9 00 pm on the and we are awaiting the results of the gop caucus in north dakota. More articles are now officially all close. To continue to monitor and update you throughout the evening and, of course, Super Tuesday is tomorrow and these are the states that will be california but first former President Donald Trump scored a major victory when the u. S. Cream Court Unanimously reversed that ruling that are to him appearing on the colorado ballots i had of tomorrows primary noah singh in the Majority Opinion states have not power under the constitution to enforce Section Three with respect to federal offices especially the presidency. President trump without record to this and he is right based on the Oral Arguments the decision is not a surprise. This should have been and was a slamdunk case and while the issue a concurring opinion that even the three liberal justices had decided with kind nine. A ceramic remember a judge in kirk county in illinois ruled that trump was ineligible for the states primary ballot just last week and, of course, the state of maine they have a leftist Secretary Of State unilaterally deciding to remove him from the ballots in that state without any legal proceedings. But todays decision from the Supreme Court no pun intended, load those rulings and states have no business with this issue in the first place and even the courts that will liberal justices agree. Know this wouldve created nothing but complete chaos in colorado it colorado had done this and getting away with this and again it was a slamdunk but was extremely alarming is the lefts reaction. Lets take a look at their collective meltdown today following this 90 decision. Watch. This report in as many weeks in a constitutional technicality. Are a lot of americans when the their blood is boiling over donald trump what he did under no respect what he did leading up to january 6 and they just think that he is getting let off the hook scotfree, left and right. This report is that it is up to congress and asked what have they done . Well reported in the people hands of folks like jim jordan, james comaka marguerite haley jean, matt gaetz and others. Im glad our nation of the role of light in the highest court in the United States has rule on this and that is important, right . Were sober not actively either marketing. But in a court of public opinion, crumpled take this ask bennett, spread the misinformation counted information on it. I think the Supreme Court has issued bad decisions on democracy. And here we have in this context, right, hesitance that is a renaissance, refusal to hold this man accountable. Unfortunately for america, the court isnt necessarily wrong that this is the way the frame framers wanted to be. How far too much hope that the court would be united in this and not overstep in favor of donald trump and i think what we saw was a court where justices that behave in a partisan manner. Sean in the Majority Opinion the justices did acknowledge that a disqualification for insurrection, can occur but only when congress and ask necessary legislation and, of course, somehow as democrats well productively immediately floated the idea that heres what the radical democrats, socialist Jamie Rattray had to say. Watch. This report pointed and said its up to congress to act and so i am working with a number of my colleagues including Debbie Watson jones and two provide legislation that we had to set up a process by which we can determine that someone negative insurrection is discolored by Section Three of the 14th Amendment also preventatives already impeached donald trump for participating in insurrection by inciting it. So the house and only frowns upon that. Sean this is just another pathetic desperate ploy from the left to interfere in the election and take from down by any means necessary. It is important to note that we must all remember that with all the legal hurdles that they have thrown a donald trump of the former president that he has never even been charged with insurrection, which has a criminal statute. You want the specifics . It is title, u. S. Code 2383 that read whoever insights and set on foot does or engages in a newer million or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof or gives a and comfort there to shell be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both and shell be incapable of holding any office under the United States. The Company Means that even joe bidens Weaponize Doj collated even charged him never mind and became, with all of this, likely knowing that they never get a convention. But thankfully today the Supreme Court issued the correct decision and preserve the integrity of their public and primary process. Has been a very busy few days in the court system. Earlier today also Supreme Court put the new texas Immigration LawOn Hold Until March 13th and on friday a federal Appeals Court panel ruled that some January The 6th january 6 defendant Beth Macdonell had their sentences properly lengthen. Mactier some first ration fox conservator Jonathan Turley. Not surprised you have a lot of friends in the democratic party, i youre still officially a democrat. Are you surprised at the reaction because it seems that for any reason they dont care whether its legal or not they will use whatever means necessary to take on donald trump. And that should be the real threat to democracy in my view . I was not surprised by the reaction for months. You had networks and newspapers building this up as what some called an unassailable theory, that the only way that he would not be disqualified is if the republicans count the Supreme Court protected him and enacted like ideological robots. That whole narrative was shattered in Oral Argument and again today with a unanimous decision. And i think a lot of people were not quite sure how to spin out of that, because they can just say oh, well, look, is just the six conservatives again. I think that the real winner here is not donald trump, but rather, is the United StatesSupreme Court and ultimately there. [ laughter ] the American People. The court was designed for this moment. This is what the framers what would happen. They wanted the court to be able to transcend the politics of the moment, to be able to rise above that and to point citizens to Horizon A Constitutional horizon the unites them all. And they did that. They said that this is not what the Constitution Means and if we go down this aro around, its going to add a growth and stability to the country. And what you see with Positive Raskin and others is that you see this contrast with the court says we dont want chaos and wants the response from Representative Raskin . Well will try another way to bring chaos. Well try to do this in congress, which will never succeed. Sean yeah. And is also brought up. [ laughter ] if it happens to our public and in this case what would stop republicans from just declaring, maybe one elected official declaring okay this democrat is ineligible for this reason or that reason. I dont think there would be any end to it and result will be obvious chaos, which i think were in itself be a threat to democracy if i want to quote the left. Would you agree with that . Absolutely. And these are really sort of constitutional shortsellers, you know, they go for these easy kills. They go for these impulse moves. And is very little consideration of what this implicates for the future. But also what its just for this country. We have something that is really precious in this country. We have the most successful at longest standing, most stable democratic system in history. And your people were playing with it here. They were trying to game it, change it, so that they could do this what i called about cleansing. And the court point is, with today and it wont necessarily be the last such effort, but they stop them today. Sean yeah. All right, Jonathan