ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มี.ค. 2024
- MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell analyzes the Supreme Court’s ruling that states cannot ban Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment even as it ignored the Trump lawyers’ argument and “left standing the finding by the Colorado Supreme Court that Donald Trump did indeed engage in insurrection.”
» Subscribe to MSNBC: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc...
Find MSNBC on Facebook: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: / msnbc
#MSNBC #SCOTUS #Trump
Mitch McConnel said during Trump's 2nd impeachment trial it is up to the courts to decide, and now the courts say it's up to Congress. And SCOTUS keeps promoting "STATES rights" then punts this one "STATES rights" ruling saying it's not valid. How is that not playing "pickle" with the rule of law?
The funny thing is that the issue in front of them WAS NOT ABOUT THE FACT THAT A STATE STARTED A DISQUALIFICATION.
IT WAS ABOUT THE ONCE IN THE EARTH'S HISTORY SPECIFIC CASE ABOUT AN INSURRECTIONIST VOTE STEALER TRYING TO GET ON THE BALLOT AGAIN.
And it's a very simple, straightforward case: why let a person on the ballott who refused to accept the vote of the people and moreover he also tried to steal those votes AND plans to do the same this time again.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY ILLOGICAL AND UNREASONABLE to put that kind of a thug on the ballot again.
So they were supposed to decide THIS EXACT CASE (and not some general, all-pervasing principal about what kind of rights states have).
If from now on every election there were states who had come up with fake disqualification cases (as it's very possible, that GOP would come up every year with dozens of fake claims) then those should be decided upon on a case by case basis, and every time the case came out as a dud, the perpetrators of the frivolous claims should be sentenced to prison and huge fines should be given to those states (like 10-20% of their yearly budget).
The SC could have made laws about potential bad faith attempts to DISCOURAGE SUCH FRIVOLOUS ATTEMPTS. But with this decision they ENCOURAGE REAL CRIMINAL INTENT ABOUT ENDING DEMOCRACY.
With this decision this section of the 14th amendement BECAME NULL AND VOID, AND THEY MADE IT UNENFORCEABLE.
THEY GAVE A CLEAR PATH TO INSURRECTIONISTS AND COUP AND VOTE STEALING ATTEMPTERS as it is evident that CONGRESS WON'T BE ABLE TO DISQUALIFY a vote stealer if one of the parties is actively trying to steal the votes with criminal devices.
It's just like the one Trump lawyer who tried the immunity argument that since Trump wasn't Impeached _AND REMOVED_ that he can't be convicted through the courts either. He was attempting to create a legal loophole just like the Extreme Court did here.
The Constitution is the law. The States get their power from the Constitution, not the other way around. The Federal Government (this administration) thinks it is above the law and the Constitution takes orders from them.
This is about a FEDERAL ELECTION, not a state level election.
Oh and the demon-rats and Biden using governmental resources against a rival political opponent.
A travesty to the election process.
But it sure has 💯 shown who the nutcases are!
👏👏👏
@@kentmusgrove5038magat terrorist account
The purpose of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Consitution not try to "bring the temperature down" .
How can the SC do anything other than help tRumper, he owns them.
If scotus were worried about the temperature, they would not have fuc*ked with Roe v Wade. All's well that ends well!
A part of the population agrees with the Scotus and the other part doesn't , so either way... you'd never bring the temperature down.
They are (intentionally) failing to interpret pretty plain language.
Exactly!!!🤔
"If you pass a law, but then fail to enforce it, you effectively authorize the very crime you were apparently trying to prohibit."
Good point
the people breaking the law are not the people who passed the law.
@@creative-liberty Obviously, the persons who drafted the 14th Amendment to US Constitution, are all long-since dead.
Thus, the word, 'you,' in the classic quotation I cited, can be read as referring to the USA.
The US Constitution clearly prohibits insurrectionists from holding the office of president, but you, the USA, are manifestly failing to enforce your Constitution which is the USA's supreme law.
And who quoted that ?
@@roughhabit9085 The quotation is an accepted (but not strictly accurate) English translation of an insight attributed to Cardinal Richelieu:
"Faire une loi et ne pas la faire exécuter, c'est autoriser la chose qu'on veut défendre."
They’ve eviscerated both the Amendment and their own much-vaunted claim to protect the Framers’ original intent. By also engaging in textbook judicial overreach, legislating from the bench-and refusing to recuse when necessary-they’ve done the Court’s reputation such damage that an investigation into individual members’ ethical and financial misconduct isn’t unthinkable.
Only if Democrats gain control of both houses of Congress...
No they didn't you don't even know what any of what you wrote, means.
