Transcripts For CSPAN Supreme 20240704

Ch ctatui permit the state to disqualify an insurrectionist mr. Mitchell that is correct. So Justice Sotomayor under se yoqu s on thing i would Justice Sotomayor it is rare under the fourteenth amendment. Mr. Mitchell oh, of course, it situation. And, your honor, the only thing im ju thdefine selfexecuting. Reca and griffins case doesnt justice so nllryhtusvi y, ll so o nonprecedential case by a justice who later takes back what he said. Higr70, when it first provided an enfomaidot tci mr. Mitchell and the thefi T Unless Congress gives noe on you want us to credit as precedential . 1870 established the justice non tin congress acted after griffins case mr. Mitchell yes. Justice kagan thats g y in er itce e kait better, suppose that we took all of that way away. You know, suppose there were no griffins case and there were no he ovinett wnds imonis akist under section iii, and that was Justice Barrett well, why do you needo getting at is why dont yo owe it tarbles case kind of way. Mr. Mitchell so there could;yli bngnge Justice Barrett well, why gt t b legislation, that states had no role in enforcing section iiirie t h inyohehe congress would be adding a qualification, which it canre na qu drp tenth atr atunder this courts precedents. Justice alito well, why would that be an impse the holding of office, not running for office. Sn rv im mr. Mitchell i rdatrs you cant go an inch beyond that. Thatl wh ri. N s a private right of action. That is not what the issue is here. Mr. Mitchell no wis, any force as domestic law whatsoever. We c e erleg co al consequence . Lo e eciby pete mp s finding that differs from what this Trial Court Judge found. Justice alito yeah, exactly. So this hith mi moof those questions. Mr. Mitchell certainly. Other states cnu y t ogy expert who would contradict professor simi. Justice the position that you are taking here . Mr. Mitchell i thinicusll sue ar consequences because the law is clearly on our side. Justice sotomayor can i you keep saying term limits. There are other president ial racodig Justice Sotomayor is are your arguments limited t adding n n yfot as president. The and the same if they are not a e juhet Justice Sotomayor is your argument based on . Mr. Mitchell you are changing justicll sth dwhn y ii understand. Justice kagan so jar mean our decision in the term limits case mr. Mitchell yes. Im sorry. Chief Justice Roberts not the constitutional provision go u. S. Term limits against thornton. Maybe i should call it t some Justice Sotomayor i i was confused. In uahin s so you but you are drawing a distinction. Mr. Mitchell right. Im drawing a distinction because some of them are categorical, such as insurrectionist is or is not categorical . Mr. Mitchell it is not because . Mr. Mitchel because congressth ha determination . Mr. Mitchell because we dont will be excused before hesel seut congress. Ja hold office. This is mr. Mitchell correct. Yes. Justice jackson okay. Mr. Mitchell section iii bans him only from holding office. Itment, which is thestice kagan could could Justice Jackson oh, sorry. Chief justsu gto. So, on on on this theory what is the sum total of ways sr ways that that enforcement can happen . Acahiul e h ther bde aheu mr llcav jority. Mr. Mitchell yeah, there certainly is some e ro gionbe un obstacle in the case. Justice alito i dont even see why theres cualification by a twothirds vote to a pardon, then, surely one would not argue that thesooniold. Rsprnge mr. Mitchell that is right. I mean, if agat e described. Justice alito yeah. I dont see there mit on mr. Mitchell okay. Justice alito it is not logical. Ju hats whats in nsion is that you would have the exact same actor and sayt. Fi ple majority of one house. Mr. Mitchell or or it could s ex hesthell right. Justice kagan is you know, is, you know, half plus one saying we dont to did where we rely on preemption doctrines as well. So we have Justice Kavanaugh well, donont we Justice Kavanaugh griffins case is also relevant to trying to figure out what the origina eng otherwise elusive language, is. Mr. Mitchell i do think it isly ceboursti i y i letely emblematic ofer chief Justice Roberts then why dont we mch mr. Mitchell mmhmm. Justice jackson and as i look, vegh id person a person who previously took the president ial oath is not subject to disqualification . Mr. Mitchell we are arguing both, your honor. Justice jackson i dont see that i l on the second, and we acknowledge thato me that you have a list and president is not on it. Mr. Mitchell that that is of clt Justice Jackson no, i understand. Ju i n e ecst and all other civil or military officers offices. Mr. Mitchell offices under the United States Justice Jackson offices under the unitedotha understand, are you giving up that argument . Mr. Mitchell no. Justice jackson and, if so, why . Alress under the United States. And that agree catchall phrase . Mr. Mitchell no, we dont agree at all. That is why we are still making are listed at the beginning of section iii. Justice sotomayor i im sorry, your brief says y mr. Mitchell im sorry. Tost t ou iofoncessarily have to say i mean, i thought i thought the aseft off or whatnot. Whatnot. Mr. Mitchell perhaps, but there are also implications from other parts of the constitution whichr. Wh i ay t not covered by the emoluments Justice Gorsuch mr. Mr. St Justice Gorsuch a a lot hinges on the difference between in your argument betwee iiv weight . Hiblsd s tt r co Justice Gorsuch i i mr. Miic that distinction would carry such profound aic nwaevermuear to go further and ban them even from voting. Chief Justice Roberts thank you. Thank you, counsel. The statute in 1870, if it weresa do you know why it was repealed . Ooy repealed duringst further . Justice alito . Justice alito is there any history of states using section iii as a way to bar federal officeholders . Mr. Mitchell not that ime it was just a cision, but that has been the settled understanding of section jusid d states, correct . Throbus so implications for other constitu Justice Sotomayor a bit of a mitchell i certainly wouldnt call it gerrymandered. Ju s thaut ththat is true of every previous president. Stiser president . Mr. Mitchell that would extend to every president ial candidate that is correct. Justice sotomayor not just to yours. Mr. Mitchell yes. Justice sotomayor okay. Thank you. Iouer v n u sted t. Why would that rule exist . Thor ase proeif chave to reject our officer argument to get to that point. Justice kagan and is there ngs that insurrectionist being president . Mr. Mitchell i think that is an evencaf inmeonun structural case on officer of the United States. Justice kagan thank you. Mr. Mitc Justice Gorsuch do you want to respond to some of the specific chers . Mr. Mitchell yeah. St ou todua ya cfisae imceald ac fi. Arpr neither are members of congress. So they cant be offics sllsi th oco tes who uch thank you. Chief Justice Roberts Justice Kavanaugh . Justice kavanaugh can i just make sure i understand how youin ustyhey,t biis h ton n gh to add to that, alter that . Mr. Mitchell no hit onreplied preemption, almost seaeen h t te disqualified iadalth didJustice Kavanaugh understood. Asking mr. Mitchell yes. About the theory of 2383. Thank you. Mr. Mitchell thank yoba n ia tleu . Mr. Mitchell no. Justice barrett why . Mr. Mitchell not to accept what your honor was suggesti it bud auhiconstitution ng r. Ntul Justice Barrett okay. Eeovsnch atquo warranto action . Imibahoev was the exclusive remedy for Justice Barrett well, i disetof i d by section iii as opposed to state ones . Vepe uns arfotuefelf a federal official. Justice barrett okay. Jues c tse u mr. Mitchell we we made Justice Barrett he had no due process right . Fs h ghly irregular. Justice barrett well, i wasnt suggesting that. I was just asking mr. Mitchell im sorry. The ques rtsnerpe ohe Justice Barrett okay. Thank you. Chief just Justice Jackson going back to whether the presidency is one of prght marathes o atsttas em ti govmt understand why you are giving that argument up. Mr. Mitchell there there is some evidence to suggest that, Justice Jackson, but es focused on . Mr. Mitchell there is some evidence of that. There were pprcthe vice presidency the final mr. Mitchell as an office. Justice jackson but. Nai ou fiwe c focus more on u section iii, and Justice Jackson all right. Tcav exs mr. Mitchell i dont see how it ponse could unless congress were to enact a statute in rjacksoldssjurt tied that . Mr. Mitchell oh, we we never accepted or conceded in ouronwaausibly be characterized as insurrection because he did notsois o so mr. Mitchell that is one of many reasons. Anhrstice overthrow the government is not an insurrection . Mr. Mitchell no, we didnt concede that it is an effort t wamfy as insurrection as that term is used in section iii because Justice Jackson thank you. Mr. Mitc mr. Mitchell thank you. Stice roberts mr. Mre18 w tifiliex wsqtiinren,e eranri cde ol lung i welcome the courts questions. Justice thomas do you have contemplurwh olyof18 it d n uand article ii powers to run elections. Hethe th he correct. Mr. Murray well, there were them. Noherstand congress would not seat them. Exrehe Justice Thomas so whats the ul liyou are right, what are the examples . S cases of states concerning that. Justice thomas i understand that. Nt t wreut. Thtoyou have any examples of this . Mr. Murray many of thoshifol to. Onbat ce so i dont think the history tells us chief Justice Roberts id like s i mean, the whole point of the fourteenth amendment was toivopthince isl. O ntnary to determine the means chief Justice Roberts yeah, but you are relying on you have section iii, is that what you are saying . Mr. Murray no, your honorsar tions like chief Justice Roberts well, butloisweyodoesnt address that at all . Nt aerthco tondat