harvard's laurence tribe and the retired conservative federal judge jay michael luttig, declared that the constitution prohibits trump from ever being president again, based on section three of the 14th amendment. since then, there's been movement in court in multiple states where efforts have sprung up to enforce the 14th amendment. one case, seeking to disqualify trump was dismissed by the minnesota supreme court, but that case was specific to trump being on the primary election ballot for the republican nomination, so the argument could be brought before the court again for the general election ballot. in another case in michigan, a judge ruled that it was a non-justice-able -- political issue, that should be decided by congress, not by the state. just yesterday, the petitioners appeal that ruling to the michigan supreme court. but this ruling out of colorado is particularly interesting, because the opinion goes further that any of the other judges have been willing to venture so far. the headline, out of the colorado ruling, is that trump succeeded in remaining on the ballot. but a close reading of the ruling is that this is far from a victory for the former president. in order to make the case at the section three of the amendment could potentially disqualify trump on the basis that he engaged in an insurrection, the judge would typically have to break down the merits of the case. did trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion? was his speech on or around january 6th, 2021, protected by the first amendment? and finally, can section three of the 14th amendment be applied to donald trump? now, in the previous cases, in michigan and minnesota, the judge declined to comment on the merits of the case at all. in this case, however, the judge delivered meticulous opinions on the merits. the ruling read in part, the court concludes that trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and directed at the capitol, with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification. it continues, consequently, the court finds that the patricia nurse have established that trump engaged in an insurrection on january 6th, 2021, through incitement, and that the first amendment does not protect trump's speech. but then the ruling turns to the matter of section three of the 14th amendment. now, section three reads as follows, and i figure that and i have done enough times that you and i can recite this together, so join me. no person should be a senator or representative in congress, or elector of president o vice president, or hold any office, 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, or as an executive or judicial ficer of any state, to suppt the constitution of the united states, shall have an insurrection or rebellion against them -- or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. now, this is going to become very, very important. everybody should up their pocket constitution with them to be able to read through this. this judge said that donald trump, despite having definitely engaged in insurrection, is somehow exempt from this clause. why? well, to follow this judge's logic, requires an extremely close reading of a 150 plus-year-old text. in her opinion, the judge writes, quote, the court holds that the absence of the president from the list of positions to which the amendment applies, combined with the fact that section three specifies the the disqualifying oath is one to support the constitution, whereas the presidential oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, it appears to the court that for whatever reason the drafters of section three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the presidential oath, and no other oath to the constitution. now, as you may know, my legal education comes from law and order. but this strikes me as an incredibly narrow reading. by this logic, why would the president be allowed to engage in insurrection, if virtually every other federal employee who swears a slightly different oath is not? could the rioters of the insurrection act really have intended -- of the constitution, and this particular clause, really have intended to hold lower level offices to a higher level of integrity that the person holding the highest office in the land? lots of questions. and i've got the two most perfect people on hand to answer them. joining me now, is the aforementioned judge michael luttig. he is a former federal judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit. also with us is laurence tribe, professor emeritus of harvard law school, cofounder of the american constitution society, author of the important book american constitutional law. what do i need to talk to you gentlemen this morning, because this one is way above my pay grade. judge luttig, let me start with you. talk to me about this. you've tried our best, to lay out what we believe the court was intending to say about this amendment. i would now love your interpretation of all of that. >> thank you, ali, thank you for having professor tribe and i on this morning. this is a historic decision. it will reverberate throughout the country, from today through the 2024 presidential election, and while beyond. the colorado court decided that as you said, those pressing constitutional questions facing the nation, holding that the former president did engage in an insurrection to overturn the 2020 presidential election. you simply could not overstate the constitutional significance of this fundamental finding of constitutional facts, and law, by the court. i cannot imagine myself that this finding we'll be overturned by the colorado supreme court, or, for that matter, the