@@GabbleFolkI don't believe you understand any of what he stated, I'll simplify it for you,
The supreme court is taking Trumps side instead of following the constitution. If there were any consequences, or in other words, if they could be held to account for bending the laws of the land to help Trump you would see and hear a very different outcome. Having corrupt untouchables working against the best interests of a country and its citizens can only end in disaster.
Spoken like a true commie...
Section 5 is enforcement only congress can enforce the 14th amendment....not a handful of other commies like yourself
@@GabbleFolkanyone ever notice how MAGA never gives facts. They just stomp their feet and say "No!" and then thinks they sounded intelligent.
SCOTUS should never have been allowed to hear this case. If SCOTUS is right and it's been left up to Congress all along, then why does the end of Sec. 3 qualify with the below?
"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such [disqualification from holding office]."
The reason? This is self-executing *UNLESS* Congress acts to overturn the disqualification. Not. Complicated. Unless you're an unelected, life-time appointed, corporate stooge.
He was acquitted of insurrection years ago by the Senate.
Case closed.
Exactly. Congress already passed the 14th Amendment and Section 3. It's self-executing.
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE SUPREME COURT IS PREPARING THE USA FOR 100% PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IN THE J6 CASE? WTFU!
@@vermiliongamboge155 delay, delay, delay. They are going to cheat much harder in November.
Your exactly right they think the people are stupid.
What the h - is happening to our country?!
A tiny nutjob minority is screaming the loudest and the huge majority are too polite to do anything to shut them up and show them the door. It's up to We the People to show 'em the door in 2024. Without fail.
The Biden WH
@@Krispy1011 Yeah, keep projecting and telling yourself that. LOL
@Krispy1011 yes they are doing good things for your country. If that fat incompetent insurrectionist gets back in you're fked
@@outpost31mac Jews are people. You have to sit next to Asians in college. Hillary lost.
Get over it.
Supreme Court Justices should not have lifetime appointment. There shouldn't be a lifetime burden of an incompetent on the bench or an overtly political member or members.
It was a 9-0 vote what are you talking about
@@darrenclayton8246Did you even listen to what Lawrence said, or read what the decenting judges have written.
Grifting, graft and pandering to terrorists. Shameful. Like Kings and queens of America making the laws now.
There in Trumps pocket Supreme court
Did you have a problem with Ruth Bader Ginsburg? She was as political as one can get.
“Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,” Trump implored top Justice officials in a Dec. 27, 2020, conversation memorialized in then-acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue’s contemporaneous notes.
I'm glad someone else remembered that, too.
BECAUSE IT WAS CORRUPT
@@UtubeCensors not...
The only cheaters found were a few magats
This election is nothing but another trump insurection that he has either paid for or blackmailed his way to. All trump supporters should be investigated. Clarence and his wife should be disqualified from ever sitting on any platform of deciding over anything political. These people should be audited and investigated. TRAITORS AND TERRORISTS have no place in any office.
We need trump back
SCOTUS did NOT say Trump did not engage in insurrection, they simply ignored the issue.
Yet * But also because that wasn't the issue. The issue is, should States be allowed to remove a candidate from the Federal ballot. The court says no, not for Federal elections. For a State election (like governor) if they wanted to do so, they could. But matters of Federal election are just that; Federal.
Trump's going to Prison haaa!🤣
which is shameful on its face. Make the decision, that is your hole purpose for being there. show the backbone of the constitution 9 justices show the judicial power of our government, they failed miserably!
@@subtlesuplex2394 He likely will, but not before we drain his bank account.
Trump has not been charged with insurrection, yet these talking heads keep using that word.
They sidestepped the issue. They didn’t do anything to resolve it.
The "Conservative Waltz"!
Where does it say in the Constitution that amendments require Congress approval?
Many of the post-Bill Of Rights amendments include a clause that Congress shall have the power to enforce them by appropriate legislation.
@@jimslancio But the Constitution itself is still the law, the first and highest law in our system. Congress only _exists_ because the Constitution says so. An enforcement clause clarifies that the text of the amendment itself isn't its full practical application, and that Congress may overrule states acting against the amendment's intent; that is, it is not a breach of Tenth Amendment federalism. Congress is _receiving_ authority from the Constitution here, not conferring it.
IF Amendments include a clause that Congress shall have the power to enforce them by appropriate legislation, two conclusions flow from that: 1/ those Amendments are not Law, but merely guidelines that require Congressional action to implement perhaps even on a case-by-case basis; 2/ the interpretation of the Founders' intent, that has become precedent on the basis of historical SCOTUS decisions, has abrogated Congress' lawful right to make those decisions and resulted in distorted readings of, particularly, the First and Second Amendments, that fuel current division.
This is the #1 result of the majority of SCOTUS cases. If you study Constitutional Law for a day you'd know this. The most common ruling of the SCOTUS throughout history is: That's Congress' Department.
