X6 p. M. On the west coast and e are awaiting the results of the gop caucuses in north dakota, where the polls now officially all closed. Well continue to monitor and update. Throughout the evening. And of course, Super Tuesday is tomorro w and these are the states that will be voting tomorrow, alabama, alaska, arkansas, california, colorado, maine, massachusetts. Minnesota. North carolina. Oklahoma. Tennessee. Texas. Utah. Vermont. P and virginia. Itll be a test after the show. But first, formerer donald trump scored a major victory today when the u. S. Supreme Court Unanimously reversed that ruling that barred him from appearing on the colorado ballot ahead of tomorrows maimary. Now saying in the majority opinion, quote, states have no powejor under under the Constito Rcto enforce Section Three with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency. Trum President Trump reacted to this decision on true sociawi l, calling it a big win for america. And hes right. Base id on the oral arguments,ot the decision is not a surprise. This should have been and wasn a slam dunk case. And Whilane The Issueberal that concurring opinion, even the three liberal justicesstice, they with trump. Now todays decision has ramifications well beyond colorado. Remember a judge in cook countye in illinois that trump was ineligible for the states Primarasy Ballot just last week. And of course, in the state of maine, they have a Leftisf Ct Of State unilaterally decided to remove him from the ballot in that state without any legal proceedings. But todays decision from the Supreme Court, well, quote ,no pun intended, it trumps those rulings and states had nos business with this issue in the first place. And evens issue in the well, lil justices agreed. Now, thiill lis would have cread nothing but complete chaos in colorado if. G aw colorado had done this and gotten away with this. And agaiayth this n, it was a sy but whats extremely alarming is the leftming is reaction. S e lets take a look at their collective Meltdown Todayy following this nine zero decision. Watchg this. The Supreme Court handed trump a second gift in as many weeknys, a constitutional technicality. There are a lot of americans out there. Theyre justf amir blood is thed is boiling over. What donald trump did on january or what he did leading up to january six. And they just think that hes Justjanuary T Thin getting let t scot free. Left and right. The Supreme Court has just andt. Said up to congress. So what have they done . . Peoetheyve put it in th capable hands of folks like jim jordan, james colmer, rs. Marjorie taylor greene, matt gaetz and others. Im glad wem glad a nationo rule of law and the highest court in the United States has rule the d this. Rtant, and that is important. We are still right now effectively a democrac r lyy. But in the court of public opinion, trump will take this s spin it, spread the misinformation, disinformation on it. Prenformatii think the supreme c issued bad decisionsishis on democracy, and here we have it,t in this context. S right. Nce, a hesitance. Thats a reticence, a refusall to hold this man accountable. Unfortunately Forto M Americy the court in this isnt necessarily that this is the f way the framers wanted it to be. I have far too muchd hopet wl that the court would be united in this and not overstep in favor of donald trump andjusc think what we saw was a courest where justices that behaved in a partisan manner. Now, in the majority opinion, the justices did acknowledge that a disqualificationth for, quote,nu insurrection can occur, but only when Congress Necessary legislation. And, of course, some House Democrats predictably immediately floated the idea. Heres what the Radicae Idea Tl Socialist jamie raskin had to say. Watche rattra. The Supreme Court punted and said its up to congress tt and soto act. And so i am working with a number of my colleagues, Debbie Wasserman schultz and eric swalwell, to legislation a p that we had to set Urop A Proces by which we could determine that someone who Committedn Insurrection is disqualified by Section Three of the 14th Amendment and thth t alsoe House Of Representatives already impeached donald Rticipatgiting Cipatin Insurrection by inciting it. So the house is Alreadithe Housy pronounced upon that. This is just another pathetic, desperate ploy frominf the left to interfere in the election and tak Electioe Trumph means necessary. It is important to notate we must all remember with all the legal hurdles that they havean donald trump,s ne the former president , hes never even been chargedver with insurrection, which has a criminal statute. If want the specifics, it38 is title 18, u. S. Code 2383 that reads, whoever incitesse sets out on foot, assists or engages in any rebellion, insurrection against the authority of the United Stateinsurrec S or the lawst th thereof, or gives aid and comfort,ere they are to shl be fined under this title or in prison, not more thanshe ten years or both, and shall ho of holding any office under the United States. Thats means that even joe bidens weaponized doj, they didnt even eve charge him. Never mind convict