and i expect to see a ruling within a week or two of that. paula, i want you to go through some of the major questions the supreme court could actually weigh in on. yeah, that s one of the big mysteries tonight, right. they didn t really clarify for us what questions they re going to entertain, but we know from the briefs, both from former president trump and colorado who submitted their own requests. first is section 3 of the 14th amendment, whether it applies to presidents. as i said earlier it is a question that divided judges even within the same state. the other question is, all right, how does that operate? is that something the states should be deciding? what is the rule of the courts or is there a rule for congress? now, there s also this question of did former president trump engage in an insurrection. as one of the other panelists said earlier it is highly unlikely they will want to wade into that. instead, they will likely focus on the constitutional question. look, ther
of trump s argument that the maine secretary of state, we just heard her, was politically biased against him? i think that s probably the least-effective argument he ll make in the courts of this proceeding. the court is unlikely to take that into great consideration. the maine secretary of state serves i think at the discretion of the governor. she was appointed in her position. most folks in those positions have political affiliations. i don t think any of those indicators undermine her decision. but it s the questions of process, the questions of what is the sort of due process that he was entitled to in this according to what s happened in maine, and was that standard met? that s the more substantive and potential more effective argument. marcus quhild recess, in his appeal trump s attorneys write this. section 3 of the 14th amendment to the constitution does not apply to president trump. he has never served as an officer of the united states and has never taken an oath to s
authority, making multiple errors of law and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. her decision was based on section 3 of the 14th amendment of the u.s. constitution, which bars insurrectionists from holding public office. but this section of the constitution has now been litigated by multiple states across the country with varying outcomes. maine and colorado have opted to remove trump from the ballot under the section, but other states actually have been reluctant to really get into the merits here, instead relying on procedural arguments and opting to keep him on the ballot. wolf that also leaves the door open to continue to litigate this issue in the general election unless the supreme court steps in, and we still expect that former president trump will eventually appeal that colorado decision to the supreme court. so paula, how could this unfold when trump takes this to the u.s. supreme court? reporter: the big question is, when is he going to take it to the supreme co
and shed some light on this. the question is whether they will go with the maybe easier, more narrow solution of making a narrow judgment on procedural grounds or whether they ll go directly at the substantive issues. interesting. marcus, what do you think? how s your reaction to that? i agree with everything you said. we forecasted this issue on the committee. thinking beyond supreme court in 2024, one of our recommendations in a bill congressman raskin put forth was establishing standards and procedures for evaluating section 3 of the 14th amendment because we were foreseeing there wasn t enough clarity. although we did believe he was disqualified under section 3 of the 14th amendment. i imagine congress might be looking into this. what s the procedure? what s the right court? what s the right venue to evaluate these types of challenges to elected officials in the future? carrie? interesting question that plays into one of the issues before the supreme court, whether or not s
challenge this. i think one of the big questions that goes across the maine case, as well as the colorado case, is the record that is established by these states in determining that the former president was engaged in insurrection. one of the things that the maine secretary of state pointed out in her finding was that the record made that factual finding. but there was no actual proceeding in maine. it was just based on her assessment of the facts as are in really the public record. different than the colorado case, where there was a trial. it was short, it was limited, but there was some sort of judicial proceeding. i think in some ways, one of the issues the supreme court may need to look at when these cases all eventually get up there is what factual record under section 3 of the 14th amendment of the constitution is required to determine that someone who might be determined ineligible under that provision actually engaged in insurrection. good point. andrew mccabe, what do you ma