Today. Nuclear. Did you see maduro, venezuela unbelievable. Even argentina, they went maga. You know, argentina, great guy. Were a recent that just recently heard that saudi arabia and russia will be oh. What . Donald trump slurring his words once again, and unable to remember who the current president is. Displaying his cognitive unfitness just in time for the Supreme Court to hand him another big victory on his way to the republican nomination. Also tonight, trump left highly sensitive classified documents unprotected behind a cheap Shower Curtain in his bathroom at maralago. Now, as the likely republican nominee, were facing the scary prospect that he could start receiving classified briefings again. Plus, after calling for an immediate ceasefire in gaza, Vice PresidentKamala Harris meets with netanyahus chief political rival. While trump says very little about the situation in gaza. But we begin tonight with todays date, march 4th. Today was supposed to be the first day of Donald Trumps federal election interference trial. We in the News Business all had it marked on our calendars but that is no longer the case. That trial has been delayed, delayed, and delayed again, to the point that it might not even happen before novembers election, if ever. This is partly due to the conservative majority Supreme Court that seems to be playing the game as if they are on team maga. Theyre taking their merry time deciding trumps case on the absurd notion of complete president ial immunity which comes down to whether a president is allowed to try and overturn the election with the help of a violent mob of supporters and simply claim that it was part of his official duties as president. So he should be given a free pass. Today, the court provided trump with yet another legal win, reversing the colorado Supreme Courts decision to kick him off the states primary ballot pursuant to section 3 of the 14th Amendment which bars Oath Breaking insurrectionists from running for office again. To few peoples surprise, the decision was unanimous. The justices all agreed that colorado stepped over the line, with the decision reading, quote, we conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the constitution to enforce section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency. This was a victory not just for trump but for chief Justice John Roberts who clearly wanted a unanimous ruling. And while trump took his victory lap today, it should be noted that the justices only answered the legal question of the extent of a states authority to kick someone off the ballot. The court did not delve into the underlying question of whether or not trumps actions leading up to and including january 6th did in fact make him an insurrectionist. Which must have been a relief for insurrectionist accomplice ginni thomas husband, Justice Clarence thomas, who sat in on the case rather than recusing himself for, you know, conflict of interest. And the unanimity of the decision was more of a kind of. There were two concurring opinions that devinated in significant ways from the overall opinion. In one of the concurrences from justice sotomayor, elena kagan, and Ketanji Brown jackson, they referred to trump as an Oath Breaking insurrectionist not once, not twice, but four times in six pages. And they question the propriety of the courts conservatives seeming to dictate how the 14th Amendment should be enforced. Quoting no less than the Dobbs Decision that overturned roe v. Wade in their opening line. Quote, if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, than it is necessary not to decide more. And then closing with nothing less than bush v. Gore. The case that three of their colleagues worked on as bush side attorneys. Writing, quote, what it does today, the court should have left undone. Ouch. Ouch. And in her own brief concurring opinion, conservative Justice Amy Coney barrett may have giving us a Glimpse Affwhat to expect from the conservative majority in the coming Supreme Court hearings on president ial immunity. As she agreed that her fellow conservatives did too much but for a different reason. Writing, the court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a president ial election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the National Temperature down. Not up. Perhaps someone should inform Justice Barrett that trying to lower the National Temperature shouldnt be the courts concern. Their only concern should be interpreting the law, according to the constitution, which is actually their entire job. I mean, i dont think the brown v. Board of education decision turned down the National Temperature, far from it. This courts Dobbs Decision set the National Temperature point to boiling. And Coney Barrett and friends didnt seem to mind that at all. To return just for a moment to the three liberal justices, they dropped one more giant anvil on their right wing colleagues. Writing that it appeared the majority was looking to insulate donald trump from future controversy. Adding that the ruling shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement of section 3, in scotus language, thats like playing the dozens and talking about your mama. Consider the gauntlet thrown. Today, colorado Secretary Of StateJena Griswold shared her disappointment in the courts decision and she pointed out the flaw of leaving this