him. With all of this likely knowing that theyd never get a conviction. But thankfully today, the Supreme Court issued the correct decision and Preservecision A the integrity of the republican primary process. Now, its been a very busy few t days in the court system. Well, earlier today, also earle put the new texas Immigration Law on hold until march 13th. And on friday, a federal appeal os panel ruled that some january 6 defendants had their sentences improperly lengthened. All right. A lot of News Todathsentences pr y. Rat whats the first reaction . Fox news contributor Jonathan Turleioy . Not a surprise. Are you surprised . Well, you a lot of friends in the democratic party, i think youre still officially a democratarty,. Are are you surprised at the reaction . Because it seemsyo the that fory reason, they they dont care whether. S nece its legal or not. They will use whatever means dot donald t take ousse on trump. And that should be the real threat to democracy, in my viehi. I was w notot surprised by Tr Yoaction M and for months youve had networks in newspapersu thn up as what some called anory, Unassailable Theory that the only way that he would not be disqualified is ifcour the republicans on the Supreme Court protect him and acted like ideological robots. That whole narrative was shattered in oral argumentl ar and again today with the unanimous decision. And i think a lot of people were not quite sure how to spin out of thatht becaue they couldnt just say, oh, well, look, its just the sixnsa conservatives again. But i thinktiain. That the rl winner here is not donald trump, but rather its the United StatesSupreme Court. And ultimately, is the americanl people. The court was designed for thise. S desi moment. This was what the framers hoped, what would happen. Whathey wanted the court to ben able to transcend the politics polit, to be ableitizen to rise above that and to point citizens, to a horizon, a constitutional horizon that unites them all. And they did that. They said that thi that. S not what the constitution means. And if we go down this road,e gw its going to add a gross instability to the countryth. S and what you see with Representative Raskin and others is that you see this contrast where the court says, we dont wanourtt chaos. Wellnd whats the response from representative . Well, then well try another way to bring chaos. Well trl try any to to do this in congress, which will never succeed. And it was also brought up what if it happens to a republican in this case . What wouldric and stop republics from just declaring maybe one one elected official declaring, oh, this democrats o ineligible for this reason or that reason . I dont think there wouleason. D be an end to it, and the result would be obvious chaos, which i think would in itsellff be a threat i to democracy if i want to quote the left. To quoteyou agree with that . Absolutely. And these are really sort anl short sellers. You know, they they go for these easy kills, r th, they go these impulse moves. And theres very little consideratior thesves. N of whatc implicates for the future, but also what it suggest futursr this country. We have something that is really precious in this country. We have the most successful, longest standing, most stablehir democratic system in history. And yety. And yo people were g with it. They were trying to game it. The change so that they could do this, what ive called Ballot Cleansing and the court put a stop to it today. t it wont necessarily be thehe last such effort, but theyn y stopped them today. Yeaeah. Alh. All right. Jonathan turley, as always, thank you. Now, also earlier todaathasy, fr President Trump, he did call in to my radio show to react to todaysid. E heres part of what he said. It was a great decision. Were very honored by it. And it basically said youetti have to wingn by getting the votes as opposed to some other way. Whaty what we power wanted. And it was a very powerfulfue decisioncisi, very well crafted and very well respected. I mustespected. T all right. Here with more on todays Supreme Court rulingtoday su a,r president ial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is with us. Lets get your initialca reaction, sindidmy. R. Look, this is a caset about national unity. And i thinabouk Supreme Court wy absolutely ruled in the right way. Answering the questiont really all we want nation or not. The Supreme Court held. Yes because the heart of the o decision was about whether we could have a patchworke framework where certain states decide whos on the ballot. Decide whosates decides different person is on the ballot for us president. That doesnt work if were one nation. So thats what this case was really about. I thought president trumise waps a great job in that Press Conference and that discussion he held afterwardsconferen. L speaking about national unity, i think thats the heart of this case. That wasunity,s o with preside trump earlier today. And i do think that this is not just about president ani that th, but about the future unity of our country itself. And the Supreme Court nine zero came down on the right side of that question