0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice brown jackson says doesn't article two allow for the type of analysis that you are asking for in this instance? meaning can you just look at article two and say these are the acts that a president can do . veto power, pardon power, foreign designation power. former recognition power. can't you just look at article two and these are the carveouts that are giving a president immunity so you don't have to worry about the rest of it? >> yeah, i absolutely agree. i think justice jackson had a very clear and smart approach to the case that did not get a lot of purchase with the conservative justices, because the conservatives, especially brett kavanaugh, where pitching this idea that there are these other article two powers that are not specifically mentioned, that are somewhere in the penumbras of the constitution, that a president gets to wield without any kind of oversight or accountability. and that this case is really about sussing those powers out and shielding them from prosecution. and, you know, i think it's really ironic. in overturning roe v wade, the supreme court began
justice brown jackson says doesn't article two allow for the type of analysis that you are asking for in this instance? meaning can you just look at article two and say these are the acts that a president can do . veto power, pardon power, foreign designation power. former recognition power. can't you just look at article two and these are the carveouts that are giving a president immunity so you don't have to worry about the rest of it? >> yeah, i absolutely agree. i think justice...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
presidential immunity doesn't, either, and yet the conservative justices, much to the tonja brown jackson's dismay, are pressing this notion that it does exist somewhere and that it should at a minimum prevent the jury from considering some of trump's actions leading up to january 6th, that were somehow related to these mysterious article two powers that are not laid out specifically in the constitution, like removing members of the department of justice who would not launch claims of voter fraud that were bogus. that solution, this distinction between private and public acts, walling off official or public acts from scrutiny, i think that would cut the heart out of the case, because what jack smith is arguing is that donald trump weapon iced the powers of his office, that he wielded the tools of the chief executive in order to further corrupt criminal conspiracy. it's not just a private citizen and a candidate broke the law, but that he took advantage of his position as president and use those tools in his disposal alone to try to keep hold on power that he did not deserve. that is a power
presidential immunity doesn't, either, and yet the conservative justices, much to the tonja brown jackson's dismay, are pressing this notion that it does exist somewhere and that it should at a minimum prevent the jury from considering some of trump's actions leading up to january 6th, that were somehow related to these mysterious article two powers that are not laid out specifically in the constitution, like removing members of the department of justice who would not launch claims of voter...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that is what ketanji brown jackson, justice jackson kept saying. should we actually answer the question, does a president have blanket immunity? they were going all around trying not to answer it. we actually need the answer to it. to your point rachel, now that we've given the theoretical's of a coup attempt, killing your opponent, bribery, treason, murder, now that we put it on the table where trump can hear it, where he can see it and find it, don't we need to know just in case he becomes president whether he can kill people? he now knows that, in theory, he's got four, five people on the court to think maybe he can. >> the argument about that today was we will carve out an area of private acts only and those ones and those once they can be prosecuted for eventually someday. but, it's going to be an elaborate test. >> don't forget, you have to do impeachment, conviction, before you can get to criminal prosecution. >> which has never happened in the history of the united states. >> ergo the reason why they are creating a higher, more impossible b
that is what ketanji brown jackson, justice jackson kept saying. should we actually answer the question, does a president have blanket immunity? they were going all around trying not to answer it. we actually need the answer to it. to your point rachel, now that we've given the theoretical's of a coup attempt, killing your opponent, bribery, treason, murder, now that we put it on the table where trump can hear it, where he can see it and find it, don't we need to know just in case he becomes...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
ketanji brown jackson had the best analysis at the end of all of this. why can't we just answer the question the way it has been posed? if we just say, no, you don't get that in no -- that immunity, then we don't have to do this, i'm putting this in this bucket, private in this bucket, and never the twain shall meet. this bizarre, one legged stool, justice roberts analysis, that rubric does not work. it's fatally flawed and leads to delay and bad precedent and bad law, which is why if you just answer the question, no, you do not get immunity for that. >> you do not need a new test. >> you don't have to worry about new trials and district court rulings and more appeals and more delay. then you get to amy coney barrett's point point you can get back to where it needs to be and you don't have to exercise out the official part of it, you don't have to exercise that out. you can presented to the jury with instructions, that happens every day. >> liberal justices were trying to say there is a way to do this. here is a way we can. >> she tried, because she was