WHAA?
Evil flourishes when good people do nothing.
And the evil is trying to deny a fair election.
Bad things happen when Good Men do Nothing
@@victorblackman We just saw 9 good people do something to stop a bad thing.
Even when good people do something we are being threatened and bullied for being democrats at this time. As I have been. Im not saying stop just to be aware. These are crazy times and I believe there has actually been murders covering up what some Republicans have actually done.
Hence why Biden is in office. Disturbing isn't it
Who would have thought that letting politicians select and confirm judges along political lines would politicise the judiciary?
yes, all nine judges were selected by Trump, and confirmed by Trump, right?
They all agreed
even the left agreed.
9-0, this ain’t partisan bud.
The justice who doesn’t know what a woman is knows Trump belongs on the ballot…
What's the point of a Constitutional amendment section that is not self enacting?
Exactly.
Why do several of the amendments say that Congress shall have the power to enforce the Amendment by appropriate legislation?
There is no point.
SCOTUS erred, in fact, it is but they projected "in the best interest of ..." The only "mistakes" they make ISN'T exclusive to rulings found against Trump and the like.
it is self enacting if trump was convicted of insurrection but since he was acquitted upon impeachment there is no grounds.
THE PRESIDENCY IS AN OFFICE. They take the Oath of Office during their inauguration.
No it's not.... the 14th a.endment made no mention of the president
Blame them
@@Michael-ct1rp Nice try. Whether elected or through line of succession all Presidents must take the Oath of Office. The Presidency is an office. The oath is set and is not open for interpretation. No one is above the law. All are subject to the law.
@@Michael-ct1rp Nice try. Whether elected or through line of succession all Presidents must take the Oath of Office. The Oath is fixed and is not open for interpretation. No one is above the law. Everyone is subject to the law.
You mean like to protect the country's borders...wake up
Highest office in the land, President of the United States of America
There are COUNTLESS portions of the Constitution that don't explicitly explain how they can be enacted onto the country. This logic of the Justices means any portion of the Constitution that doesn't explicitly explain how, where, and by whom it can be enforced is null-and-void until such time that legislation is passed that DOES explicitly explain the entire enforcement mechanism.
It's idiotic at best, and terroristic activity at worst.
Has Congress enabled legislation which ensures no person under 35 years of age can be President?
John Roberts has sealed his legacy...may he never go a day without being directly reminded.
Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh & Amy Coney Barrett have all done Leo Leonard, Harlan Crowe et al proud....and only ensured America's worst angel's enabled.
100% I'll add that there are so many other people far better qualified than these political hacks!
I think they are doing a great job.
yes it was a riot not some big operation insurrection with a guy dressed like a caveman to over throw the government
You clowns do realize it was 9-0, no mention of the liberal activist hacks?
Didn’t the court’s three liberals also vote to allow Trump on the ballot?
SC judges should not be life appointments. They should have fixed terms.
They absolutely should be so they can't be lobbied Everytime during election season.
One of these judges that sided with Trump doesn't even know what a woman is. But even she knows this case would create legal warfare every election destroying any power of future presidents.
They should all be thoroughly investigated!!!!!! Especially all their offshore accounts.
@@ln8116 Mike Johnstone should be investigated about his financial dealings which is VERY strange and unusual
Terrible idea.
And they should be elected by the voters..
LOL I thought to get to this position in the Supreme Court , you had to have a brilliant mind , I was wrong ....
The Court is not correct in their ruling, since the 14th section 3 is a Constitutional Amendment. Which does not require the the House or Senate to vote on!
do you prefer states to decide who should be on the ballots for federal office?
Just remind you that your country is United States!
Imo, every state is entitled to apply the constitution.
Who was convicted of insurrection?
@@franciscovillarreal7780 Trump was by a Colorado court.
@@dennisball4699 Supreme Court voted 9-0 in favor of Trump. He is not an insurrectionist by any means. Sorry but liberal state judges cannot disqualify a presidential candidate from the ballot. We live in a federal Republic not a dictatorship.
Code of Conduct for United States Judges-
Judges may not hear cases in which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case, earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer, or a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case.
UnConstitutional.
To quote former United States President Theodore Roosevelt: "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not asked as a favor." The judges who administer justice in our countries must be seen as ethical and subject to meaningful correction when it is necessary. For Nothing less than the rule of law is at stake.
Ok so....8-0
@@MrRjsnowden So true. Even if Thomas stepped down it would have gotten overturned.
Do you know the difference between a judge and a justice?
The problem is that scotus is not bound by the rules of the rest of the judicial system. This is what Senators Whitehouse and Durbin have been working on for years.
They're Republicans in Robes!
There is no justice to be found in the Robert's Court.
Oh they got Bruen right.
Their ruling was insult to injury which will only turn the temperature up.