supreme court of the united states. at the same time, the court did agree justly air in holding that the office of the president is not an office under the united states. turning constitutional interpretation upside down, by finding the unambiguous text of section three, ambiguous, because of a sliver of debate history that is not only itself ambiguous, but is rendered singularly unpersuasive by other exchanges in the debate history, that reflect the understanding that the office of president is of course an office under the united states, from which a person can be disqualified by section three. you suggested that this was a narrow interpretation of section three, it is that and more. it is the narrowest possible interpretation of section three, it's the interpretation urge on the court by the former president's lawyers. but it's simply incorrect, as a matter of constitutional law. >> professor tribe, judge luttig is a judicial poet, and he said something there that resonates with me entirely, and he said this court has rendered the unambiguous ambiguous. because ever since the two of you were on this show in august, i've been reading this clause, i've been reading the 14th amendment, i've been reading section three, and i thought it meant what it meant. that this court has found a way to say absolutely not, velshi, once again your law and order training is not sufficient. tell me what you make of this rendering by the court. >> i certainly agree with judge luttig, that the most important decision rendered by the court is one that is not likely to make the former president happy. and that is that he deliberately engaged in an insurrection against the constitution of the united states, the holding of this case, based on a weeklong trial, detailed examination of the evidence, and as the judge pointed out, with ample opportunity for donald trump and his lawyers to make the contrary case, beholding in paragraphs 1:44, to 88, and two 98 of the opinion, is that donald trump intentionally incited a lawlessly violent mob, for the specific purpose of overturning an election that he knew he lost. in paragraph 100 of the opinion, she concludes he knew he lost the election. so what accounts for this bizarre, actually, bizarro upside down holding that the highest office in the land, the one of the greatest power, the one who's danger to the republic is at its maximum, would somehow be exempt? that the judge herself says, she admits that the sounds preposterous. that's her word. she says it would carry the preposterous application that jefferson davids, who took an oath to the constitution, before becoming senator, then became a senator, then turned on the constitution, then became a confederate, and the president of the confederacy, that he could then become president of the post civil war united states? she says i know that's preposterous, but maybe the rioters just goofed. she says maybe it was inadvertent. we're not inadvertent, she says for whatever reason, that's the way she reads it. my suspicion is that having built a wall of fact and law, so high that no appellate court could climb over it, a wall that establishes that trump was guilty of engaging and disqualifying insurrection, she threw him a lifeline that was so thin, so threadbare, so likely to fall apart, that although he could claim victory, no appellate court could uphold putting him on the ballot, on that basis. so she basically had it both ways. she laid the foundation for disqualifying the former president, gave him basically the victory, and set things up so that a reasonable appellate court would have to say we agree with her that he is guilty of an insurrection against the constitution, that he went way beyond free speech, because he intentionally incited lawless violence, but we disagree with her, and she almost disagrees with herself, when it comes to this weird holding that it was just the presidency after all. she even admits that although the oath is a little bit different, it has the same scope. if he took in the oath of other offices, she says in footnote 39, covers the same obligations and poses the same duties. so things are set up for a decision against trump, by the supreme court of colorado, he will then seek review with the supreme court, and they're all gases are off. >> i want to discuss what happens next. judge luttig, you had tweeted at the beginning one, of your tweets reads the constitution is not a suicide pact, with america's democracy. i want to take a quick break. when we come back, we're going to discuss this, because it is the constitution upon which we now to paint for the preservation of america's democracy. and i know you to have lot to say about that. lawrence tribe, and michael luttig, after the break. michae luttig, after the break. luttig, after the break. wooo! tools that help protect. alerts that help check. one bank that puts you in control. chase. make more of what's yours. the subway series is getting an upgrade. the new #33. the teriyaki blitz. with double cheese and teriyaki-marinated meat. it's like a perfect steak spiral in the double cheese coverage. if you say so, peyton. who knew the subway series could get even better? shingles. some describe it as pulsing electric shocks or sharp, stabbing pains. ♪♪ this painful, blistering rash can disrupt your life for weeks. a pain so intense, you could miss out on family time. the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older, ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles. the power goes out and we still have wifi if you're 50 years or older, to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. >> back with me on this very, home of the