king dow. Rward, and i d so think thats a stp forward, sean. I dont think they should have ever gone to the Supreme Court. T ow but the fact that it is shows how far weve fallen. Out e, the fact that they came out on the right side of it unanimously is ighta good step for this country. What did you make in theaen a concurring opinions of the three liberal justices and also that of ame liberay coney barre, who said the court has settled a politically charged issu pe in the volatile season of a president ial election, quote particularlyseason, in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the National Temperature down, not up for present purposes. Are differences are far less important than unanimity . Unanimity in this case, all nine justices agree that thehis case on the outcomes case, that is the message americans should takssage. That was a pretty usuallyy, Jus Justicesti not acknowledge political circumstances surrounding a particular case. She didrr go theroundine. Io your reaction to that . I think amy coney barrettshi actual one page concurrencnk ams useful. Now, if you want to go a little deeper, sean, and youre asking about this, what dabout do i see in that concurrence, what you actually see is they said, ou actuaokay, the cant do thisl but the federal government could do it. Co do its in federal government outside of congress. So you want to read the subtex t of. Ning this what i think is happening is the court is Buying Themselvesn Th some latitude toy theres going to be other trump related cases that come beforeumted case the supreme co. So what you see e fromlibera the liberal justices is sayingre the three of them did swinge d over 49 zero unanimous ruling here, but they say other actorsd ,the federal government, even outside of congress, could have had that authority. Could ve i think theyre buying themselves some leash foty r, eren going in a different direction in some of those other cases, wa caseng the president ialt di m now making its way up to the Supreme Court next month as wele l. Even so thats what i thinktu is actually going on. And the Roberts Court in particular, more than the in any court in modern history, sean, is really concerned Histy Smacytions of it legitimacy. So while i do Think Today Wa Si an outstanding outcome, it was the right outcome for justice and for this country and for nationaloutcom unity. S nine zero. I think that that does that dissent dias a dissent. It was a concurrence by the three liberal justices plantsth the seeds for them, potentially going a different way in Future Casesegoing S are coming down t. How dangerous democrats as agy i part of this strategy . I think theyll talk tell about january six and trump trump trump as evip,l and the obvious book that theyss use, the democratic party. Republicans are racist and sexist and Homophobeedn Parn and the list goes on. Ive mentioned it many, many times,time but you when act you actually look at the heart of thiuats, how would it be what what would how would this latwe result be if, in fact, wetician have one politician having the poweg thr to unilaterally, r whatever reason, Declare A Candidatre Ineligible to be on a ballot . Coat are the long term consequences of thisns . The long term consequences . Undoing what we set thi in 17 country in motion in in 1776. Thats a monarchy, no76t democracy, where one autocrat, one monarch, one individuacracyl gets to decide who the people can and cannot electo. Fu and 250 years ago, shall we have our Founding Fathers who fought a Revolutio Forn To B that for better or worse, We The People decide who govern foh We The People settle our differences at the ballot box able vote for whoever we want, where every person has y a voicpersone and a vote in that democratic process. If america means anything, thats what it was founded on. Akes that is what makes america great. That is what makes Americake America itself. So what is at stake, you ask . I think it is our National Identity itself. That is who we are. , that thats what the Supreme Court came down on the right da of today. And i think President Trump gave one of the i think the great speeches weve seean t trump nng i in a long time solidifying that decision with the right tenor to say that this olidifyis ab about him. This is about the future unity of our country. Thatst th ity of whats at stake. And i think that the Supreme Court came down to that. Imagin o e elected official Canected Of Declare somebody guilty of insurrection, a charge that was never even made against President Trump. Lee esident t a conviction. Pretty scary scenario in my view. The fake rama. Thank you, as always. Now, the colorado Ballot Dispute is not only case that President Trump has now before the Supreme Court. They agreed last week to heare arguments on the issue of president iauments ol in his. Cere now with more executive, director of the American Center for law and justice, Jordan Sekulow is wit and h us. They represented, by the way, the Republican Party of colorado in the ballot caseip. Former harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is with us and fox news legal analyst. Great.