ketanji brown jackson had the best analysis at the end of all of this. why can't we just answer the question the way it has been posed? if we just say, no, you don't get that in no -- that immunity, then we don't have to do this, i'm putting this in this bucket, private in this bucket, and never the twain shall meet. this bizarre, one legged stool, justice roberts analysis, that rubric does not work. it's fatally flawed and leads to delay and bad precedent and bad law, which is why if you just...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
one of the things ketanji brown jackson brought up, which is another highlighter which pairs with that point, there's lots of people with tough jobs out there. they all might face criminal prosecution. somehow they manage to do their jobs, and actually isn't it probably good they're going to do something and they go to their lawyer like, will i get thrown in jail for this? that seems oo like good check. in illinois 4 of 11 governors went to prison. it was good you might end up in jail if for instance you sold commercial driver's licenses for bribes as a former governor did when he was secretary of state. like those were official acts, but that sort of damocles hanging over your head probably a useful restraint when wielding great power. >> can i just talk about the first clip you played, the idea what did sour say, the official stuff needs to be expunged, we need to have a separation between the private acts and official acts. "a," i think it's a delay tactic. but "b," if it's remanded back to district court and a whole new series of tests arises what part is official and what part is
one of the things ketanji brown jackson brought up, which is another highlighter which pairs with that point, there's lots of people with tough jobs out there. they all might face criminal prosecution. somehow they manage to do their jobs, and actually isn't it probably good they're going to do something and they go to their lawyer like, will i get thrown in jail for this? that seems oo like good check. in illinois 4 of 11 governors went to prison. it was good you might end up in jail if for...
0
0.0
Apr 30, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> ketanji brown jackson. >> ketanji brown jackson is my successor and she's a hard worker and intelligent woman who we will see, and she will see. >> you have said with regard to how we run the court that if there were the kind of time limit for justices, without going into them having to worry about their next job, that could be a workable solution to some of the other concerns people have. >> when i discussed this in the past, people talk about changing the system at the court, and we have a system where the constitution says appointed in good behavior, which is taken to mean life. i could change that, maybe you need a constitutional amendment. i haven't looked into it much. >> you made a choice to figure out how you want to serve. when we spoke, this is now almost a decade ago, here's what you told me. >> how do you know in a jub where only you decide, how do you know when it's time to retire? >> that's a good question. and i feel i will know. and i feel so far i seem to be able to do the job. and there will perhaps be some indication or i'll think about it, but i haven't thought it th
. >> ketanji brown jackson. >> ketanji brown jackson is my successor and she's a hard worker and intelligent woman who we will see, and she will see. >> you have said with regard to how we run the court that if there were the kind of time limit for justices, without going into them having to worry about their next job, that could be a workable solution to some of the other concerns people have. >> when i discussed this in the past, people talk about changing the system...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice ketanji brown jackson interrupted the questioning of donald trump's lawyer early in the hearing with this. >> you suggested the lack of immunity and the possibility of prosecution in the presidential context is like an innovation. and mike understood it to be the status quo. i understood that every president, from the beginning of time, essentially, has understood that there was a threat of prosecution if for no other reason than the constitution suggests they can be prosecuted after impeachment , that the office of legal counsel has said forever that presidents are immutable to a threat of prosecution, and they have continued to function and do their jobs and do all the things presidents do. so, it seems to me that you are asking now for a change in what the law is related to immunity. everybody has taught, including the presidents who have held the office that they were taking this office subject to potential criminal prosecution, no? >> i see the opposite. i see all the evidence going the way. marbury versus madison, mississippi versus johnson discussed the broad community pr
justice ketanji brown jackson interrupted the questioning of donald trump's lawyer early in the hearing with this. >> you suggested the lack of immunity and the possibility of prosecution in the presidential context is like an innovation. and mike understood it to be the status quo. i understood that every president, from the beginning of time, essentially, has understood that there was a threat of prosecution if for no other reason than the constitution suggests they can be prosecuted...