When you want a rebellion you free the rebel leaders.
I thought the US Constitution was the law of the land and no state law could supersede it? In that case, states could in fact use the US Constitution as a basis. Right?
Yes…that’s why this particular case was appealed..and instead of a Colorado Supreme Court justice making the final decision…it went to SCOTUS, which is the highest court in the land.
So now states should start allowing under 35 and non natural-born candidates to run for POTUS and let the federal government deal with the problem after they win elections. Same for House and Senate age requirements.
“Sorry, we’re just poor little old states. We can’t enforce your federal eligibility rules for you.”
very nice
Taylor swift for president
Correct! States are no longer allowed to refuse to put Arnold Schwarzenegger on their ballots if he chooses to run for president.
I'm not a citizen or even a resident. I promise I'll be a good president. Vote for me? Also I'll veto any legislation that tries to get me expelled if that's okay?
@@glens0rBest we can do is make you Speaker of the House.
Colorado and other states should just pull a Texas ‘f-the-SCotUS’ move. ;-)
Did Texas take down the razor wire as the Supreme Court ordered? Colorado please a Texas move.
SCOTUS did not tell Texas to take down or stop putting up the razor wire.
SCOTUS said the Federal government had the authority to take it down.
There is a bit of a nuance there.
Although the Blowhard in Charge of Texas is saying he is defying SCOTUS.
He is not.
Case in point.
When DPS or other state agency detains a person who is in the US illegally.
Those persons are transferred to CBP for processing and possible deportation.
The State of Texas cannot deport anyone.
They do not have an extradition treaty with Mexico or any other country.
Only the US government is allowed to sign treaties with foreign countries.
Only the US
Yes! Then we can jail all those Dems breaking the law in CO! Yes please!
As a typical liberal you didn't investigate that issue but instead listen to the liberal crybaby news
@@emmieharris1779 What would happen if Colorado didn't put Trump's name on the ballot?
Carville said it best , SCROTUS !
Teddy Roosevelt famously said "the Supreme Court may pass their ruling. Now let's see them enforce it". Even Congress can't enforce anything. That is up to the executive branch i.e. The President, and or his Attorney Ceneral.
I don't want what is best for me, I want a decision reflecting the spirit of the writers of the Constitution
And you got one end of story goodnight 😴
9-0
Texas defied Supreme Court, so should everyone else
No you don't👎
And you know personally what the "spirit of Constitution writers" were thinking? 🤔
Not a surprising decision at all. It was basically the SC saying "Keep off our patch and stick to your own. We (the SC ) make the decisions affecting everyone and you (the States) make the decisions that affect State voters only." Next step. Show Trump the door in Nov.
The door to the WH.
@@kelperdude It doesnt cost anything to dream I guess🙃🙂
Yeah you were shy about your reservations before the decision.
And the cell door in 2025
@@roughhabit9085 Glad to see you have been following me though your level of comprehension is poor. I've written on multiple occasions that the SC should rule he be allowed to remain on the ballot and let voters give him the boot in Nov.
A new court, with a new case, argued in a new way, could reverse their decision. They killed the power of precedence with Roe. The only way we will last another 100-200 years is with an unpacked Extreme Court. Alito and Thomas won't live forever.
Do you know why you're now being told to hate thr supreme court justices?
Turning the temperment down is aiding and abetting an insurrecttionist, and or insurrectionists, which was not in dispute in this hearing?
Shame, disgrace, and dishonor upon Chief Justice Roberts's tenure.
Cope & seethe 😂
@@LaRevolution0 Trump has 33% support in the primary. He's going to lose bigly. 😄
9-0.
What's hard for people like you to get?
@@firestream93 IKR? Kinda reminds of this guy back in 2020 -- the other guy won 306 votes, and he won only 232 -- yet he's *still* talking about "I won by a landslide" and filing frivolous court cases left and right. What's hard for people like that to get? Smh.
Lincoln named the insurrectionists and wrote executive orders in 1861. Lincoln cited his powers under the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, which states, “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion the public safety may require it" .Congress didn’t contest Lincoln’s habeas corpus decisions.
"in case of rebellion and invasion"
@@justanotherguy3215 4 courts and a Secretary of State have found Trump engaged in insurrection.
There was no insurrection. Do your research and look it up in a dictionary.
Because the Democrats actually seceded from the Union. Trump didn't secede. Nobody did. They just trespassed in a Capitol chamber (a misdemeanor) and then went home when asked to
Lincoln? Seriously? The dude who said he would tear the constitution up to keep the union going? Apparently you forget about the horrors the north also committed. But I guess history is hard
obviously we need to limit the number of years a judge can sit on the supreme court.
What would that solve? The method of appointment is wrong. They're all political appointments. Are Americans too thick to see how to solve that? Apparently.
