Reply
3 replies
@lmcatech
34 minutes ago
If they determine the 14'th amendment doesn't apply, then sometime in the future another supreme court will decide the 2'nd amendment doesn't apply either. Maybe that will be a good thing.
Reply
@Mossyrocklove
1 hour ago
I realize we need a basis for our laws, but sometimes nit picking the constitution to make all rulings seems - not so good. I mean how about common sense - if he tried to overthrow the government, obviously don’t allow him to be President again? I heard the justices discussing what you mentioned (“officer” etc) and it just seems so absurd!!!
Reply
@karenborthick4909
1 hour ago
Then our Colorado now HAS to keep Trump on the ballot??
Reply
@rixter719
11 minutes ago
It's funny. When the cases are going against Trump, the Right speaks about the judge(s) getting it wrong. When the cases are going in favor of Trump, the Left speaks about the judge(s) getting it wrong.
Reply
@MisterTingles
1 hour ago (edited)
shocking turn of events, impossible to foresee he put half the feckers on the bench, are we still pretending America isn't already firmly in Banana Republic territory...
Reply
@user-em6ie2be7x
3 hours ago
If Republicans actually believed in "States Rights" Colorado's decision to Kick Trump off the ballot would be final.
50
Reply
@sammisequoyah6058
1 hour ago
Because they work for Trump... Glen you have the pretty to get the ball rolling on impeaching then judges why don't you do something? You know all kinds of lawyers and I'm sure you all are very capable of removing them off the bench. Just because it hasn't been done before does not mean that it can not be done!
Reply
@laralovesviolins6510
42 minutes ago (edited)
I thought that the argument that one state could decide who the president would be was so ridiculous and wrong (they know that's not how it works), and also ridiculous was the idea that states could randomly and capriciously decide who could and could not be on the presidential ballot. Colorado had a trial to determine their decision, it was well thought out and based on the fact that Trump did engage in insurrection. He himself even called it an insurrection, today.
Reply
@TheCjbowman
53 minutes ago
Getting pretty scary, actually.
Reply
@glenrose7925
42 minutes ago
I keep asking and no one answers.... PLEASE ANSWER...... "giving aid and comfort to the insurrectionists is enough to disqualify someone for ." Trump did that and continues to do so now. That standing alone is enough to disqualify him under the 14th amendment. Colorado's lawyers never brought that up. No one brings it up. WHY?
Reply
@susanlynn3613
48 minutes ago
Im so mad i can"t say anything. In fear that if i would go to jail because im not whats his name.
Reply
@user-mi1eb7iu1p
3 hours ago
Well, folk's, there goes our democracy!!!
122
Reply
4 replies
@chrisgreco4249
1 hour ago
As I listen to Mr. Kirschner's reflections on the contradictory and often myopic comments from the Justices I am reminded of words Christ spoke 2,000 years ago. He was speaking to the Pharisees, the judges of His day: "You bow down to the letter of the law and violate the spirit of the law. Justice. Mercy. You swat at a gnat and swallow a camel. You do not go in yourselves and you do not allow others to go in. You are all clean and bright without and inside full of bones and death and all corruption." The Justices have had ample time to read the 14th Amendment. (the letter of the law) They should know the violent history that led to it's adaption. (bones and death) To twiddle around with whether a President is an officer of the govt - seriously? Really?? (violate the spirit of the law) I thought all the Justices today failed utterly to rise to the deep significance of the matter before them. Why did they even bother holding a hearing if they were just going to push peas around on their plates like 6 year-olds who don't want to eat their vegetables? Pathetic lack of insight and vision. (you swat at a gnat and swallow a camel)
Read more
Reply
@cccro6228
1 hour ago
Glenn, I am sick over your assessment of how the Justice's nit-picked every aspect of how the language in the Constitution should or could be interpreted. So why don't they re-write the constitution so that everyone can understand the wording?
Reply
@greg9323
57 minutes ago
That is what they are going to do. Look at all of these cases, they are dragging them to give him an out.
Reply
@tonysnow2015
1 hour ago
If the state of Texas can ignore the Supreme Court on the barb wire and border issue, Colorado can ignore them on the Trump ballot issue. Full stop.
Reply
1 reply
@JamesAsbel-vu3pp
14 minutes ago
Why is Lincoln knocked over?
Reply
@waetos
2 hours ago
Like so many others, I'm a lot more than disgusted with SCOTUS - a bunch of hypocrites.
32
Reply
@SPRINGTIDECREATIVE
1 hour ago
I wish Glenn was arguing the case. The SCOTUS seems to have lost sight of what the question before it is. Is DT eligible to be president, or not? The potential consequences of ruling he is ineligible should not carry any weight. No one’s right to vote will be denied if Trump isn’t on the ballot. The GOP will just have to have an alternate candidate. This will be determined well before the election. Just answer the question!