Turley as always, thank you. Also earlier today former president trent nine did call in my radio show today use part of what he said. It was a great decision that we are very honored by it and it basically said you have to win by getting the votes as opposed to some other way and that is really what we wanted and it was a very powerful decision very wellcrafted and very wellrespected i must say. Sean here with morant today Supreme Court ruling at former president ial cand candidate, vivek ramaswamy. Let get your initial reac reaction. Just like its about National Unity and i think the Supreme Court absolutely ruled in the right way at answering the question really are we one nation or not we go the Supreme Court held yes, because the heart of the decision was about whether we can have a Patchwork Framework were certain states decide whos on the ballot at other states decide a different person is on the ballot for u. S. President. That doesnt work if we are one nation. To what this case was ruling about. About president. [indistinct question] great job in a Press Conference in a discussion he had afterwards. Speaking about National Unity, i think thats part of this case. I was with President Trump earlier today and i do think that this is not just about president from nine about the future unity of our country itself and the Supreme Court, 90 cracking down on the right side of the question and i do think its a step forward, sean. I dont think thats magnified shows how far we have fallen but at the same time the fact that they came out in the right side of it unanimously elected step for this country. Sean what did you make in the concurring opinions of the three liberal justices and also that of a meconium parent who said the court has held a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a president ial election particularly in the circumstance writings on the court to turn the National Temperature down, not up, for present purposes our differences are far less important than unanimous unanimity in this case. On my justices agreed on the outcome of this case. That is a message american should take home. Usually, justices will not acknowledge political circumstances surrounding a particular case. She didnt go there. Youre reaction to that . I think Amy Coney Barretts actual one page conference was useful. If you want to go earlier deeper and youre asking about this, what do i see in the concurrence . What you actually see is they said okay the state cant do this but the federal government can do it. Even actors in the federal government outside of congress. So you want to be the subtext of this. One thing is happening in the court is buying themselves some political latitude to say there will be other trump related cases that come before this report now. To what you see from the liberal justices is saying the three of them did swing over for 90 unanimous ruling here but they say other actors in the federal government even outside of Government Congress couldve had their authority anyway. I think theyre buying them from some these for going in a different direction in some of those other cases including the president ial immunity he is now making its way up to the Supreme Court next month as well. So thats what i think eventually going on in the robert card in particular more than any court in modern history is really concerned with perceptions of its institutional legitimacy. So what i what i do think today was understanding outcome, it was the right outcome for just this, for this country National Unity, 90, i think that theres this end it wasnt a dissent but a encouragement three liberal justices plant the seed for them financially going a different way in future cases that are coming down the pipe. Sean how dangerous democrats are part of the strategy i think well talk about january 6 and trump, trump, trump is evil, abortion, and the obvious book that he always used on the democratic party, republicans are racist and sexist and homophobic and the list goes on. I mentioned it many, many times. But what you actually look at the heart of this, what, what what would the result be if, in fact, we have one politician having the power to just unilaterally, for whatever reason can declare a candidate in eligible to be on the ballot . What are the longterm consequences of this . The longterm conseq consequences, and doing what we set this country into motion in 1776. There is a monarchy not an democracy, where one autocrat, one monarch at one individual gets to decide who the people can and cannot elect. And hundreds of years ago, or funding funders do for a revolution that for better or for which We The People decide who governs, which people settle our differences at the ballot box, able to vote for whoever we want, where every person has a voice and a vote in the democratic process. If america means anything that is what is what is founded on. That is what makes america great, that is what makes america itself. So what does it take you eschemic i think it is our National Identity itself. That is who we are, that is what this report came down on the right side of today and i think President Trump gave i think one of the greatest Beaches Roosting in a long time solidifying the decision with the right energy say that this isnt about him this is about the future unity of our country. That is what it is at stake and i think thats what this report came down on today. Sean imagine one elected official can declare somebody guilty of insurrection, a charge that would never even made against President Trump, let alone a conviction. Pretty scary scenario in my view. Vivek ramaswamy thank you as always. Now the colorado Border Dispute is not the only case President Trump now has a before the Supreme Court. They also agreed last week we hear arguments on the issue of president ial immunity in his dc case. Here now with more Executive Director of the American Centre for law and justice Jordan Secularist with us. Represented by the way the republic and party of colorado in the former harvard law. [ laughter ] Alan Dershowitz with us in fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett. Rivers in the Republican Party of colorado. I did sense that a lot of the arguments you put forward were actually considered by justices, that was my take. Youre reaction . Yeah, we actually have a sidebyside that we put up today on our broadcast you can see our brief and then see the joy the opinion today and he kind of language use and im not saying that if this is taken verbatim what i would be pretty excited about what our agl is the her legal team put together for this case and i think Justice Baird summit up is that all nine justices agreed that this is the wrong process and thats it on this matter and its state, the Secretary Of State at random officials at the state level should have no role in deciding what president ial candidate at the ballot and lets not forget it was not just democrats but plenty of ri and oh republicans were doing the same positions as a work wanted to remove President Trump from the ballot this Winter Spring Court pulled them even three liberal members of this report Supreme Court no, you can do this, 90. Unto immunity, weve got in those cases, we do those cases when the president was in office and the Memorandum Shift was successful in getting his tax returns. Its all going to come down to the question presented and i said, you know, derek smyth that may have been his biggest problem with this whole issue is the question presented that was written by the court, sean, which says that look at actual official acts of the president and whether or not official acts of the president , of those acts are immune from persecution. And i can see how this case, is this report decision at the Supreme Court and has to be sent down on the way down to Us District Court to the site off