xfinity 10g network. very important on the 14th amendment that we've been discussing since august, since these two gentlemen published an article about it and then came on our show that morning to introduce this as an important discussion about whether donald trump could be the president of the united states again. jay michael luttig is a former federal judge on the u.s. court of appeals, lawrence tribe is professor emeritus at the harvard law school. in fairness to both of them, they don't claim that they came up with this idea, they have just largely done a lot of work to popularize it, and help us understand it. judge luttig, you tweeted, i started reading your tweet in the last segment. i want to read the rest of it. you said the constitution is not a suicide pact with america's democracy. indeed, it is the very contrary in this instance. it is plain that the entire purpose of section three, confirmed by its literal text, is to disqualify any person who, having taken an oath to support the constitution, engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution. the former president did exactly that when he attempted to overturn the 2020 election, and remain in office. i'm going to ask p.j., my director, to put up my element number two, which is the oath of office for the president versus the oath of office for a federal employee. the presidential oath talks about preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution of the united states. the federal oath of office says i will support and defend the office of the united states. the judge is saying that there are two parts to this. one is that the language of the oath is different, and the positions enumerated in section three don't include the president of the united states. tell me if either of these holds a wait for you, and one holds more weight than another, or neither do. >> and neither, ali. and let me first say, with respect to my tweets, i was trying to remind the courts and the courts in the future of the constitutional axioms now that we are expound in a constitution here, we're not audit in financials, and in that connection, the other axiom is that the constitution is not a suicide pact. all of that is to say that the constitution must be interpreted differently than, for instance, a federal statute. and that's the starting place, i believe, of the state courts error last night. turning to the two specific questions, the court last night held that the office of the president is not an office under the united states. this, notwithstanding that the constitution itself repeatedly refers to the office of the president and indeed the presidential oath itself, references the office of the president. so, i don't believe that that holding will withstand even an appeal to the state supreme court. now, on the other question, about the oath, the -- a person disqualified under section three must have previously taken an oath to support the constitution. a president of the united states takes the oath that was prescribed in the constitution. that oath is to preserve and protect and defend the constitution, not biased terms, literally, to support the constitution. , on the other hand, the disqualifying oath in section three is an oath to support the constitution. so, the former president's lawyers, right out of the gate, argued that obviously the former president never took the disqualifying oath, because he never took an oath to support the constitution of the united states. he only took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. in my view, that argument borders -- if it does not transcend the frivolous. i can't even imagine the supreme court deciding this case on that frivolous argument. the other arguments that the president -- the office of the president is not an office under the united states is slightly more meritorious, but i believe is -- and professor tribe and i have long agreed, that that argument fails. >> so professor tribe, this all makes a great deal of science, what you to say. i guess what never make sense to me and my viewers is what's supposed to happen next. because we talk to you guys, we talk about what's likely to happen, we knew that it was a secretary of state who would need to take some action on this, we spoke to every secretary of state in the united states and they said clearly everything we do is going to be a challenge to the court. so then we're starting to wait for a court cases, and then something like this happens. what, in your opinion, is the next likely thing to happen, that will continue this discussion about section three of the 14th amendment? >> well, we know that the opening brief in the supreme court of colorado, is due monday. this coming monday, it's got an expedited schedule, we don't know exactly what that court will do, but we know it's on a fast track to the supreme court. let me underscore the importance of something that judge luttig said. the idea that the most powerful office in the land, described over and over again in the constitution, as an office under the united states, should be exempt, would make the constitution into a sick joke. what is it? it's an office over the constitution, rather than under? that is apparently what donald trump thinks. he has said he would terminate the constitution. in fact, the net result of this holding is that all underlings are bound by this disqualifying oath, but because donald trump used the words, as the constitution requires him to use, preserve, protect, and defend, and didn't use the word support, we can treat him as having taken the oath with his fingers crossed. what does it mean to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, if