Is the SC decision saying that the states have no right or obligation to uphold federal constitutional law? Or is it just this one particular law?
This was based on 14th Amendment, Section 3. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and 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.” Colorado court said this applied to Trump. However, he has not been proven guilty of insurrection. Indeed, there is myriads of information repeatedly pointing to him advising all people to remain peaceful, including documented videos, and telephone records. The appeal was based on a biased decision that was simply to keep Trump off the ballot because he is a popular Republican candidate. ALL SCOTUS justices determined that it was unconstitutional to keep him off.
@@CoolTaxiDriver: No, the effort to keep Trump off the ballot was due to his attempt to overturn a legal election. Fake electors, asking the VP not to certify the election, etc. And since then, promising to pardon insurrectionists, which is giving aid and comfort to those who have been convicted. The amendment does not require being convicted of insurrection, just to have engaged in. Just like impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, the Constitution does not require conviction.
If you've lost Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson you've gone WAY OFF the reservation.
What inserection? What did Trump do? I'll tell you since you don't pay attention,do you know that the Michigan State police busted a company funded by Biden that was paying people to bring in fraudulent ballots look it up? It was handed off to the FBI, where it sits?Trump was ripped off all the way around having 51 intelligence officials from the CIA too sign off on Russia laptop that was interference at best Arizona had over 100,000 votes found to be fraudulent wake up just because corrupt judge's didn't want to do thier job it's all over Ukraine billions watching this crap corrupt network you haven't caught all the lies and propaganda yet really what's wrong with you?
Nah, they're on team America while democrats are out devil worshiping
They violated states rights, for sure.
Not enough Trump Derangement Syndrome, eh?🤬😱😭
Thats a pretty racist thing to say
Oh history will remember this SCOTUS...and not kindly.
So true! They are no longert supreme
trump 2024!!!!!!!!!
Sounds like insurrectionist brooding.
They saved democracy today.
9-0.
That was the best explanation I’ve heard of the decision. Thank you for making it understandable.
So, now we have another bad precedent. Fortunately, this Court has demonstrated that a future Court can simply ignore precedent.
I think you mean 'Unfortunately". ..
Youre being told now to hate the current supreme court bc of bruen. Thats what the hatred is really about
I love the way that Lawrence shows his disdain for trump - doesn't hold back.
TDS
@@TRUMP_American_HeroThere is no such thing.There are people who have always known what Trump is and those who fell for the con.
Yep. Trump living rent free in his head.
IKR, I agree! Trump is a Traitor to America.
@@suehowie152which is what? How did this guy hurt you so bad 😂
The sad thing is the person who breaking the law is being protected by judges who are supposed to uphold the law!!
unanimous ruling.
Very true
Yeah I know the southern border is really getting out of control...those judges need to do their jobs
We all break the law every day your no innocent Suzy
The judges ruled in favor of the country. The hard part is over. Can’t wait to watch you all beg for forgiveness.
Couldn't a single Senator block the vote by simple objection, under the current rules? Similar to what Tuberville did with military promotions.
All of this would be moot if we had just had a trial where are the jury was able to convict Trump of being an insurrectionist. I understand why this went so slowly, but i think the biggest obstacle has been Florida stalling on decisions that would lead to setting a court date. Making it even worse is the extent to which Trump goes with his motion delays.
Justuce and accountability for the average citizen of the republic.
But not for the criminal element within its own power structure trying to move it towards dictatorship.
Taking trump off the ballot would be the first step to a democrat dictatorship 😂😂😂😂😂
Yep, just look at the sweetheart deals hunter gets.
Yes, the Democrat dictatorship.
Be sure to silence those who challenge your government ideals, such as the vax, which will save your life and wear a face diaper.
@@kelperduderainbow dont care, so its Pop Culturally culled. 🤷🏻♂️
Has anyone at J6 been charged or convicted of insurrection? 😂
Nope. 🤗
@joeandthehogottago1671 I pray that they will all be released. Isn’t it strange Pelosi kept denying NG support because as she said the optics of using them would look bad. But then they walled up DC with barricades, fences and the NG. Inside job 💯%
I suggest to change the name of the court from Supreme Court into Trumpene Court.
History will also remember that Scotus didn't hold him accountable for insurrection!
Bc it wasnt an insurrection 😂😂😂
9 - ZERO 🤗
Yah and … haha
Funny how many of y'all weirdos are on here consuming MSNBC content! What Tucker Carlson doesn't have some follow up interview with Putin to sate your bloodlust? 😂
Truly America 🇺🇸 deserves Evil 👿 Trump as was foretold in the Bible 😮😊❤
Thanks for being here and supporting them, it's really kind of you! Being here contributes to them whether you watch or not!