mess for congress to fix. My larger reaction is disappointment. I do believe that states should be able under our constitution to bar Oath Breaking insurrectionists. And ultimately, this decision leaves open the door for congress to act to pass authorizing legislation. But we know that congress is a nearly nonfunctioning body. Joining me now is a professor of Constitutional Law at nyu school of law, and melissa murray, also a professor of law at new york university, msnbc legal analyst, and former law clerk to justice sotomayor. Thank you both for being here. This is like a dream panel for this. I have to go to you first, melissa. Im sorry but i dont speak Supreme Courtese, but all i read was shade, shade, and more shade from your former boss, justice sotomayor, and her colleagues. They open in their what felt like more of a dissent, honestly, than a concurrence, in which they said, yall did too much. You just had to say states cant enforce section 3 and leave it there, but you felt like you had to tell people how to enforce section 3. Did you read that as shade as i did . I think it was shade all the way down, joy. And more than that, i think this was nominally a concurrence, but it had real big d energy, dissent energy. They made clear this is a court thats kind of high on its own supply. It name checked the Chief Justice in the first opening paragraph. Again, i think that was meant to indicate he was the principal architect of the opinion, and also to make clear that someone who is an institutionalist of this court didnt necessarily seem to be an institutionalist in this instance where the court went much further than they needed to to decide this question. By the end, these three ladies were essentially saying that this court is pretty much enabling donald trump in a lot of ways. Not necessarily directly, but in these opinions and going further than they have to, they basically laid a foundation where section 3 is virtually inoperative after the election, and congress is authorized to do everything, but congress as Jena Griswold said, is not really in a position to act expeditiously going forward. Its a nonfunctional entity. To say, let them fix it is like saying dont fix it. Kenji, welcome to the show. So great to get a chance to talk with you. It seemed to me that at the end, and it definitely felt to me like a john roberts opinion now that i read a few of these. I read enough that i recognized his voice a little bit. He writes or somebody writes, all nine members of the court agree with this overall result. Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons the opinion provides for reaching it. Then they talk about blah blah blah. So far as we can tell, they object only our taking into account the way section 3 works. These are not the only reasons the states lack that power, theyre important ones as is the combination, like this is kind of condescending, these are important things but not the important things our colleague would have. It seemed like there was a little bit of snidery at the end of his decision in saying these people are dissenting but they really dont dissent. Do you read it as a lot of people, a Guy Named Mark Joseph Stern actually went and double clicked on it and looked at the metadata. It seemed the way the decision was originally put out, it was put out like a dissent, but that they put it out as a concurrence. Do you what do you think of the intrigue about whether this was truly a concurrence or a dissent . Sorry. I 100 agree. I was about to raise Mark Joseph Sterns sleuthing here where still if you copy paste an opinion, try this, sotomayor, brown, and kagan, and you copy and paste it into another document, it will show up. So this is kind of extraordinary, an extraordinary window into the fact that this was probably originally written as a dissent. I find it very hard to look at that jab through dobbs of saying you told us to be minimalists, chief Justice Roberts, to the Majority Opinion as anything other than look, this was chief Justice Roberts who wrote the opinion. I will add to that, under this kind of very thin veneer of unanimity, there are so many dissensions roiling underneath that surface. I will add to that only Amy Coney Barrett policing the dissent, because she says i would not amplify this disagreement with stridency. Essentially shes saying i agree with you on substance. I just disagree with the tone of the dissenters. Its pretty kind of fierce over there, with regard to the level of tension under the very, very thin veneer of unanimity. Absolutely. Im sorry but the three dissenters, they give me life. They give me life ever lasting every time they write something. Its like, i love it. This is another thing. This is from the ruling. It says the case raises the question of whether the states in Addition Congress may also enforce section 3. We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the constitution to enforce section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency. Okay, if thats the case, let me come to you kenji, first. In article 2, section 1, clause 5 of the constitution. Now im playing lawyer on tv, no person shall except for a natural born citizen or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution shall be eligible to the office of president , so if states cant enforce section 3 of article 14, can they enforce that . Couldnt a 12yearold say im running for president , or Arnold Schwarzenegger . Could a state knock them off the ballot . Thats a federal office. They would be running for president. If the states cant enforce it, it they enforce this . Absolutely, if i want taylor swift or prince harry to be president , two figures i know are near and dear to my colleague professor murrays heart, why shouldnt i be able to vote for them as well . Chief Justice Roberts has an answer to that in saying the 14th Amendment gave a lot more power to the federal government. Whether or not thats a sufficient answer i think is a really important question for us to be asking. And theres certainly a stark textual contrast in between the obviously self executing provisions like you need to be 35 years old or need to be a natural born citizen on the one hand, and you cant have engaged in an insurrection as an oath breaker on the other. And then, melissa, where do you think this leaves there doesnt need to be enabling legislation for you not to be 35 and be president , so if this is not self executing, how could Congress Keep an oath breaker out of office . What would that law have to say . Thats the Million Dollar question, joy. I would also back up a little bit to say, you need to read this decision in light of the courts other decisions on the Reconstruction Amendments. And this is a court that for years has been hell bent on limiting congresss authority to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment and the other Reconstruction Amendments. Think about Shelby County v. Holder for example. It is never, ever trying to give broad grants of power to congress to enforce rights. Its always prioritizes the prerogatives of states under these circumstances. Heres the unusual circumstance where we see the court inexplicable prioritizing the states and apparently airigating some power to congress. That never happens in this court. And certainly not with respect to the Reconstruction Amendments. I think it belies the fact that although this gestures toward expanding the authority of congress to enforce section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the real root that has been given power here is the court to decide what the scope and substance of the Reconstruction Amendments mean. And they have given power to themselves. This is an ongoing theme with this court. A 63 super conserve majority that is constantly trying to limit the authority of congress and take that power for itself. Absolutely. It says clearly, pending court review, they should do a law. It is wild. Last question to you, kenji. They go on about this patchwork that would likely result if you allowed a state like colorado to make this decision. To your point, only the three dissenters, the three concurrent dissenters have been consistent in saying the federal government should be able to enforce the right to vote and access to the ballot. The other six are really not on that page. And they dont seem to mind the other six the patchwork when it comes to disenfranchising laws, laws that make it harder to vote in georgia than colorado. Then they think the patchwork is fine. Doesnt that seem a bit inconsistent . Its very strange. I want to bolster what professor murray just said right now, which is this is not a conservative majority that seems to be expansionists with regard to federal power or a court that has been concerned about this patchwork. So we can think about the bernie case or thinking about the harper case. Case studies of each of those. So this is really inconsistent, and it leads to the conclusion that as sotomayor said in the oral arguments, this is gerrymandering around one person. This is a rule for one person and that person is trump. There you go. Kenji and melissa, thank you both very much. Up next on the reidout, trump claimed today that this case was brought for political reasons. Well, i will ask one of the republican plaintiffs in the case, yes, most are republicans and none were democrats or bidens, ill ask them if they think it was decided by joe biden. The reidout continues after this. I used to leak urine when i coughed, laughed or exercised. I couldnt even enjoy playing with my kids. I leaked too. I just assumed it was normal. Then we learned about bulkamid an fdaapproved, nondrug solution for our condition. It really works, and it lasts for years. Its been the best thing weve done for our families. Visit findrealrelief. Com to find an Expert Physician near you. Ask if bulkamid is right for you and discuss potential risks. Results and experiences may vary. Move beyond the leaks. When you have Chronic Kidney Disease. There are places youd like to be. Like here. And here. Not so much here. Farxiga reduces the risk of Kidney Failure which can lead to dialysis. Farxiga farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, Urinary Tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. A rare, lifethreatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. Stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. When you have Chronic Kidney Disease, its time to ask your doctor for farxiga. Because there are places you want to be. If you cant afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. Farxiga if you have this. Consider adding this. An aarp Medicare SupplementInsurance Plan from unitedhealthcare. Medicare supplement pla