not to support it? and in fact, the whole rule of law would be shredded if i said that the president is above the law, because his oath, because of its wording, exams him from the most fundamental requirement of law, and that is that when your term is up and you lose, you leave. it's only dictators who get to stay as long as they want. that's why the fate of the united states and of democracies around the world is at stake in whether donald trump is allowed, ever again, to take the oath. whether to preserve, protect, and defend, or to support the constitution. he clearly isn't going to mean it, whatever words he uses. that's the security part. >> donald -- gentlemen, put on your list of things to do, since you've been around there trying to change much, law change the oath of office so that it matches the constitution so that we don't have to have this conversation again. appreciate you so much. judge michael luttig, former federal judge for the court of appeals, tribe -- co-founder of the american constitution society, if you do not follow these two gentlemen and their readings, please do. it really is important in the time that we're in right now. still ahead, the united states supreme court has finally adopted a formal code of conduct, amid multiple reports of ethics lapses by justices, but it's been cold everything from week sauce to gaslighting by critics. we're exploding. but my old internet, was not letting me run the show. so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. [deep exhale] [deep exhale] [trumpet music plays] 579 breaths to show 'em your stuff. every breath matters. don't like rsv take your breath away. protect yourself from rsv... ...with abrysvo, pfizer's rsv vaccine. abrysvo is a vaccine for the prevention of lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. rsv can be serious if you are 60 or older. having asthma, copd, diabetes, or heart disease puts you at even higher risk. abrysvo is not for everyone and may not protect all who receive the vaccine. don't get abrysvo if you've had a severe allergic reaction to its ingredients. people with a weakened immune system may have a decreased response to abrysvo. the most common side effects are tiredness, headache, pain at the injection site, and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about pfizer's rsv vaccine, abrysvo. visit these retailers or find other retailers near you at abrysvo.com. [deep breath] the subway series? it's the perfect menu lineup. just give us a number, we got the rest. number three? the monster. six? the boss. fifteen? titan turkey. number one? the philly. oh, yeah, you probably don't want that one. look, i'm not in charge of naming the subs. we're travelling all across america, talking to people about their hearts. ooh, take this exit. how's the heart? i feel like it's good. you feel like it's good? how do you know when it's time to check in on your heart? how do you know? let me show you something. it looks like a credit card, but it is the kardiamobile card. that is a medical-grade ekg. want to see how it works? yeah. put both thumbs on there. that is your heart coming from the kardiamobile card. wow! with kardiamobile card, you can take a medical-grade ekg in just 30 seconds, from anywhere. kardiamobile card is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. and it's the only personal ekg that's fda-cleared to detect normal heart rhythm, bradycardia and tachycardia. how much do you think that costs? probably $500. $99. oh, really? you could carry that in your wallet. of course you could carry it in your wallet, right? yes, yes. kardiamobile card is just $79 during our thanksgiving sale. don't wait! get kardiamobile card for yourself or a loved one today at kardia.com or amazon. announcer: try tide power pods with 85% more tide in every pod. who needs that much more tide? everyone's gonna need more tide. it's a mess out there. that's why there's 85% more tide in every power pod. -see? -ah. the war between israel and hamas is now on day 43. israel today, families of hostages taken by hamas on october 7th marched with tens of thousands of protesters to the prime minister's office in jerusalem. they are demanding that lawmakers meet with them and refocus their efforts on retrieving the hostages alive after two were found dead in northern gaza, according to the israeli military. the al-shifa hospital has been the central focus in recent days after israeli defense forces ran multiple raids on the health care complex searching for evidence of a hamas command and control base. so far though, the idf has yet to provide ironclad evidence of a hamas control center inside of the hospital. video released by the idf spokesperson shows the apparent discovery of a bag of weapons inside the hospital. video showed later, the number of guns has suddenly doubled. the idf also released video of what it says is a tunnel shaft near the hospital that was used by hamas. because the video was handed out by the idea that there is no way to independently verify that claim. 7000 people have been sheltered in the hospital until this morning. the director of the hospital in the gaza told al jazeera that the idf forced the hospital t evacuate at gunpoint. 450 patients, some in hospital beds or wheelchairs, had to b evacuated. 