Legal expert predicts how he thinks Supreme Court will rule in Trump case
>> THE HONORABLE COURT IS NOW ADJOURUNTIL FRIDAY. THE FEBRUARY. >> ALL RIGHT. SO THE CASE IS SUBMITTED. ITS SIGNALING THE END OF ARGUMENTS WE HEARD. ALL NINE JUSTICES ASKING QUESTIONS AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN THIS CASE. LET’S READ THE TEA LEAVES WITH OUR EXPERTS LAURA COATES. I DEFER TO YOU, BUT DID NOT SEEM TO ME AS THOUGH ANYBODY IN COLORADO SHOULD BE POPPING THE CHAMPAGNE. >> NO, I WOULD PUT THEM UP. >> AND THE REASON IS WE’VE HAD SOME PRETTY CLEAR INDICATIONS HERE THAT THE COURT WAS NOT SWAYED BY THIS IDEA THAT COLORADO WINS IF THAT’S
THE RIGHT TERM, SHOULD DECIDE FOR THE ENTIRE NATION. THEY TALKED ABOUT IT BEING NATIONALISTIC TO DO SO AND ALSO ABOUT THIS IDEA OF HOLD ON A SECOND. HOW CAN WE DECIDE THIS WITHOUT HAVING TO DETERMINE WHAT IT MEANS TO ENGAGE IN AN INSURRECTION. HOW DO WE GET THERE? HOW DOES AN INDIVIDUAL STATE MAKE THIS INCLUSION AND STILL HAVE THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTED? THIS IS NOT A GOOD SIGN FOR THE COLORADO DECISION TO TRY TO REMOVE HIM FROBALLOT. IT SEEMS THAT THE COURT IS VERY MUCH LEANING AND A QUOTE WHAT JUSTICE BROWN JACKSON SAID, IF THERE’S AMBIGUITY,
WHY SHOULD WE CONSTRUE IT AGAINST DEMOCRACY? >> THAT’S INTERESTING. SO STEVE IT DID SEEM AS THOUGH THERE WERE A MAJORITY OF JUSTICES, NOT JUST THE
THE VERY, VERY LAST QUESTION JEN FROM JUSTICE JACKSON WAS THE ONLY QUESTION ABOUT THE MERITS SOMETIMES YOU WALK OUT OF ORAL ARGUMENT NOT KNOWING WHAT THE COURT’S GOING TO DO, MAYBE THE JUSTICES ARE ASKING HARD QUESTIONS TO BOTH SIDES. SOMETIMES YOU WALK OUT KNOWN HOW THIS IS GOING, AND THIS REALLY FEELS LIKE 78, MAYBE EVEN ALL NINE JUSTICES FOR A VERY NARROW HOLDING THAT COLORADO BY ITSELF CAN’T DISQUALIFY A CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY WITHOUT TOUCHING WHAT A FEDERAL COURT COULD DO WITHOUT TOUCHING WHAT CONGRESS COULD DO WITHOUT TOUCHING WHAT STATES COULD DO TO MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS, TO SENATORS. AND I THINK WHAT WE HEARD IN THE ORAL ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER AGAIN WAS JUSTICES FROM ACROSS THE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM FOR BETTER, FOR WORSE? THIS REALLY SHOULDN’T BE UP TO COLORADO. OF COURSE, JAKE, THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? WHAT IS LEFT FOR ENFORCING THE INSURRECTION BANNED IN SECTION THREE AGAINST SOMEONE WHO A LOT OF PEOPLE BELIEVE VIOLATED IT. >> AND ELIE, THAT’S NOT TO SAY THAT THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE A MAJORITY OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES SAYING THAT DONALD TRUMP DID NOT ENGAGE IN INSURRECTION. THEY’RE PROBABLY JUST GOING TO AVOID THAT
QUESTION TO BEGIN WITH. THEY’RE JUST SAYING AS STATE CANNOT DECIDE A FEDERAL ISSUE OF SUCH IMPORT, RIGHT? I >> THINK THAT’S EXACTLY WHERE THIS IS HEADED, JAKE, WE JUST HEARD TWO HOURS HEADING THE WIDTH LEGALLY AS WE HEARD ABOUT NON-MUTUALLY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IN CASES FROM THE 1800s TO ME, IT’S CLEAR THAT WHAT’S REALLY DRIVING ALL NINE JUSTICES HERE IS JUST THE PRACTICALITY OF THIS, JUST THE REAL-WORLD IMPACT OF THIS. IF THEY LET COLORADO DISQUALIFY DONALD TRUMP THEN WE CAN HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE SOME STATES DISQUALIFY CANDIDATE AND OTHERS DON’T. AND THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM
POLITICALLY PRACTICALLY. AND THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT, WELL, IF ONE STATE, ONE PIVOTAL SWING STATE DISQUALIFIES A CANDIDATE THAT COULD SWING THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT WHO SERVES THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. SO AS MUCH AS THERE WAS DEEP DIVES THERE ON THE LEGALLY ISN’T ANCIENT CASES TO ME WHAT DRIVES THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IS PRAGMATISM AND PRACTICALITY. >> AND GEORGE CONWAY WANT YOU TO TAKE A LISTEN TO THIS FROM JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA CERTAINLY ARE FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CERTAINLY NOT A CONSERVATIVE BY ANY DRAFTS, BUT SOMEBODY WHO TRIES
TO BE FAIR, TAKE A LISTEN TO HER >> I THINK THAT THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE TO CONFRONT IS WHY A SINGLE STATE SHOULD DECIDE WHO GETS TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FEWER AND FROM COLORADO, WHEN YOU WERE FROM WISCONSIN OR YOU WERE FROM MICHIGAN, AND IT REALLY WHAT THE MICHIGAN SECRETARY HEY OF STATE DID IS GOING TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHETHER CANDIDATE A IS ELECTED OR CANDIDATE B IS ELECTED MAD SEEMS QUITE EXTRAORDINARY, DOESN’T IT? >> NO, YOUR HONOR. BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT’S THIS COURT THAT’S GOING TO DECIDE THAT QUESTION OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY AND SETTLE THE ISSUE FOR THE NATION >> WAS JASON MARIA’S ANSWER SUFFICIENT THERE, TOO? >> I DON’T THINK ANY OF THE HE WAS GOING TO SAY IT WAS GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT BECAUSE WE’RE THERE’S A WILL, THERE’S A WAY AND THIS COURT FROM THE GET-GO FROM THE FIRST FIRST MINUTE OF ARGUMENT MAY CLEAR IT DOES NOT WANT TO GO DOWN THE PATH. THE DISQUALIFICATION AND THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THE BEST OFF-RAMP THEY CAN FIND. AND IT WASN’T I’M NOT IT’S NOT EVEN CLEAR TO ME THIS WAS ANY ONE OF THE OFF-RAMPS THAT
THE TRUMP PEOPLE REALLY OFFERED IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO THE OFFICER ARGUMENT, WHICH IS I THINK A BAD ARGUMENT. THE IDEA JUST TO WRITE THE ARGUMENT BEEN LISTENING OR SO MUCH LEGAL, I DON’T KNOW THE PRESIDENT AXIS IN COURTS. OKAY. YOU’RE NOT GOING TO BY THE ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE PRESIDENCY ISN’T MENTIONED THAT IT DOESN’T COVER A BUYING THAT THEY’RE NOT BUYING THIS. >> THE ARGUMENT THAT THE FOR THE 14th AMENDMENT CAN ONLY BE BE, BE ENFORCED BY CONGRESS. THEY’RE SAYING, THEY’RE GOING TO WRITE AS STEVE SAID, A MUCH NARROWER OPINION SAYING,