0
0.0
Apr 11, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i have seen justice ketanji brown jackson and what she can do. i have seen what justice caden can do and sodomeyer and ginsburg before that. this is a huge issue. now i do think the supreme court can take them seriously. particularly when they are as well done as this brief is. they destroy this presidential claim and they say it is. this is a claim that the president is not an elected official. he is a king. and he is above the law. and there is no principle in our constitution that is more anathema than that. they explained a president could be criminally indicted. that person was donald trump's own lawyer who said don't impeach him. you can indict him after he leaves office. that was one of the few times donald trump's lawyer got the constitution right. >> neil, let's do jump back to this issue of how voting affects who the supreme court justices are. both of us have been trying to make this point and this happens in human experience. sometimes the lesson has to be learned the hard way. and it does seem like some voters have learned this lesso
i have seen justice ketanji brown jackson and what she can do. i have seen what justice caden can do and sodomeyer and ginsburg before that. this is a huge issue. now i do think the supreme court can take them seriously. particularly when they are as well done as this brief is. they destroy this presidential claim and they say it is. this is a claim that the president is not an elected official. he is a king. and he is above the law. and there is no principle in our constitution that is more...
0
0.0
Apr 28, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
so, listen to the way supreme court justice ketanji brown jackson addressed president donald trump's attorney on his argument that there would be a chilling effect on presidents if they do not have absolute immunity. >> i guess what i am more worried about, you seem to be worried about the president being chilled. i think we would have a really significant problem if the president was not chilled. if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes -- and tried to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country. >> all that is just part of what every american, regardless of their ideology, should feel outraged by. after listening to what happened today because, lest we forget, the supreme court is considering these arguments because trump asked them to and i said, yes. jack smith asked them to and they said no. the timing of that has done grave damage to
so, listen to the way supreme court justice ketanji brown jackson addressed president donald trump's attorney on his argument that there would be a chilling effect on presidents if they do not have absolute immunity. >> i guess what i am more worried about, you seem to be worried about the president being chilled. i think we would have a really significant problem if the president was not chilled. if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the...
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> the exchang i found most clarifying was the exchange from justice brown jackson when she talked about the chilling effect and whether or not that is what we should be concerned about. take a listen. >> what i am, i guess, more worried about, you seem to be worried about the president being chilled. i think that we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn't chilled. if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. i'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office into, you know, the seat of the criminal activity in this country. >> look, i found this part of the argument. i was sitting there across from judge jackson, and it was really extraordinary. to see the justices using the advocates to talk to each other and they do that in every case but it felt particularly stark to have certain justices asking about the chilling effect of the president not being able to
. >> the exchang i found most clarifying was the exchange from justice brown jackson when she talked about the chilling effect and whether or not that is what we should be concerned about. take a listen. >> what i am, i guess, more worried about, you seem to be worried about the president being chilled. i think that we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn't chilled. if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with...
0
0.0
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
jackson. they said specifically what happens if a woman comes in and she's very sick, but she's not at death's door but she ends up getting so sick she loses her organs, loses her fallopian tubes or a hysterectomy, her future fertility is impacted because doctors weren't able to give her the care they needed. what if someone was having chest pains versus a heart attack. that's what we're talking about. they said if that person walked into an emergency room, doctors would say, okay, you're having chest pains. it's getting worse, we should make sure we treat you before you go into a full-blown heart attack. idaho is telling doctors a person needs to be just about to have a heart attack or even in the middle of having a heart attack before they can get the treatment they need. that is not conducive with federal law, and they also said it's not conducive with good faith medical care. the justices were honing in on that in particular talking about abortion, talking about the fact that there's a big
jackson. they said specifically what happens if a woman comes in and she's very sick, but she's not at death's door but she ends up getting so sick she loses her organs, loses her fallopian tubes or a hysterectomy, her future fertility is impacted because doctors weren't able to give her the care they needed. what if someone was having chest pains versus a heart attack. that's what we're talking about. they said if that person walked into an emergency room, doctors would say, okay, you're...
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> i'm just going to, as we go to commercial, i'm going to stick with what ketanji brown jackson said, which is why don't we just answer the question. why don't we just answer the question presented to us, say no and then we don't have to get into this crazy analysis. we are going to take a break but when we come back to we will have hugo and joyce stay with us. we will go to new york and we will go to the election interference trial that is going on and just ended week two and we will get down into the details. the details. new sensodyne clinical white provides 2 shades whiter teeth and 24/7 sensitivity protection. i think it's a great product. it's going to help a lot of patients. nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with miai i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects we
. >> i'm just going to, as we go to commercial, i'm going to stick with what ketanji brown jackson said, which is why don't we just answer the question. why don't we just answer the question presented to us, say no and then we don't have to get into this crazy analysis. we are going to take a break but when we come back to we will have hugo and joyce stay with us. we will go to new york and we will go to the election interference trial that is going on and just ended week two and we will...