120 patients could not be evacuated. some doctors have stayed back with them. for its part, the idf has denied that it ordered the evacuation of the al-shifa hospital. the director general of hospitals reiterated to al jazeera, quote, i categorically deny these false accusations of these really army, i am telling you we were forced to leave by gunpoint, and quote. israeli's military did announce a brief pause in the area to encourage evacuation to the south. that window has now closed for the day. palestinian health officials also say in israeli airstrike killed 26 people at a hospital in southern gaza, according to reuters. nbc news was not immediately able to confirm that report. nbc news has just learned, through the director of the come amman hospital, that dozens of bodies, including those of children, are arriving at the generally a hospital following reports of a strike at the nearby alpha kora school which is located inside the refugee camp. this is being run as a shelter for the human agency for palestinian refugees, it has been attacked. nbc news cannot independently confirm the reports of that strike. more than 12,000 people have died in gaza, although the exact number is getting harder to confirm as hospitals continue to be targeted. joining me now is a palestinian political analyst, a founding member of the democratic -- of houston and a one-time spokesperson for the palestinian authority. she is also covered gaza and the west bank for al jazeera as a senior correspondent. nor, thank you for joining us. i appreciate you being with us today. we tried. this is such a fast moving story we are trying to be as of today's possible on what the information is. i think the broad strokes of this is the humanitarian situation in gaza is worsening. mark were given from the president of his head a conversation the other day and said, you can't trust the numbers coming out of gaza because they are hamas numbers. traditionally, as we have seen, in battles between israel and hamas in the past the numbers have proven to be largely accurate. the word thinks these numbers are largely accurate. >> absolutely. and these numbers are very conservative because you have to remember that there are thousands of people under the rubble they have not been retrieved and we see more and more features emerging with people leaving the names of loved ones still under the rubble. spray-painting it on whatever remains of the house so that, when the bombing stops, they can retrieve them and give them a proper and dignified burial. people who die angela have families. they have loved ones who mourn them and will want to bury them. want to give them a proper burial. casting doubt on numbers is not new. it is meant to underestimate, or play down, the severity of the situation. the u.n. agencies have called them catastrophic. unicef is calling gaza a place that is turning into a graveyard for children. that is how severe the situation in gaza is right now. it is becoming uninhabitable because of the nonstop bombardment and destruction by the israeli army. >> nour, i want to play a soundbite of my colleagues conversation with an israeli ambassador of the united kingdom's about the killing of children. listen to the conversation. listen to th>> do you accept the killed children or do you deny? >> no, i did not. i do not. first of all, you don't know how those people died, the children. >> oh, wow. >> interesting conversation. we do not know how those children died. mark oregon did not offer a alternate explanation of how their children died. we know that it is 5000 plus children. i do not know what the suggestion is. whether the children killed themselves are what is going on. at this point, we are not having a good faith conversation about how to stop the civilian killings. >> no, no we are not. wow does not even begin to describe how one would describe to something like that given how distraught all the human rights organizations are. the u.n. agencies. we have never heard from them so much, being so distressed about what is going on. we have heard from dozens of u.n. experts, independent experts, who have warned the international community is failing to prevent a possible genocide in gaza. this is not just about the numbers, it is about the scope. it is about how severe and pervasive cases. this destruction is attacking everything, not just the buildings, not just the people, the infrastructure. the hospitals. the universities. people have nothing to return to. the tragic thing, as you said, ali, is no one is talking about a cease-fire. millions of people around the world are. millions of u.s. taxpayers are. the majority of americans want a cease-fire, across party lines. the politicians are willing to live with this. they are willing to live with -- disregarding all of the warnings, disregard all the u.n. reports, and excuse what is happening in gaza. excuse the normalization of attacking hospitals. of attacking u.n. shelters or displaced families. making people who are wounded walk for miles with no protection. by not accepting that they even be offered ambulances to evacuate to the south. they are also being bombed. the lie about the south being safe has been exposed many times over already. there is no place that is safe in gaza right now. nobody seems to really want to end. that at least in the political -- >> thank you as always for your analysis. nour odeh, founding member of the -- and a one-time member of the >> described as weak sauce and even gaslighting by critics but it is also an important moment for a court that is beset by scandals being targeted by activists looking to overturn long held personal rights and core president. that is next on velshi. i don't wear pins often on tv but this is my pin. a sparkly uterus. i will tell you why in a second. women make up 49 and a half percent of the global population, that comes out to nearly four billion women on the planet right now. despite the fact that menstruation and female reproductive systems are the reason we are all alive, there is a centuries-old stigma surrounding those natural bodily functions. on top of the, societal stigma, and monthly inconvenience, women are taxed on the products that help manage their menstrual cycles. an estimated annual total of $1,300 per person, as a matter of fact. it's about time we talk about why that is. don't worry, i'm not actually going to mansplain periods to you. tomorrow, i am joined by two women's health experts featured in the new msnbc documentary called periodic. it is produced in partnership x tr light films. here is a short preview. >> periods -- >> i hate having my period growing a. >> we did not speak about. i did not have the period talk with my mom or my dad. and >> i'm supposed to have my period any minute. >> i think women's bodies are political and i think he's a part of. >> that is just part of life. we have suppressed that knowledge and made it seem shameful. >> the word hysteria comes from the word hysteria which is great for uterus. >> basically anything that happened with the period made you crazy. >> we are going to michigan to put that pressure on lawmakers to repeal the michigan tampon tax. >> what would happen if men could menstruate? >> we try to period cramped simulator. i had my first hot flash the other day. >> i was just thinking of keeping it secret. let's get rid of the stigma. i would say, closed for business but open for pleasure. >> all right, periodical premiers on msnbc tomorrow night at ten pm eastern. i will talk to the experts who are featured on the phone tomorrow on velshi starting at 10 am eastern. we will be right back. right back. ent how? you sell high commission investment products, right? (fisher investments) nope. fisher avoids them. (other money manager) well, you must earn commissions on trades. (fisher investments) never at fisher. (other money manager) ok, then you probably sneak in some hidden and layered fees. (fisher investments) no. we structure our fees so we do better when our clients do better. that might be why most of our clients come from other money managers. at fisher investments, we're clearly different. when you have chronic kidney disease... ...there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here. not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪ 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, life-threatening 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, it's time to ask your doctor for farxiga. because there are places you want to be. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪ meet the traveling trio. the thrill seeker. the soul searcher. and - ahoy! it's the explorer! each helping to protect their money with chase. woah, a lost card isn't keeping this thrill seeker down. lost her card, not the vibe. the soul searcher, is finding his identity, and helping to protect it. hey! oh yeah, the explorer! she's looking to dive deeper... all while chase looks out for her. because these friends have chase. alerts that help check. tools that help protect. one bank that puts you in control. chase. make more of what's yours. >> this week, the supreme court unveiled a new formal code of conduct in response to months -- ethics laps by justices. this non binding code, a historic first for the high court, outlines rules and principles for the justices conduct, and mainly codifies rules that other federal judges already follow. but the new code is also notable for what it lacks, an actual enforcement mechanism or penalty. it leaves a lot up to the justice's discretion, raising questions about its potential effectiveness and its purpose. some legal scholars have gone as far as to dismiss the new one executive branch watchdogst slammed it as a toothless pr stunt. the adoption of this code comes after months of public pressure, owing several reports, following several reports in the spring, exposing allegations of improper gifts and trips received by justices clarence thomas and samuel alito from wealthy donors and businessmen. for years, the supreme court has struggled with a deficit in public trust. a reah center poll from delight say that only 44% of americans have a favorable view of the court, 54% have an unfavorable view. acknowledging this public dissatisfaction in its opening paragraph, the code attempts to dispel what it calls any quote, misunderstanding the public may have about the justices, end quote. for more on this, i'm joined by melissa murray, law professor at nyu, msnbc legal analyst, and former law clerk to then judge -- she's the host of strict scrutiny podcast as well. also with us is dahlia lithwick, senior editor for -- and host of a podcast. she's also the author of the new york times bestselling book lady justice, women, the law, and the battle to save america. good morning to both of you, thank you for being with us. this is a topic we've all discussed, a few times. and i was dying to hear both of your comments on this. i'm gonna start with you, julia. what's your sense of this code of conduct? what's new in it, and is it, as some say, toothless? >> i mean, i think the best thing i can say is that you may recall last spring, when the pressure was heating up, ali, for something to be done. the justices signed up on a document that was essentially a cut and paste pdf of all the stuff that we kind of think we fall on already. and this looks like that again. it's just now it comes in a different format, with a statement up front. so as you said at the jump, this is nothing new. and to the extent that there is new material here, it softens a lot of the lower judges codes, takes away things like must and shall, puts in things like knowingly, to the extent that it's trying to be reverse engineered to get the