It was 9-0!!!!! Sorry boys! Ya lose!
That's a bigger loss for democrats than Trump lost the last election. L'S FOR EVERYONE
@@scottwall8419 See you at Donnie's sentencing hearing! Will be wild!
Why do all MAGAts sound like high school bullies?
@@Mark_Brooksin your dreams
Haha you weirdos really think we care about this Jeezzz , ohhh yah NY criminal trial in a few days haha uuhhh oohhhh for reelzz
*A person who is **_not_** guilty of crimes would never go to this much trouble to be absolved of crimes.*
Arnold should just run to prove a point of how this decision turns messy. He should run and when a state says he cannot, then take it to the supreme court with the same argument the supreme court just gave about states not allowing to bar federal officers from running.
100%
Cenk tried already, but never got to the endgame, maybe it has to be someone as popular as Arnold.
*SCOTUS 9-0… deal with it.*
😊😊😊😊
🧐🤬🫣
Truly America 🇺🇸 such a greedy and selfish Nation deserves Evil 👿 Trump as was foretold in the Holy Bible by the Prophet Daniel 😮😊❤thanks Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior is coming soon 🔜 😊❤
Well, the problem we are seeing with the "odds" is that they are all subject to a human's processing of something and when and how they choose to process their responsibilities. So yes, in a computer, not very good odds, but in reality, pretty good odds because a jury pool comes from a selected list of candidates that can be swayed and affected by processes that are overseen by human beings.
Deeply Disappointed that the SC would support an
oath-breaking insurrectionist 👎‼️
deeply disappointed you think protesting election results is "insurrection." But not surprised, because you can't actually think, just repeat.
"Yip! Yip yip yip!" Good dog!
Most countries on this planet laughed at Trump and his supporters. All the videos of world leaders doing that were hilarious. When Trump supporters are interviewed it’s interesting how they even function much less make decisions.
He has hugely awesome rallies with many thousands of supporters. 😃
@@kelperdudeHe rambles his nonsense to cult members in largely empty halls. He’s a joke. Surpassed only by his acolytes and supporters.
They are coming for us
Just the other day Putin said Biden was stupid.
and Joe sniffs people ... who cares
No they did not , could you be more dishonest?
Yeah they definitely could. I'm surprised they haven't said trump went to the black community to steal everyone breads.
Three justices did, as well as the Colorado Supreme Court, and the ruling didn't contradict that statement.
Yes they did haha NY criminal case in a few days uhhhh ohhhh haha
@chrismorgan953 the colorado judgement wasn't even unanimous, there were opposition voices that said this was a political targetting of a leading candidate
hahaha on you@@robertcolacino7310
The argument by the dissenting justices was partially correct for the simple reason that section 3 says that “Congress may” by a vote of 2/3 of each house, remove such disability. Twenty-five years in Government contracting taught me, in my Government Law courses, that there is a great distinction between the words, “may” and “shall”. “May” meant they could but didn’t have to and “shall” meant they had to. The states have their own statutes to determine who can be on the ballots and so the states should have cited their own statutes for removal and not a federal one. This should be a lesson learned experience for the states and corrective state legislation should be enacted.
It takes the same majority of senators to impeach and remove from office supreme court justices. Think that might be a more gainful approach... 😸😸
9 -0 , hard to spin that kind of a ruling. no doubt this buffoon will give it his best effort.
I'm a dem and I think they definitely made the correct ruling...they were following the Constitution. But I don't think they will rule in his favor of presidential immunity.
So why are watching him?
Why watch? Because it's important to understand differing viewpoints on a subject and use critical thinking to formulate your own opinion on the subject.
Studies have actually shown that Republicans are more likely to do this than Democrats (yes, I'm 100% serious).
Dems are less likely to seek out opinions from news sources different from their own. Limits critical thinking. Creates confirmation bias. Means people have a harder time understanding (not even necessarily agreeing with) viewpoints different than their own.
Make sense now?
@@jamesross3939 Just to watch him squirm.
"Oath breaking insurrectionist", fact. Happy with your cult leader still? Of course you are, you're in a cult
So All Cruelty Blessed is a pearl clutcher too, eh? Applying the Constitution honestly would have implicated Clarence Thomas for giving aid and comfort to an insurrectionist. And that would have meant his recusal, if not his resignation. But this court is not a court known for policing itself. On the contrary, like Trump, this court holds itself above the people as rulers, not servants, and regularly thumbs its nose at ethics as it frequently dares the other branches to check it. Judicial activism from a revanchist court now condemned forever for siding with insurrectionists against the Constitution.
Just when you could not say anything more stupid, you kept typing.
He was acquitted of insurrection by the Senate.
You calling him an insurrectionist is, by definition, misinformation.
