Live Breaking News & Updates on Bush v gore

Stay informed with the latest breaking news from Bush v gore on our comprehensive webpage. Get up-to-the-minute updates on local events, politics, business, entertainment, and more. Our dedicated team of journalists delivers timely and reliable news, ensuring you're always in the know. Discover firsthand accounts, expert analysis, and exclusive interviews, all in one convenient destination. Don't miss a beat — visit our webpage for real-time breaking news in Bush v gore and stay connected to the pulse of your community

Prime Weekend

and two segments of history. eric just pointed us to one of them. they need to really read those debates in 1866, over the creation of the 14th amendment. but i would guess they are also going to be looking, if not explicitly, implicitly, at bush v. gore. i mean to me, this colorado decision, it seems to me is going to depend on whether there are five justices who will be good textualists, and do as -- said, read carefully and do what it says. but whether they are truly going to be -- by bush v. gore, which was their step into determining who wins elections, and determines somehow to never do that again. only one member of this court was there in bush v. gore, of course, and that's clarence thomas. now i doubt he is going to be haunted by it. but i really think that is part of what they are going to have to look at. and today, i just went and read

One , Eric-swalwell , Debates , 14th-amendment , History , Segments , Creation , At-bush-v-gore , 1866 , Two , 14 , Decision

Prime Weekend

the case, or some of the case, and i read justice john paul stevens's is incredible and unforgettable descent, where he predicted that the greatest winner of that case would be cynicism in the american people, and not trusting judges in the future. i hope that -- john paul stevens's dissent, in bush v. gore. >> andrew weissmann, what was judge luttig talking about their, when he said the supreme court will find, try to find a way to somehow dispose of this case, without ruling on these central meanings of the 14th amendment? >> so, this is what lawyers do. they take something that is seemingly simple, and make it complicated. so, issues that the court can deal with, what is the definition of insurrection or rebellion? what is the definition of

Case , John-paul-stevens , Some , Descent , Justice , Winner , People , Judges , Cynicism , Dissent , Bush-v-gore , Andrew-weissmann

The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

by, but i really think that is part of what they will have to look at. today, i just went and read some of the case, and i read justice john paul stevens incredible and unforgettable descent, where he predicted that the greatest winner of that case would be cynicism in the american people and not trusting judges in the future, i hope that they will not need john paul stevens dissent in bush v. gore. it >> andrew weissmann, what was a judge luttig talking about there saying, the supreme court will try to find a way to somehow dispose of this case without ruling on these central memes at the 14th amendment? >> here, this is what lawyers do. they take something seemingly simple and make it complicated.

The-civil-fraud-case , Justice , Some , John-paul-stevens , Part , Incredible , People , Judges , Winner , Descent , Cynicism , It

The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

supreme court to focus on, if they were seeing this from a historians perspective? >> well, i would hope that they look at two segments of history. eric just pointed us to one of them. they need to re-read the debates of 1866 over the creation of the 14th amendment but i would guess that they would also be looking, if not explicitly, implicitly at the -- i mean, to me, this colorado decision, it seems to me, is going to depend on whether there are five justices, who will be good technicians to do as luttig says, read it carefully and do what it says. whether they are truly going to be haunted by bush v. gore, which was their steps into determining who wins these elections, and determined somehow to never do this again. only one member of this court was there, and that is clarence thomas. i doubt that he will be haunted

One , Perspective , Historians , History , Eric-phoner , Supreme-court-to-focus-on , Debates , Segments , Two , 1866 , Decision , 14th-amendment

The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

and officer, are ones that could lead to further fact finding by the colorado trial judge. if the court says, the standard of proof was wrong, or you need to follow the definition of insurrection, that could go back to the trial court for their findings. it's not clear exactly how the supreme court will do this to get an off ramp that gets this completely done with and gone for all persons. >> professor, can you help the supreme court to find a word officer in section three and the word insurrection? >> no, they will have to decide that for themselves. there is no precedent really. david blight pointed out, bush v. gore is pretty close, but there is no precedent for a presidential candidate being disqualified from office for reasons like this. so, there is no existing