THE STATES CANNOT INDIVIDUALLY DO THIS IN STATE FUNCTIONARY TO THE COURTS CAN DO IT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE PRESENCE. SO WHAT WE HAVE, BUT THE PROBLEM IS, I MEAN, THAT’S THE OFFERED THEY CREATED THERE. THEY’RE CREATING YOUR OWN SPECIAL LITTLE OFF-RAMP. THEY’RE BUILDING UP THEIR BUILDING IT OUT THEMSELVES. THEY DON’T HAVE THE PLANS FOR IT YET. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. AND THE FUNNY THING ABOUT IT IS, WE DON’T KNOW WHERE THE EXITS GOING TO END, RIGHT BECAUSE THE QUESTION OF WHAT HAPPENS IF, IF, IF HE
IS AN INSURRECTIONIST AND YOU DO, THE STATES DON’T DISQUALIFY HIM. WELL, HE GETS IT GETS ELECTED. WHAT DO YOU DO THEN? IT’S NOT CLEAR, SO WE DON’T KNOW WHERE THIS OFF-RAMP GOES, BUT YOU’RE HAPPY TO JUST GET OFF THE HIGHWAY. >> ANYWAY, YOU ABOUT THE IDEA OF LEGAL EASE, BUT YOU KNOW HOW YOU KNEW IN A MOMENT THAT THIS COURT WAS WELL AWARE THAT THE WORLD WAS LISTENING WHEN CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS TRIED TO BREAK DOWN, YOU MEAN THIS K THROUGH TALKING ABOUT THE CASE TERM LIMITS AND THAT HE’S WELL AWARE OF THE PRACTICALITY AS TO
WHO IS LISTENING AND WHY, AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR EVERYDAY AMERICANS. AND I WAS STRUCK LISTENING TO ELENA KAGAN RIGHT THERE AS JAKE AS YOU WERE DESCRIBING HER AS SOMEONE WHO WAS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA? YES, THEY’RE SPEAKING IN LEGAL EASE, BUT SHE SOUNDED LIKE A LOT OF ELECTED DEMOCRATS OFTEN SOUND WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THIS. IF YOU LISTEN TO GAVIN NEWSOM OF CALIFORNIA, RIGHT? CALIFORNIA HAD TO MAKE THIS DECISION AND THEY’VE BASICALLY SAID SAID WE’RE GOING TO WAIT, BUT THE IDEA WAS THEY WERE GOING TO BASICALLY LEAVE TRUMP ON THE BALLOT. THEY ARE
MAKING THE ARGUMENT. THEY ARE STAYING AWAY FROM THIS BY-IN-LARGE, AT LEAST THE THE MOST COMPETITIVE I WOULD SAY, CAMPAIGN MINDED DEMOCRATS FROM THIS IDEA THAT HE SHOULD BE BANNED FROM THE BALLOT AND THEY ARE SAYING INSTEAD THAT HE SHOULD DONALD TRUMP SHOULD BE BEATEN AT THE POLLS. AND I HEARD THAT IN ELENA KAGAN’S ARGUMENT AND JIM, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE’VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT BUSH V. GORE DECISION THAT THE US SUPREME COURT MADE IN 20 IN JUMPSTART IN YEAR THE YEAR 2000 OF THE THINGS THAT WAS NOT GREAT ABOUT THAT DECISION WAS
WHEN THEY BASICALLY SAID, WE’RE MAKING THIS RULING WANTS AND NOBODY CAN EVER SPEAK OF IT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT PRECEDENT THAT’S IT. WE’RE JUST SAYING THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE. THAT’S THE OPPOSITE APPROACH THAT THIS COURT IS TAKING. THIS COURT IS LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD, NOT JUST THAT DONALD TRUMP, BUT HOW THIS COULD BE USED IN THE FUTURE AGAINST ANY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON’T AGREE WELL, LOOK, I BACKTRACK JAMIE. JAMIE. >> LET ME JUST BEFORE GEORGE SAYS I’M WRONG, LET ME GO. >> YOU’RE RIGHT. THAT’S THAT IS A CASE WHERE WE SOLVE THE COURT
GET INVOLVED IN THE ELECTION. AND IF WE READ THE ROOM CORRECTLY AND IT CERTAINLY SOUNDS LIKE AS WE WE SAID, AT LEAST IT DOESN’T TIMES THEY WERE LOOKING FOR AN OFF-RAMP TODAY. BUT LET’S GO TO A WORD THAT WE USE WITH DONALD TRUMP A LOT, WHICH IS CHAOS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR
