are all addressed to liberal methodology. they re not based on the text and strict construction of the founders intent. they re policy arguments like it would be terrible for the court and the nation to have someone removed from the ballot and things like that. i really do see this very powerful path laid out by these two conservative scholars, william baud and michael stokes paulson in the university of pennsylvania law review, that basically says, look, this is what the framers of the 14th wanted in the 1860s. the last thing they wanted an insurrectionist. trump is saying the president is somehow exempt from the 14th amendment, the technical term for that is poppycock, wrong every day of the week from what the framers understood at the time of the amendment. let s bring in msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin. talk about the questions that the justices will be reviewing.
administration policies like the asylum bans. those are cases that i argued back under the trump administration. we were successful. president biden said he would not renew those. now he s going there again, and one of the things that i think is happening, and you touched on in the beginning is that the human dimension of this is being lost in statistics and abstract policy arguments. these are desperate people and you pointed out that there s a lot of hunger in poverty, and that s true. unfortunately, those people will not qualify for asylum. anybody who thinks that having an asylum system means everyone who s hungry or poor gets to come in, that s not true. only people who are in real danger. we have to have an asylum system. the other point you made, which i think is critical, is the politics. the biden administration is waiting until the last minute each time to try and put in place a system. they have had two years now to put an asylum system in place. we have the resources. no on
we talk about how do you counter, how do you permeate into those circles to marcus credit, grateful that people are willing to take a stand and take these people on republicans do that. they don t take breaks they don t care that they might lose in that district. they re out there pounding the pavement every day, together with fox news. we know that i watched the trump administration do it internally. texting, you know, that whole thing. we saw how that played out it played on january 6th. denver, you were involved in that investigation because you have such a radicalized base in the party that is so loud, i think it s tempting for people that are in the democratic side to say, well, that s all there are no republicans who aren t like that and that even republican leaning independents are impenetrable because they re zooming in on fox news and watching it all the time is there a pragmatic argument that can put something between them and the radicalization? is there some sort of
to find new voters, that s for sure. so we can t be beaten on this policy wise. i think we ve already won the policy arguments on the economy, on education, on a number of issues. i think we ve got some work to do on the young people who think differently on abortion. perhaps, or guns or climate change. but even there, the democrats messages are usually cynical. the place i m really the thing i m really concerned about with this, laura , is that the left becomes a turnout machine with young people because influencers have this domino effect, lemming like effect of people, just all them wanting to be part of the same crowd. and if they succeed in that way, we re not doing a great job competing for ballots. we re just competing for votes. our candidates lost the early voting miserably last time. i mean, someone like dr. oz lost the early vote to john fetterman by over four to one . so we need to compete for ballots, not just voters and not just minds. and i think they re trying to do tha
robert and gorsuch about, quote, fairness. those justices did not seem to take that into consideration when they overturned roe v. wade in the dobbs case, which impacted millions of americans. isn t it intellectually and legally dishonest to talk about fairness when the text of the heroes act less body to do exactly what he wants to do here? you know, what justice roberts is calling fairness there is really republican policy arguments. for wider biden should not have made this decision. and the supreme court is not a policy making body. the issue of whether it is fair to relax student loan requirements has been done in industries. there has been relief in the auto industry, relief in the airline industry, tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. so that is the fairness arguments about whether something should be done here for student debt holders. and that argument belongs in the congress of the united states, which chose not to act. with the president did here was