bound or at least authorized justice usin power, the legislature has the power to choose electors. Granted. Setus t o eopl of the fourteenth amendment. Mr. Mu alcaxcth section iii speaks in the sameh is ga aurth when you look at section iii. Teth ection very clearly is not five an exclusive provision. It says Congress Shall haven question that yoconfront is why a single state ve d stet it . It National Importance come up thfferensag ld . It f mr. Murray beei interference . Mr. And actions were holding the position. Bhrrean r statefials abai weyonon in state law and state proce was a congressional action to permit pl was disqualified forever unless they received amnesty. Se be consequences of your position . Why iser af ff t xp c d n re d pretty daunting potential rimless applications of the constitutional provision is not a reason ttiheth a and got there which states are valid and which states reconstruction. Insurrection is something extrs gro to develop rules for what constitutes uprrex of, 1 years i think the other side would say the reusn ho ch ninstreit in relevant respects for neiwith i do not know how much we can wtuns how much can you infer from that . Mr. Murray cir ar ce constitutional let me ask you about le laey candidates. No state has that poethat sure about the court no can they do n mus ticcpl ballot of individual who is qualified to ttrd i of the president iat why not . Doctrine might be usedfo d anybody help to obey the direction from him . Mr. Murray om quat and again the authority of a sitting president. Ndiere wno procedure happens er to have anyedy to enforce the disqualification. Free to as he or she wishes why . Mr. Murray it would come into e at e former i amn e they were 25 and they were ineligible. Im talking aboutekehe c will move on, will mrinolye pe not have the ability to hold that office and should be removed. Ask you about js t understand your argument or your response to her about that . Mr. Murray un for legislation and they can preempt state legislation. It is not isa s es record and an opportunity to stveyssu not on the basis of this kind of thing . Mr. Murray recepe aerionrcdt fdsection three. Ill ask you about the history whenjusticedofunso therefore, keep that person off the ballot . Mr. Murray no, your honor. Tbuedtaor otevpose of theth headprers fer Justice Alito well, would we have to decide what is t oth mr. Murrayidpof sight for all to see. Justice alito yeah, but you are really not ntst, fe mr. Murray well, first, this court would set the legal standard, t te yer an our case here. Justice alito well, you had an g a that question . Do you think that is beyond the realm of imagination . Mr. Murray not not aalt in seit Justice Alito well, i im not taking a pli me getting a whole lot of help from you about how this would not be is w aryyor . Justice sotomayor theres two sition. Thono at dewhurou mr. Murray and, c onereesg altogif re chief Justice Roberts Justice Kagan . Justice kagan mr. Murray, you talked you re tpl tst n e mr. Murray well, certainly, constitutional principles li amt e. Thdaivsisickeres no real First Amendment problem and and a state is just trying to enforce e ouer esams ate doett . Mr. Murray colorado is nottets that broad power as effect of that is obvious, yes . Mr. taotgove ss di Justice Kagan thank you. Chief Justice Roberts Justice Gorsuch . Justice gorsuch you havent had a chance to talk about the officer point, and i just ins s enyo na b reit thoughts . Mr. Murray well, id start with the idea that the meaning ofas c erlllike the president pro tem, who dont get their commissions from the president. Justice gorsuch well, that is because the constitution elsewhere sayshat. A rleiseamm ifto80yearsrsn onicay pe. But i think that narrow Justice Gorsuch you agree they are officers who dont hold an office . E vi in that official capacity. Justice gorsuch well, how can they hold an office under the incompin e because they are appointed by those bodies and preside over those bodies. Justice gorsuch well, no, sr but not an office . Mr. Murray those may be an exceptional circumstance. Mr. Murray but i would 111 Justice Gorsuch thank you. Mr. Murray you are welcome. Chief Justice Roberts justice cer rde, urtiorer lure on but about the very fairness of the process. Lay e tusce hat otal Justice Kavanaugh okay. Second questiobusunece g hial iuto mr. Murray two things, youri asra Justice Kavanaugh i guess the question is h suisraanhoyoin you agree with that . Mr. Murr oshwhe qf ioupl hedio th kg democracy . Mr. Murray id like to makeuacl oaalticavegiherrlu ise constitution doesnt require that he be given another chance. Ges, aion y a , tari. The in ho t ound l e those issues. Justice barrett thank you. Chief Justice Roberts Justice Jackson . Justice jackson so when i asked you earlier about the uniformity concern and the troublingreenrtt tiannd uctu p l coJustice Jackson. Sa nthave existed. They