Federal-court , Ones , Officer , Definition , Proof , Standard , Trial-judge , Colorado , Fact-finding , Professor-rakove , Colorado-supreme-court , Insurrection

The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

civil or military, under the united states, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of congress, or as an officer of the united states, or as a member of any state legislature, s executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the constitution of the united states, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. but congress made by a vote of two thirds in each house remove such ability. former federal appeals court judge michael luttig, who is appointed to the court by republican president george h. w. bush believes section three could not be any clear. >> the supreme court does not want to decide this case, and it will likely look for every legitimate way possible,

Civil-or-military , State , Officer , United-states , Congress , Member , Oath , Who , The-american-constitution , Insurrection , Rebellion , Same

The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

congress, or as an officer of the united states, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the constitution of the united states, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. but congress made by a vote of two thirds in each house remove such ability. former federal appeals court judge michael luttig, who is appointed to the court by republican president george h. w. bush believes section three could not be any clear. >> the supreme court does not want to decide this case, and it will likely look for every legitimate way possible, legitimate way possible to avoid deciding whether the former president is disqualified. there are very, very few if any

State , The-american-constitution , Insurrection , Officer , United-states , Congress , Member , Executive , Rebellion , Same , Aid , State-legislature

The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

there is no precedent really. david blight pointed out, bush v. gore is pretty close, but there is no precedent for a presidential candidate being disqualified from office for reasons like this. so, there is no existing definition in the jurisprudence that would directly relate to this case, but remember, in the election of 1876, soon after the 14th amendment, supreme court justices were involved and choosing the president then also, and as a lecture -- electoral commission was established, including five members of the supreme court, and a disputed presidential election. judges may pretty much -- very well liked the idea that they can choose the president.

Civil-or-military , David-blight , Precedent , Candidate , Bush-v-gore , Reasons , The-civil-fraud-case , Colorado-supreme-court , Election , 14th-amendment , Definition , Jurisprudence

The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

justice john paul stevens incredible and unforgettable descent, where he predicted that the greatest winner of that case would be cynicism in the american people and not trusting judges in the future, i hope that they will not need elections, and determined somehow to never do this again. only one member of this court was there, and that is clarence thomas. i doubt that he will be haunted by, but i really think that is part of what they will have to look at. today, i just went and read some of the case, and i read justice john paul stevens incredible and unforgettable descent, where he predicted that the greatest winner of that case would be cynicism in the american people and not trusting judges in the future, i hope that they will not need john paul stevens dissent in bush v. gore. it >> andrew weissmann, what was a judge luttig talking about there saying, the supreme court will try to find a way to somehow dispose of this case without ruling on these central memes at the 14th amendment? >> here, this is what lawyers do. they take something seemingly simple and make it complicated. so, issues that the court can deal with, what is the discipline action of insurrection or rebellion, what

The-civil-fraud-case , People , Justice , Judges , John-paul-stevens , Incredible , Descent , Winner , Cynicism , Federal-court , Member , Part

The Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell

them. they need to re-read the debates of 1866 over the creation of the 14th amendment but i would guess that they would also be looking, if not explicitly, implicitly at the -- i mean, to me, this colorado decision, it seems to me, is going to depend on whether there are five justices, who will be good technicians to do as luttig says, read it carefully and do what it says. whether they are truly going to be haunted by bush v. gore, which was their steps into determining who wins these elections, and determined somehow to never do this again. only one member of this court was there, and that is clarence thomas. i doubt that he will be haunted by, but i really think that is part of what they will have to look at. today, i just went and read some of the case, and i read

14th-amendment , Debates , Creation , 1866 , 14 , Colorado , Decision , Justices , Michael-luttig , Technicians , Bush-v-gore , Five