Reply
@briarwoodimp
14 minutes ago
I listened to part of it. I was hoping the questions about the procedures followed might be used to affirm it was done properly, constitutionally. Kind of "tell me why there isn't a loophole here" sorts of things. It's hopeful thinking, but I guess I'll stick with it until we hear the final verdict. I'm so tired of the chaos, but fair and legal chaos, I think we can live with and grow through. FFS, nearly everything in government involving republicans is chaos. Why would more be a problem?
Reply
@kh-si5iq
27 minutes ago
Hi friends. Repeat after me: There was no insurrection There was no insurrection There was no insurrection There was no insurrection
Read more
Reply
@Michalis1948
1 hour ago
American judges 1. Must respect Constitutions. 2. Respect the country America. 3. Respect Americans people. 4. Respect the Law. If judges assist citizen trump to win, be very careful. Life can be cut short by an assault rifle.
Read more
Reply
@andrewhaydon
51 minutes ago
What a debacle it all is
Reply
@michaeljoseph2303
2 hours ago
Why’s Thomas even allowed to sit on this matter. GOP give us criminal trump. Not so SCOTUS OK
33
Reply
@doubledragon9530
1 hour ago
Like many I was disappointed with the thrust of the Supreme Court today and I believe they will reverse the lower court rulings. However, I cannot disagree with the idea that they put "detail over democracy." Their questions were valid and their points were valid. It always comes down to who has the power to enforce. The fact that the insurrection act far predates the amendment means that there is recourse to the charge for this crime, and also, the amendment does not give the States any role in preventing anyone from taking Federal office. Also, the amendment says nothing about running for an office, only about being seated in that role. The devil really is in the details. In actuality, I am most disappointed that the Constitution does not bar criminals from holding the highest office, even though it does bar Senators and Congressmen. On the other hand, I think it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will even hear, much less reverse the immunity ruling, and so let's put the scoundrel in jail post haste.
Read more
Reply
@manuelseale4342
47 minutes ago (edited)
Why is everyone surprised? I am not, for obvious reasons. Let him stay!! Biden will permanently disqualify him at the polls
Reply
@cyndytodjo1798
13 minutes ago
So disgusting
Reply
@jannmutube
1 hour ago (edited)
---- < I listened to a portion of the arguments. The problem is that Colorado was arguing that Section 3 is "self-enforcing". a single person federal officer like the Secretary of State or a Legislative appointee making ballot determination. Historically, I don't think that's the way it was enforced. It was enforced through state courts and had the right to redress. ---- < I'd really like Trump to be off the ballot but his is looking like another swipe at something like the Unitary Legislature case.... which, fortunately failed.
Read more
Reply
@davidarchibald50
24 minutes ago
Mate, ask the people at Bhopal how they feel about American justice. America has this fantasy...
Reply
@theresa3
2 hours ago
I’m so done with the BS!!!! I HAVE NO FAITH IN the SUPREME COURT WHATS SO EVER Thank you Glenn Biden/Harris2024
61
Reply
@arjaygee
32 minutes ago
I frankly don't understand why anybody would have expected a different result. Amendment XIV Section 3 is poorly and incompletely written. I don't think Glenn is being very objective in this analysis.
Reply
@andrewburrell6381
37 minutes ago
I can totally sympathise with your comments Glenn. Yet even though the thought of Trump seeing this as a victory or sorts and added to that the fundamental issue that art 14 cl 3 has been almost overruled, part of me feels allowing individual states to apply the US constitution independently and more importantly differently seems illogical. And therefore on this specific situation I think Colorado has to stand down. I must admit I think I am only 51/49 this way out… as I say my biggest issue Trump may somehow see this as an all out victory. And also I hope that SCOTUS does not articulate its ruling ignoring the other very serious points raised by Colorado lawyer.
Read more
Reply
@julianluna9710
1 hour ago
Our country is going to the shitter!
Reply
@iainhunneybell
1 hour ago
A very bad day indeed. Worse, SCOTUS did not address the question. It is very simple: Are there, or are there not, restrictions/conditions of ineligibility to run for office or not? That is a Yes/No answer. Presuming you agree there are, because it is what is written, whatever they might be, the next question is: And so when and how does this disqualifications apply? Can all persons be on the ballot only to be disqualified after the plebiscite and a potential majority vote for an ineligible person? That is an absurd position, and how is allowing people to vote for an ineligible candidate “democratic”? The justices were putting forward absurd hypotheticals. This is just going to lead to a bigger train crash down the track. I could go on. Not a distinguished performance by SCOTUS
Read more
Reply
@johnandrews2768
1 hour ago
I'm not at all surprised by the direction they're going, I thought it was likely this is what they would do...but it's still absolutely disgusting to watch it happen
Reply
@onedominant
2 hours ago
Eff SCrOTUS. Incompetent. Shouldn't even be allowed to sit the bench in traffic court.
