch MSNBC news articles. They always amuse me.

[@dallasbagley]

​@@johndoran3274MSNBC is ranked just under TMZ for terms of credibility.

[@ninod1502]

@@johndoran3274 msnbc does a good job pointing out Republican hypocrisy, glad you agree

[@debracarlson5511]

Who would tell U.S. Senators appointed to SCOTUS, but not yet sworn in, that they would support the pecedent of Roe vs. Wade and then reverse it?

[@okthumper8047]

Liars and cheats just like tRump!

[@Marc_Remillard]

Does anyone realise Giving Trump "TOTAL Presidential immunity " ALSO Gives it to BIDEN ! Hasn't ANYONE on the Right thought it through ? Biden could then strip SCOTUS, REPLACE everyone, and start again ! I am sure SCOTUS will agree with Trump and rule his way, that President's are immune from the legal system........ Making ALL Presidents BEYOND the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. ( so a President CAN replace them )........ REALLY ? 🤔😏😅 ( the irony is "sparkling" ) Biden could then jail Trump "On his word alone"..... And the ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM COULD NOT CHALLENGE THE BIDENS DECISION !

[@IronskullGM]

HUH? US Senators arent appointed to SCOTUS positions, what are you talking about, are you even from the USA?

[@mazlosoutdooradventures8594]

Unamerican​ = @@Whatdoyouthink.687

[@Malindams]

Liars, liars is who would swear an oath before the US Senate to tell the truth during their Judiciary Committee hearing and then completely do the opposite once on the bench. They ALL lied and should be removed and disbarred.

[@commonsenseparty1396]

The Supreme Court will side with Trump in his favor because 3 of the Judges owe him a favor (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett).

[@paradoxmo]

They have a life appointment, they don’t need any favors from Trump, that’s the whole point of having lifetime appointments, that they don’t have to give any politicians any favors

[@offroadskater]

Do they though? There is no higher office for them. What would be the ramifications for them voting against him? They could be guided by a sense of loyalty maybe, but if Trump doesn't have anything on them in his backpocket they should be able to do their job independently. Even if he somehow ends up president again despite their ruling against him, what exactly could he do in retaliation? I really don't see why they shouldn't be able to rule freely. Having said all that, I expect their partisan vote will be coming from their own free anti-democratic will.

[@commonsenseparty1396]

@@paradoxmo They are going to pay him back for appointing them.

[@paradoxmo]

@@commonsenseparty1396 what incentive do they have to do that? He’s a private citizen and can’t do anything to affect their positions. In fact, it’s probably in their best interest not to let him back into the presidency, because he has already said he wants to dismantle the courts.

[@courtneybrubaker9738]

Of course. They don't need Trump, but they want to enforce his white, Chritian Nationalism which they are committed to. A few rule over the rest.

[@JoeOrwig]

"Harvard scholar"? At what point are we going to stop giving these Ivy league dinosaurs so much respect?

[@tonyhallen1062]

Let's have a law that persons may not lie when they have a public voice. If they make questionable statements they need to prove what they say or surrender their access to media. Especially when they make political statements, like 'the election was stolen'. Or statements related to public health, like what we heard regarding COVID. We need protection from bad actors generating bad information.

[@drewpknutz1410]

Just wondering if you have given any real thought to what you just wrote.. my guess is NO. lol

[@tonyhallen1062]

Need more info.

[@Bobelponge123]

In 2003 George bush lied about Iraq but we all thought it was true at forst

[@kevinzink9063]

How about when they make statements like Biden did "I will not require a vaccine mandate" that was also a lie. So it goes both ways Tony, you didn't think about that did you.

[@kevinzink9063]

And should the media be punished when they lie? Because they do it more than politicians.

[@MeerkatADV]

I feel bad for anyone who has had to take that man's class.

[@DisappearingNightly]

Why? They're Ivy Leaguers, many of them only there through the grace of the "legacy" system, and therefore guaranteed advantages and privilege most of us will never know in their life after graduation.

[@d.f.9064]

Who should I trust more, Professor Tribe or Donald Trump Esq.? 🤔 Its mind-numbing how much time, effort, money has been put into sending this question to the US Supreme Court. Its very simple actually. We all saw his behavior on January 06. The language of the 14th amendment is clear and simple. The ONLY reason we are having this conversation, and the extent of this fight is directly proportional to the power held by the insurrectionist right. The right wing of our government wants it all.

[@JayStephens-pi8gp]

Nuts

[@shelldisna6285]

They put all the chess pieces in the right place to keep their selves untouchable.

[@c4myles]

They sure did! I hope they understand the ramifications of their actions. I haven't seen anything like this for a very long time. Hopefully they'll wake up and stop it before it becomes something much bigger. When the time comes for retribution these people will be high on some people's list.

[@michaelspain3601]

The 14th amendment Section 3 is plain...

[@gabeh7923]

The ending of section 3 is interesting. It gives Congress the opportunity to have a say....."But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability..."

[@rogersmith7808]

@@gabeh7923 Correct, however, neither the House nor the Senate has enough Repubs to get that done.