court out of trouble. it looks like it does that, and maybe the last really cynical part is that that opening declaration of why the court has chosen to adopt these new rules, begins by blaming us. the problem is not the justices misunderstanding. it's that we don't understand, and so when you use the word gaslighting, the idea that all the confusion and bad feeling isn't because of the trips and the fishing trips and the rv and the paying for moms rent, it's that we don't understand. >> i would ask you the same question, but i'm going to add to it. the center for american progress, which put out a warning to say that this might actually encourage and propriety. it says in effect, this new code does nothing to alleviate the ethics issues played in the court. rather, the supposed advancement in supreme court ethics creates a system of permission by omission. by not strictly prohibiting these activities, the supreme court is giving the veneer of acceptability, which plays off of something that julio was just saying. give me your analysis of what this is, and whether we may have created more of a problem then we're solving, because we're saying actually, this stuff that we've been complaining and reporting about is not prohibitive behavior. >> so, i love that the center for american progress essentially put a trigger warning on this so-called code of ethics. i think that's exactly right. what this does is effectively codify all of the things that the justices have been doing, that have raised these concerns. so, it doesn't prohibit them from accepting gifts, it doesn't impose strict limits on gifts that they can accept, it actually makes it okay for them to continue to accept gifts. basically, a codification of all of the things that they've been doing. as delia says, there's no enforcement mechanism here, so it's up to the justices to police themselves with regard to the recusal rules. it does specify some situations in which recusal would be -- but it also leaves that decision to the justices themselves, and also notes that on a nine member body, the fact of recruiters al may actually be really complicated, because it could take two situations that the court won't be fully staffed, or that people might actually engineer circumstances weather is a -- so that individual justice might recuse. so this is pretty weak sauce, i would say, all around. the only thing i can say that's good about it is the fact that they did this shows that the public pressure that has been put on the court to actually get in line is having some impact. they are not isolated in their ivory tower, they know that we're talking about them, and they should know, because you are right. the public has lost faith with this court. >> julia, i want to ask you a question. i'm an economics guy, so this one caught my attention. under the financial activity section, they actually eliminated a provision. there was a provision that used to say, quote, as soon as the judge can do so, without serious financial detriment, the judge should divest investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification, and quote. that's gone. that's not in here. which is kind -- of this all started about the idea that maybe you're getting some kind of financial gain, or you're getting something in lieu of money that could influence you. i'm not sure how to interpret that. >> i think that what your reacting to is the sort of two edged problem we've had all along, which is judges are not supposed to sit on any case, in which again, this is supposed to be an objective test. it's not what the justices feelings are, it's supposed to be the appearance of impropriety, it's supposed to be what you and melissa and i think looks hanky. and the cure for that was meant to be a, don't do it, and be, if you do, it disclosed. if you've got financial interests, disclose what they are. and the problem we've seen over the many years, and this goes on for a long time, is that justices don't always tell us why they're recusing. they don't always disclose their investments, so we have this twin problem of misconduct, or refusing to remove yourself from cases, and the double problem of not telling us about it. not telling us about what should be required in the disclosure rules. so i think your very right. we have a problem, which is we assume they're going to act impeccably, and that we assume they're going to tell us when they're on the edge. neither of those things have happened, and as you i think just intimated, they've made it easier for the second thing to not happen. >> to not happen. i want to take a quick break. come back and talk to you about some of the actual court cases that the court is going to face, and the impact that one up on both of us. i ask you to just stick around, marissa murray and julia lithwick, we're coming right back after this break. lithwick, we're coming right back after this break. back after this break. honey... dayquil severe honey. powerful cold and flu symptom relief with a honey-licious taste. because life doesn't stop for a cold. dayquil honey, the daytime, coughing, aching, stuffy head, fever, honey-licious, power through your day, medicine. (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro, your husband deserves it! ♪ honey-licious, power through your day, (mom) carolers? to tell me you want a new iphone? a better plan is verizon. (dad) no way they'd take this wreck. (carolers) ♪ yes, they will, in any condition. ♪ ♪ get iphone 15 pro and ipad and apple watch - all on them! ♪ (mom) please forgive him. (carolers) ♪ it's all good - just a little awkward. ♪ (soloist) think we'll wrap this up. (vo) black friday starts now. turn any iphone