So where are the criminal insurrection charges against Trump? You all believe he acted in an insurrection yet wont even charge him with it? Make it make sense.
@@OrtusMallum2075 No, that's not the case. The Colorado District Court ruled that he is an insurrectionist. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld that decision. SCOTUS did not address that part of the ruling; therefore it STANDS.
Ergo, an insurrectionist.
In fact, an "oathbreaking insurrectionist", as emphasized by the liberal justices...
Where did you get your law degree from? Trump U?
@@Khrystyna853 Also, if you pay enough attention, 14.3 does not even say President, it says electors of President.
@@OrtusMallum2075 And, if you paid enough attention, it says "... or hold ANY office, civil or military, under the United States...".
Larry gloating about the tainted jury pool is FKING NUTS 😂😂😂😂
SCOTUS ROGUE Corruption & Bribes taken by Thomas. Alieto checking in w/Billionnaire Bribers RE: Rulings.
History will remember SCOTUS unanimously voted on this, so get a life.
Yes, as a moment of shame for the judical system
@@marilynminer677 Would you have preferred a split along partisan lines?
COPE and SEETH 😂
Supreme Court should be ashamed of themselves.
We sure will remember...🗣👣⚖️
Politics is a dirty business and must never interfere with justice. Indeed, justice must at all times remain apolitical. When politics interferes with justice, the result is always injustice. SCOTUS is broken.
Really? Because based on your entire statement except for the last sentence it seems like the apolitical justice came through as even all the Liberal judges appointed by Democrat presidents, voted the same. A 9-0 result doesn't get much more apolitical than that..
Except they kicked the decision to Congress where federal issues belong. Injustice is allowing state representatives to decide who can be in a federal election. This was the right decision and a fair one at that. It's the reason why even the Democrat judges voted in favor.
It's just unbalanced, with too many conservative, christian nationalist!
unanimous decision.
@@deweyrobinson5639I guess you are shocked that people are FINALLY standing up for their rights, families, and religions, rather than just letting themselves get whacked all the time. Feather, brick, truck, if you don't listen to life sending you a feather, it will send a brick, if you don't listen to a brick it will send a truck. 50 years of getting ignored, and no mechanisms in place to stop blowing up kids overseas because of just passing continuing resolutions, taking people's money to support other people instead of letting them do charity.
Anyhow, did you know that if you take $32 trillion, divide it by 300 million, that YOU and EACH PERSON IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD owe $100 k each? just for existing and using the roads in this country? That's if it were paid off all at once, split evenly, even amongst the children. I think dividing by 100 million is a reasonable estimate of how much you REALLY owe. So $300 k that YOU and EACH PERSON IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD OWE. Yes, the cost of what used to be a normal, but is now a dirt cheap box of a house. How long till the democrats AND the republicans (establishment), who put all this debt out there for welfare and such and wars, decide to get the money by going to each of our homes and confiscating homes and buildings? Yup, forcing stuff to be taken from other people, forced charity, federalized brigands, sure has worked out well for us all hasn't it? So sad.
Isn't this what you always wanted? the people finally rising up? Might not be the raising the fist form, is the "farmers" form, but isn't that what the left has always wanted, the poor and disenfranchised to finally stand up? It's finally happening somewhat, FINALLY. Too bad it's hard to know what is what anymore though, might end up being messy because of that difficulty of knowing what is what anymore though.
What? It was a unanimous decision against this insanity. Spin spin away 🤡
The , not so Supreme court sits in judgment. This court will also sit, and be judged. AMERICA STAY VIGILANT and VOTE BLUE. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Undermining other Courts shows there is Party preference in play. The Court is supposed to be impartial, the Law and it's interpretation is the key.
Essentially what the court did was ignore Section 3 of the 14th Ammendment altogether. The fact that Thomas was one of the Justices ruling on this is a conflict of enormous proportions. If Biden wins he needs to stack the court to 13 Justices one for each Federal Circuit of the Judiciary.
👍 💯
So when Trump wins, dont cry when he stacks the court with 13 seats and 4 new conservative judges.
Yeah stack the court so it can be 13-0 next time you authoritarian lefties try this again.
That's false.
Biden could make America great again if he would leave America and take all his supporters with him
Wait till tmrw! You might wanna call into work folks!
It will be epic wins for djt.
The MSDNC host meltdowns will be glorious tommorrow!
This is why we must VOTE THESE PEOPLE OUT!
😢 heart broken!
Libs hate it when they have to follow the law.😂😂😂
It's like their least favorite thing right behind lying about Republicans.
Most Dems don't care if Trump is on the ballot. Now the real question is will republicans support the scotus decision when they rule against Trump having full presidential immunity? Because of course they will. 🤷
I'm sure you were saying the same on Jan 6, weren't you, bot?