wouldnt have been raised one way or another. Justice jackson right, but mr. Murray so Justice Jackson im not making a mr. Murray but ic. Bels who might rise through the ranks up to and including the presidencystnt, esre mr. Murray this came up in the the language . And senator moore resot. At k mr. Murr erests whin section iii . Srr they vote. And this decision Justice Jackson no, im talking about the barred office part of this. Right . Mr. Murray exactly. Co s y i ha presidency holds an office, as do members of this court. And so other high offices, the teexl mr. Murray if this court cothat colorado did not have the authority to excludeen pre,to frmso hou correct, because there is no federal procedure for deciding these issues, short of a criminal prosecution. Juu, counsel. Ms. Stevenson. Thrsly lot ahe f u utiod to express provision with respect ms. Stevenson no, your honor. Pls Justice Thomas so what does it say then, if it is not expraec shouldnt review the courts 125 statutory interpretation. Hee. Cns 2 the comparable writein candidates also had to be ng ms. Stevenson sure. I think thate Justice Thomas so how is section iii a qualification . Ms. Stevenson under the reasoning of the 126 colorado supreme co hbeibrethe secretary of state, right . Ms. Stevenson that is correct your hon should be disqualified, what what do you do next . Ms. Stevenson administratively,ed o t e roberts so the secretary at first decides whether that is objective, knowablein, ac s ur chief Justice Roberts well, what in anothern bthstilenin that even presented that level of controversy about one per case to the 113 procee ct a provision for judicial review of secretary of states action both in colorado and perhaps what you know about othermshe inicro determination. Is that incorrect . Ev actually have no mechae dellot at all. Oro if the secretary of states steren other civil proceedings . Stevenson yes, your honor i believe it could under thet issue would be determined under constitutional provision like the due process clause, correct . Soioocess, equal protection, First Amendment. Justice barrett whats the due process right . Do icase law, but i think there is a recognition that there is a liberty in yoid i have an issue about being on the ballot, but it is sort of a hybrid or oftentimes First Amendment, fourteenth amendment,us si ms. Stevenson i think thist thndseve like the one here that had all the protections of rules of evidence and crossexamination and things like that nclusions . In other words, we shouldnt undertake a de novo review . Gtrn this case. Jult is 132 possible. Justice kagan i take it yourreally the same as any other disqualification, age or residence or what have you. Steriswangdyll re his qualificr,ins e e ec t. R o other president ial qualifications, and i would defer Justice Alito suppose a state thke icaef juco. Co all ehe rtilv haprd e ap an and and congress can act at any time if if it thinks that it is truly jt h the ms. Stevenson your honor, iil ur court should take those threats too seriously in its resolution of this case. Justice alito you dont think that is a serious thress eg ta hillary mr. Mitchell both mr. Murray and ms. Stevenson rely heavily sl usrohoth iore,onthe congretheyish upreme t hisse and mr. 6 as an thticle ofe hes that every executive action takenia. Innacked the office under section our unfiltered view of government. We are funded by these Television Companies and more, including comcast. Did you think this was just a Community Center . It is way more than that. Comcast is partnering with Community Centers so people from low income families can get the vice along with these other television providers. Giving you a front row seat to democracy. As President Biden prepares for his state of the Union Address, cspan encourages you to engage and express your opinion. Which issue is most important to you as the president s state of the Union Address approaches. One of the most important issues for me than i would like to hear President Biden touch upon is the fentanyl crisis. Also, the Mental Health and what he will do to address those problems. I am at Johns Hopkins university. I do research. I think the most important issue i would love to see the president talk about is the danger that Artificial Intelligence poses to our civilization, particularly in ways i think it might undermine our ability to have a fully employed economy and threaten the culture. I am from st. Louis missouri. I would like the president to take care of the border because we are getting too many illegals in here and it is getting overwhelming and there is a lot of crime. I am from new jersey. I would like to see the president address anything related to gaza and palestine. It is very important right now. People are choosing to look at it in one way. Watch the state of the Union Address, live tuesday at 8 00 eastern on cspan, cspan now or online at cspan. Org