in any condition into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium and ipad and apple watch se - all on us. that's up to $1700 in value. it's holiday every day, with verizon. with the freestyle libre 2 system, know your glucose level and where it's headed. no fingersticks needed. manage your diabetes with more confidence. freestyle libre 2. try it for free at freestylelibre.us >> the idea that the most powerful office in the land, described over and over again in the constitution, as an office under the united states, should be exempt, would make the constitution into a sick joke. what is it? it's an office over the constitution, rather than under. that's apparently what donald trump thinks. he has said he would terminate the constitution. in fact, the net result of this holding is that all underlings are bound by this disqualifying oath, but because donald trump used the words as the constitution requires him to use, preserve, protect, and defend, and didn't use the word support, we can treat him as having taken the oath with his fingers crossed. >> >> back with me, melissa murray, professor of law at and what, you duluth, wake senior editor. i have remarkably interesting conversation with judge luttig and lawrence tribe this morning, much of which i had trouble following because these are some specific nuances in the law. but it is interesting that this judge in the colorado case discussing the 14th amendment section three came to a few different conclusions. one is that donald trump is an answer arsonist, number two is that section three of the 14th amendment doesn't enumerate the president at one of those officeholders, who would be disqualified for doing -- for an insurrection against the constitution, and number three, that the presidents oath is slightly different from all other federal officials who swear to support the constitution. both of my esteemed guests had trouble without ruling. they felt that it was, in judge luttig's words, sort of a frivolous parsing of the words. what's your sense of it? >> i really feel for this colorado judge, who is faced with a truly unprecedented situation, and again, made a very damning conclusion that donald trump was an insurrectionist. but noted that she wasn't sure that the text of the 14th amendment actually disqualified him from future office holding, because it doesn't actually specify that among the individuals who would be disqualified for not supporting the constitution, or for going against the constitution, was the president of the united states. that might be because the right fires of the port amendment could not contemplate a scenario in which a president of the united states would lead a charge against the country itself and the peaceful transfer of power. but again, given how delicate the situation is and the unprecedented nature, it seems like this judge veered on the side of caution. now obviously, this can be appealed, another judge might think about this differently. this could go all the way to the supreme court for their views on how to interpret this. but, it just seems like a very absurd and literal reading of the text of the constitution, as opposed to the spirit of it. >> one of the things, julia, that judge luttig says, because he's one of those people in america that still has good faith in what will happen at the supreme court, he said that the supreme court is not likely to -- if this gets to the supreme court, he said this is not a thing for the supreme court is going to be hung up on, the difference in the wording between the presidents oath, which says he's there to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, and the federal employee out that says they're there to support and defend the constitution. your thoughts? >> it's interesting, just listening to melissa and not just thinking about the -- ruling, but the michigan ruling and the minnesota ruling. we have courts around the country who have a humility problem. their problem is in one version or another, they say to themselves, look, it's not on me to take this guy off the ballot. this is kind of too big a question. so, there is a real paradox here, if you think about the fact that when we went through the impeachment process, we heard lots of political actors saying, no, this is not something we should do in the political branches. if you want to bring a criminal case or if you want to bring a case under some theory that donald trump should be removed, do it in the courts. we're seeing it done in the courts, and we're having officers -- as melissa says, we feel for them. they don't want to be disqualifying a president from the presidential election. but i think that sort of asymmetry between the humility and the and nobody of the problem is one of the things that's hanging us up. and i think my answer to your question is, thank goodness the u.s. supreme court does not have a humility problem. it absolutely -- that it can be the decider here, and i think that i agree with judge luttig, that if and when this comes to the u.s. supreme court, whatever it is that they used to triangulate how they're going to design this very novel constitutional question, is not going to be in, who me, how can i do this? it's too big for me. >> what do you make of the first part of the judges determination that donald trump is an insurrectionist? both looted and tribe thought that is important, is it relevant to any of the other stuff that donald trump faces? >> i don't know that it's necessarily relevant or it can't be admitted into evidence in any of the criminal cases that are ongoing around the country. but, it's sort of again speaks to the public perception. this is someone