28
28
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 28
favorite 0
quote 1
a number of the liberal justices, kagan, ketanji brown jackson as well as justice sotomayor, they were specifically asking the lawyer for idaho what's the difference between and explain how a woman's health could be at risk but her death might not be imminent, why would idaho law supersede federal law in that case. i want to play for you some sound from elena kagan in particular on this issue. take a listen. >> idaho is saying unless the doctor can say in good faith that this person's death likely as opposed to serious illness, they can't perform the abortion. so i don't know your argument about state licensing law because this is what this law does. it tells states your licensing laws can't take out objective medical conditions that could save a person from serious injury or death. >> now, the lawyer for idaho has been saying that doctors really need to rely on their good faith medical expertise. he also said that he can't think of any cases where a woman's organs or health might be at risk. i've been talking to doctors where women might lose their fallopian tubes. definitely an issue
a number of the liberal justices, kagan, ketanji brown jackson as well as justice sotomayor, they were specifically asking the lawyer for idaho what's the difference between and explain how a woman's health could be at risk but her death might not be imminent, why would idaho law supersede federal law in that case. i want to play for you some sound from elena kagan in particular on this issue. take a listen. >> idaho is saying unless the doctor can say in good faith that this person's...
0
0.0
Apr 11, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
jackson will serve on the united states supreme court. your vote will live after you. it will live in the supreme court. your vote will live on in the hands of federal judges, in their 40s, appointed by joe biden, who will serve for another 40 years. your vote will decide what century we live in. will we live in an age of legal and constitutional enlightenment? or will we live in 1864? your vote is not just about the next four years. the importance of your vote has never been more clear. not just as a vote to preserve democracy in this country, we already knew about that. your vote for who chooses supreme court justices is nothing less than an exercise in incredible intergenerational power that will live long after you. leading off our discussion tonight is democratic senator of the senate judiciary committee, and chairs the subcommittee on federal courts, also the author of captured, the corporate infiltration of american democracy. senator, i really wanted to be able to talk to you about this tonight, because when i say, i'm going to ho
jackson will serve on the united states supreme court. your vote will live after you. it will live in the supreme court. your vote will live on in the hands of federal judges, in their 40s, appointed by joe biden, who will serve for another 40 years. your vote will decide what century we live in. will we live in an age of legal and constitutional enlightenment? or will we live in 1864? your vote is not just about the next four years. the importance of your vote has never been more clear. not...
0
0.0
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the justices really, ketanji brown jackson, elena kagan, justice sotomayor, they're also pushing the lawyer for idaho on this issue saying aren't there cases where a woman's health needs to be treated where she's not at death's door? and a number of times they pointed out what about when a woman might lose her reproductive organs, the lawyer at idaho saying there isn't a case where your health is at risk but your life isn't at risk. but i talked to some doctors who say that's definitely the case. you have a case where women may have to have hysterectomies, fallopian tubes removed, but may not be at death's door. there is a real issue there. i also know just in the last few seconds, listening to justice alito, a conservative justice, he was really pressuring on this idea of whether or not this idaho law conflicts with federal law and he was in some ways leaning toward dealing with idaho law as being the superseding here. just listening to these arguments, it sounds as though the court is leaning toward saying this federal law, that it supersedes idaho law. this is a court, you can't p
the justices really, ketanji brown jackson, elena kagan, justice sotomayor, they're also pushing the lawyer for idaho on this issue saying aren't there cases where a woman's health needs to be treated where she's not at death's door? and a number of times they pointed out what about when a woman might lose her reproductive organs, the lawyer at idaho saying there isn't a case where your health is at risk but your life isn't at risk. but i talked to some doctors who say that's definitely the...