[@blnunya6689]

So is section 1 (due process) and section 5 (appropriate legislation...18 USC 2383).

[@FC-qe1wl]

The problem is insurrection and rebellion are not defined in this amendment. So Biden can be charged with nsurrection and rebellion for allowing illegals into the USA

[@rogersmith7808]

@@blnunya6689 It's discussed right in the video, however, like most Trumptardiosos you people are too dumb or too blind to see and comprehend what words mean.

[@bertilow]

Some "experts" need to read up on the difference between prediction and wishful thinking.

[@JM-zo5me]

Of course this Supreme Court is going to give their master everything he wants.

[@TerryFalan]

Hope not but wouldn’t surprise me!

[@sherrylander2643]

Donald Trump had a plan when he rushed to appoint his two Supreme Court Judges before January 6.

[@sladeqr2760]

​@@sherrylander2643 they had to be approved by Congress. President just nominates

[@alexvaraderey]

@@sladeqr2760 Any President's recommendations are shoo-ins.

[@sladeqr2760]

@@alexvaraderey there have been 22 who were nominated but not approved. So it's not a shoo-in

[@SarahTouchet-l9l]

Well spoken Sir. ❤❤❤❤

[@GellyVelly]

I can call it right now. He faces no repercussions what so ever, nothing happens and he gets away with everything scott free. You literally CANT get in trouble when you have that much money and status.

[@bobcob3362]

We almost had him with Russia Russia Russia

[@tesladrew2608]

​@@bobcob3362he would have been indicted if he wasn't president, that's not the"so " you think it is lol

[@edschultheis9537]

@@bobcob3362 The only problem with Russian Russia Russia is that it was definitely proven that there was not even a single speck of truth in the allegations. But other than that, you "almost had him." Don't continue to be ignorant of the actual facts of the case. It makes you look foolish.

[@ginger6582]

Money and status has nothing to do with it. It's all about democracy.

[@mitchhills4747]

@@edschultheis9537 Whether or not Russia helped Trump win or not, this is about democracy and Trump has no regard for democracy and the SC needs to uphold the Colorado decision...no one is above the law.

[@bobpourri9647]

I predict that by the middle of spring, SCOTUS approval will dip into single digits.

[@reason6835]

Their approval rating doesn’t matter one bit.

[@bobcob3362]

Bidens will be lower.

[@HappyBuddhaBoyd]

@@bobcob3362 and yet he will still be chosen over Doofy in the 2024 election in November.

[@lindalarkin-qf3rh]

That happened a long time ago.

[@bobcob3362]

@HappyBuddhaBoyd then so be it. At least the people will decide instead a couple of dem judges.

[@richardbrown1189]

He made some interesting observations but I'm not at all clear what his "prediction" was as to how the SC will rule on the Colorado question.

[@americanatheart110]

LOL

[@michaelking8903]

All the court needs to do is rule that January 6th was not and does not meet the definition of insurrection.

[@steveducell2158]

Alito will be the one to write THAT opinion.

[@franschlosser3088]

Michael king, than what exactly was it.

[@flipflopski2951]

As if we need anymore evidence. In the new video that came out they are yelling about "replacing the government" and if that isn't insurrection I don't know what is.

[@bruceviergutz4244]

Amen to that brother

[@unbornG4]

The SC has to be careful here. If that doesnt meet the threshold of an insurrection, then what's stopping Biden from declaring himself President for life and suspending the election. The SC would be rendering themselves powerless if one of them decides they don't want to leave.

[@letsRegulateSociopaths]

so sad that we all wonder if our actual supreme court will follow the law....

[@zaidarivas7152]

I agree. Very sad.

[@juliopolanco8739]

What? 😂😂😂😂….

[@kathryncook3852]

Called it! I knew they would decide to take issue with “insurrection” per se. As described by the professor, that decision is at least plausible. I myself agree 100% with Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe.

[@johnmcevoy3598]

Katyal is going to make history as lead counsel.

[@dlop3780]

What insurrection? The only ones calling Jan 6 an insurrection is these fools like this so called historian. He's the same kind of corrupt historian who created the big lie that the two political parties switched. The courts aren't calling Jan 6 an insurrection in any of it's filings. Not one person is charged with the crime of insurrection, not one.

[@dennisdragomir7572]

Congress will decide

[@DarmokAtTanagra]

Do not make excuses for SCOTUS. SCOTUS has always had to use subjective judgment and logic to apply 14A3. This time they seem poised to use excuses to assert Trump is not really responsible for what we all know he is.

[@LoraxChannel]

By we, I think you mean the minority of people who think like you do.

[@paradoxmo]

⁠@@LoraxChannel. It’s certainly not the minority, look at recent polls which show that 56% of the country believe Trump is responsible for Jan 6. That number is mostly because 2/3 of independents think that way.

[@zxdrty]

@@LoraxChannelAGREED!!🙄🤦‍♀️🤣

[@bugwar5545]

Now that is how true Democrats do things! Sentence first, saves having to bother with a jury trial. So much easier to 'fortify' a nation that way.

[@OmniGuy]

The guy hosting the show is thinking "next time, just ask a yes or no question."