23
Reply
@curtisv5247
57 minutes ago
I wonder if they would feel the same way if Mike was actually hung! Also, they are opening the door to others!
Reply
@tracyheaslip8754
1 hour ago (edited)
I agree with you, however Trump has not been convicted of it yet. And if the Supreme Court decides that it can only be handled federally... where does that leave the states in charge of their own elections
Reply
@LisaAZBlue
2 minutes ago
I am far from a lawyer or scholar...but listening to that BS angered me so that I had to turn it off, cuz the questioning from the Justices was not about the basic text of the statute of the 14th Adm IT was like they were speaking and asking about something other than The 14th!! It was like they didn't know what Insurrection meant! DISAPPOINTED but ki da expected!!
Reply
@outtakontroll3334
1 hour ago
it was foregone they would allow him on the ballot. and there were some good points made in the questions. it may not be the last time they have to deal with the question, if he wins, which he wont. however it may be inconvenient though, the constitution must be followed, so he has to be ineligible.
Reply
@sharonbeckerle8735
22 minutes ago
This is only the beginning of the trial there might be better days ahead don’t lose hope in democracy
Reply
@user-hj7nv5oo9p
3 hours ago
Disgusting. They should be ashamed of themselves.
42
Reply
@tekkyk9272
1 hour ago
Does this not cause you to be disillusioned by a court system you have served for so many years? I feel for you
Reply
@naturalingredients
1 hour ago
Thank you.. as i listen to the court's decision could have used the facts that Trump has plenty of court cases therefore taken off the ballet this round until all courts are done..then after the 4 years would have all the answers to if he can be on the ballet..then court can definitely list all his wrong doing can not be denied..
Reply
@billygamer3941
1 hour ago
Law on its side as is Lincoln.
Reply
@greatpix
1 hour ago
Glen, do you know what my worry is, even if Trump ends up in prison? That he's created a blueprint for any President in the future to become a dictator. Congress needs to make changes to the Constitution to prevent that from ever happening again.
Reply
@ingridgrattidge5887
1 hour ago
Oh God noooo!!!!!!
Reply
@dannyspitzer1267
2 hours ago (edited)
They were splitting hairs instead of looking at the obvious...I'm so disgusted with our system
40
Reply
@georgehunter4525
1 hour ago
I was way off base! Looks like all the talking head legal experts are thinking 9-0 or 8-1. You summed up the case against Trump simply and clearly!
Reply
@uavman01
1 hour ago
Hey Glenn, thanks for keeping us informed and I have two questions one is this the final judgment of the United States Supreme Court? And the other question is are there any other steps or procedures that can be taken beyond What has already been done?
Reply
@diannetrotter5555
1 hour ago
Why didn't you go to the Supreme Court to explain to them like you are doing now. The justices are corrupt.
Reply
@englishwithteacheradgie4699
1 hour ago
They referred to what happened on January 6 as a “riot.” I looked up definition of insurrection and I got a list of “rebellions” in the U.S. going back before the revolution. These words appear to be synonymous. In addition, there is no process laid out because it sounds like everyone knows what an insurrection is and what it looks like kinda like a duck. Or like that scene in A Few Good Men where Tom Cruise asks a witness how he knew where the mess hall was. Was it in the manual and the man looked confused and said everyone knows where it is, you just follow the crowd.
Read more
Reply
@janetbleistein2820
1 hour ago
They saw the picture they wanted to see.
Reply
@dea6607
2 hours ago
I've lost all respect for the supreme court. Its sad.
66
Reply
1 reply
@videob1962
45 minutes ago
is there symbolic meaning to the statue behind you being on it's side? Is it of the Lincoln memorial?
Reply
@omavicmcmurray2893
1 hour ago
Either their bought off ( probably) or their afraid of the ripples from the mob boss ( possibly) but what’s for sure is the majority are sell outs, precisely.
Reply
@dorisporis8
1 hour ago
SCITUS shows its own faded colors. . .
Reply
@NESter422
1 hour ago
Interesting, three justices installed by an insurrectionist, one justice who’s wife who participated in the insurrection, who claim to be federalist having a hard time reading the plain text of the constitution. The justices are currently seeking to give Trump the relief of being able to run for an office he is not able to hold according to the constitution. These justices are now also in violation of their oath to uphold the constitution, to provide aide to the uncontested insurrectionist. If the justices do not uphold the constitution it will be plain to me that they are also engaged in the current attempt to usurp our democracy.
Read more
Reply
@paulasmith3590
24 minutes ago
I also watched today. So disappointed. I couldn't believe what they were saying. Trump should be in jail by now. Thanks to merrick garland, he is not. Again I say , there should be terms Limits for these judges.
Reply
@mariaa4572
3 hours ago
I can't BELIEVE how much this so called man is getting away with!!!!!...
38
Reply
@Barnacle25
1 hour ago
Glenn, I love you, man. I feel your pain. But Griffin rules. You know it, and I know it. The Trump Ship will sink. Just keep putting holes in the hull. Justice will prevail. "... a republic, if you can keep it." -- And Thanks.
Reply
@GKBryceVideos
1 hour ago
Is it not possible for the Supreme Court to decide that (a) Trump cannot run again for President because he engaged in an insurrection, but then (b) direct Congress to develop a mechanism to deal with future circumstances where an insurrectionist runs for a federal office rather than leave the process to individual states?
Reply
@middle_of_the_road
22 minutes ago (edited)
Glenn Kirscher advocating for chaos and ambiguity and to not support rulings by the highest court in the country.
Reply
@Moonewitch
1 hour ago (edited)
Someone more seasoned should've been arguing the case on Colorado's behalf. He was too meek & unpolished. There should've been a litigator who embodied the likes of: Luttig, Tribe, Conway & Kirschner, etc. He had enough time to be more polished & sound more well versed on the 14th Amendment's history & the history of its implemented, especially based upon its probable implications in today's society (political). This was Murray's first time presenting a case before the Supreme Court. This was NOT the case to be presented by a newbie. This wasn't it! Kaytal should've done it! He's presented many cases before the court.
Read more
Reply
@jimorgain63
1 hour ago
maybe this is purgatory, a sort of hell, so disapointing
Reply
@vernejacobs6019
3 hours ago
The surpreme court didn't mind disenfranchising voters when it ruled in favor of gerrymandering.
67
Reply
@msboncat1959
1 hour ago (edited)
It was clear the Justices did not want to have to deal with this question of whether Trump should be disqualified or not. I would agree they did ask hard questions but to both sets of lawyers. They did take a lot of time on details. {Like is the president considered to be an officer of the government. which was annoying.} One of the justices did issue a warning about what would happen if they decided Trump should be disqualified. Just because there were hard questions. I don't believe we should take it the ruling will be bad news for those of us who believe Trump should be disqualified. Perhaps we need to take a wait and see attitude. Let the Justices issue their ruling on this matter.
Read more
Reply
@user-fd1mv8dl9q
1 hour ago
If I understand the issue here, it’s that Trump is unqualified for office because he is guilty of insurrection. Sounds reasonable. When was that judgement handed down? In what court?
Reply
@sbk123411
21 minutes ago
Angry, but not surprised.
Reply
@brettjohnson290
30 minutes ago (edited)
I listened to the argument live. Colorado’s attorney argued Trump lost eligibility the moment J6th occurred and the 14th amendment was automatic. He lost the case when Goursich asked “then why wasn’t Trump removed as the sitting president” I agree Trump’s attorney was mediocre at best, but a bad argument is a bad argument. The bad argument being J6th is an insurrection. It was LOTS of things, but an insurrection was not one of them.
Read more
Reply
@imjustsayin109
1 hour ago
Okay let's have the courage here to say it out loud. Our Supreme Court simply did not have the ba**s to do this right. Anybody surprised??
Reply
@tinateixeira7118
2 hours ago
It was horrible. The Supreme Court needs to be real, Trump will fire all of them if he's in office again.
22
Reply
1 reply
@crabbyrat1972
53 minutes ago
So, it’s not an insurrection because it wasn’t “organized” ~ but ~ somehow they either had the materials to build a gallows or they brought a gallows with them (y’know, just in case) to the capitol. Just because the event wasn’t planned ahead of time with engraved invitations sent out doesn’t mean it wasn’t organized. Angry mobs organize on the spot fairly often, actually, and this turned into an organized, efficiently executed insurrection. The lack of blueprints or an organizational chart does not change that fact.
Read more
Reply
@PaulineMontagna
1 hour ago
The Justices were doing just what everyone was expecting them to do - finding a way to wriggle out of standing up against Trump. They care as little about the details as they care about democracy. Just as democracy was just a tool they used to get into the Supreme Court and for Trump to get into the White House, the details are just a tool they’ll use to assist Trump and save themselves from being targeted by MAGA. But just as you keep saying, Glenn, once Trump is in power he’ll have little use for them, so their reprieve will be short-lived.
Read