0
0.0
Apr 9, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> exactly, and that is why we have confirmed 190 judges, including katanji brown jackson, that joe biden has put before us. we have three this week from utah and nebraska and the great state of michigan. we are moving forward on these judges, and you look at why it matters. that matters. you just are going to discuss later in your program whether or not a president is above the law, whether or not he can claim immunity for any act, because that is what donald trump is claiming. we know the mifepristone decision, that was a trump judge. these decisions about voting rights in the decisions about changing the john lewis bill and making all of these decisions, that is about judges who have been put on by donald trump, yes, but also, it's about judges you can put on that follow the law and are highly qualified, and even the> decision, which you know, lawrence, with your legal aptitude, which is about allowing agencies to make decisions about the percentage of particles in air pollution, some of these judges that donald trump put on, or are judges out of his ilk, they actually have said
. >> exactly, and that is why we have confirmed 190 judges, including katanji brown jackson, that joe biden has put before us. we have three this week from utah and nebraska and the great state of michigan. we are moving forward on these judges, and you look at why it matters. that matters. you just are going to discuss later in your program whether or not a president is above the law, whether or not he can claim immunity for any act, because that is what donald trump is claiming. we know...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
something justice ketanji brown jackson aptly pointed out during today's arguments. >> what i'm, i guess, more worried about, you seem to be worried about the president being chilled. i think we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn't chilled. if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, i'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country. >> joining me now is congressman jamie raskin of maryland, a former member of the january 6th select committee. congressman, thank you for being here. and you know, i hope people join me in this -- this new reality. because can we now just stop pretending that when the supreme court meets to hold oral arguments and to make decisions, that they are even thinking about the constitution? this supreme court majority, leonard leo six, are so clearly politicians, the only diff
something justice ketanji brown jackson aptly pointed out during today's arguments. >> what i'm, i guess, more worried about, you seem to be worried about the president being chilled. i think we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn't chilled. if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, i'm...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice ketanji brown jackson had a concern on the others, what happens when a president can't be prosecuted? would that make the oval office a center for crime. those are the contrasting views. what we've heard towards the end of the argument, whatever happens here donald trump is not out of the woods. even his own lawyer conceded that many of the acts alleged in this indictment were purely private acts, not official acts, and i didn't hear a majority of justices ready to immunize presidents for private acts. towards end of the argument, they seemed to be trying to forge a way, even if they decide there's immunity for official presidential acts, this case can go forward perhaps even without lengthy delays and it could be solved with a jury instruction saying he's liable for the private acts. we're still going to talk about the official acts, but he's not liable for those. we'll have to wait and see. also important will be when this court rules on this case. all of this plays into whether we could see a trial before the election, andrea. >> ken, one of the points that you just made was the c
justice ketanji brown jackson had a concern on the others, what happens when a president can't be prosecuted? would that make the oval office a center for crime. those are the contrasting views. what we've heard towards the end of the argument, whatever happens here donald trump is not out of the woods. even his own lawyer conceded that many of the acts alleged in this indictment were purely private acts, not official acts, and i didn't hear a majority of justices ready to immunize presidents...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice ketanji brown jackson expressed concern about the precedent that'd set for future presidents. justice sotomayor got trump's attorney to double down on an argument he made earlier this year, infamously, that a former president should be allowed constitutionally to order the assassination of a political rival. >> if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity? >> it would depend on the hypothetical. we could see that could well be an official act. >> those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. i'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country. >> a lot to sift through there, joyce vance. let's just take a step back and shake your head a little bit that we're actually having a hypothetical discussion
justice ketanji brown jackson expressed concern about the precedent that'd set for future presidents. justice sotomayor got trump's attorney to double down on an argument he made earlier this year, infamously, that a former president should be allowed constitutionally to order the assassination of a political rival. >> if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that for which...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
ketanji brown jackson, she was saying and let's look at the history. all of these presidents have managed to make tough calls and not get prosecuted because they're not violating the criminal laws. and when michael dreeben was asked about that, well, what about this decision, what about that decision, he said, but those are not criminal. there's nothing about even a drone strike that is actually violating the criminal laws, so there they really could look at the history and say, you know what? you don't need this, and nothing about our history suggests that you do need it. the sort of parade of horribles is one that, yes, the first person who's being subjected to this kind of prosecution is raising it, but you don't see a litany of problems here. >> yeah, but kavanaugh was saying it's not about this one, not necessarily about the past ones. he was talking about the future suggesting that we're maybe in a different moment today than we've been in in the past where political prosecutions might become more normal, or the intent to do it. >> including afte
ketanji brown jackson, she was saying and let's look at the history. all of these presidents have managed to make tough calls and not get prosecuted because they're not violating the criminal laws. and when michael dreeben was asked about that, well, what about this decision, what about that decision, he said, but those are not criminal. there's nothing about even a drone strike that is actually violating the criminal laws, so there they really could look at the history and say, you know what?...