Truly America 🇺🇸 deserves Evil 👿 Trump as was foretold in the Holy Bible 😮😊❤
@@f1jones544 That's your response? Goodness, at least TRY!
Get rid of Chief Justice John Roberts.
Despicable beyond comprehension.
History might remember, but Grandpa Joe surely wont 😅
MSNBC, why can’t you accept a 9-0 decision as correct?
Because they are liberals, they have no rationale, ever.
They are stuck in the Trump syndrome 😵💫🤡
This place will be closing shop soon after cnn does.
Showing themselves as pathetic authoritarians who think a traffic judge and a state secretary should decide a national election
Lawrence is a
self proclaimed
PROUD SOCIALIST!!
source: quote from his wiki page
Thanks to you and all the MSNBC crew. The camera person, cleaning crew, etc .. all the way from bottom to top you folks are holding the Freedom of the Press pillar up and standing.
Thank you 🥰💙
their ratings are lower than whale waste! hahahaha
Are they still hammering, Larry? 😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂 give it a rest, guys.
Its ok O'Donnell, at least he'll be remembered, you won't.
Right, he's just a talking head being used to spread leftist hate speech.
As what?
@@whatsshaken The 45th and 47th President of the United States during America's Golden Age.
Dear America, we should be ashamed of ourselves for putting our personal opinions above right and wrong. As a black man who was born in Richmond Virginia back in 1953, I have lived through a lot of unfair things. However I have always believed in the constitution and even though I have been on the wrong side of the law, I have never attacked our government or defended anyone who has. Justice Thomas doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. He has proven that he will do as he please because he feels that he will not be impeached. Congress and the senate needs to make a stand and put the people that are wrong in their place and quit worrying about who might vote against something they don't like. When justices such as Thomas are held accountable for their actions, then our Supreme Court will do the right thing. That man does not deserve to be with a title that he has. If I was Thomas I would have put my wife in prison and divorce her, but there Is no way I could stand behind her for what she did. As a justice his responsibility that is the job he wanted must come first. He put the sin of the flesh above what was right. Remember, God doesn't like ugly.
Then why do they say AS HE TAKES THE OATH OF OFFICE at Ignogeration.
hes on msnbc. nobody cares
Everybody would even care LESS about him if he was on CNN 😉
They are all quacks 😵💫
And here you are, Ricky.
People would even care less if he was on CNN😉. They are all 😵💫🤡 !
Fact Check, True 😂😂
3 of the 9. My maths ain't the best here but that means twice as many said he wasn't an oath breaking insurrectionist. Further, the ones that said it don't actually believe it, or they wouldn't have voted 9-0.
It's MSDNC, don't expect logic from them. They're running scared because Biden blows
They don't deserve to be called SUPREME COURT!
Where in the Constitution does it say that states can't use the 14th Amendment to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot?
Youre not paying attention lol
I thought news was supposed to be fair and impartial?
Let's start with truthful here first.
I'll bet you think FOX is fair and balanced? Hang out there.
You did?! Well, think again..
I guess you never read newspapers back when they were printed and delivered door to door on a daily basis. Newspapers used to have a section called the editorial page opposite the opinion page. What you are getting here is the television version of that.
I suppose factual never crosses your mind.
When did we have an insurrection some people need a dictionary
You should read it first. "insurrection, noun, a violent uprising against an authority or government." That happened on Jan 6, 2021.
@f1jones544 jan 6 wasn't anything close to an insurrection must be something in ur water
@@f1jones544 Not in the USA it didn't 😂😂
What is the difference between Jefferson Davis braking oath with the United States pre Civil War, and Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2020 ?
Very very little of relevance.
Jefferson Davis' own lawyer said that he was disqualified ftom future office, _even though_ the attempt to criminally prosecute him failed.
@@LeCharles07 good non-answer, thank you.
Trump and congressional insurectionist should be in jail.
Trump 2024!
Still waiting to hear who brought the "COKE" into the White House? 😅😅😅😅
shakedown man.
It was probably left over from the "pill mill" days of the Trump administration...
Probably leftover from previous administration, who was handing out fentanyl and oxycodone to staffers like candy, thanks to "Dr" Ronnie Jackson.
In my country there is a common country Cuba. The government play with the Constitution the way they wanted. The way benefit this is United States. We're not we're not gonna allow the left to play with the america constitution
SCOTUS spineless. 😮
name checks out
"The Supreme Court won't help us destroy democracy" 😭
The dems get REAL mad when they aren't allowed to steal elections.
The U.S. Constitution still allows electors for presidents to be on the ballot even if they have not been criminally charged.
Do basic research first.
Woah woah, a decepticonartist from msnbc isn't telling tbe whole truth? I'm shocked and astounded. Thus hasn't happened since....yesterday.