are inherent in marbury versus madison are like delivering a seal when requested, because there is a separate statute, and the secretary of the state had two of the hats on and he was on one hand the direct agent of the president, and that could never be examinable by the courts, but on the other hand, the original statute had imposed all of the purely ministerial duties that had to do with the recordkeeping and delivering of documents and if you had a land deed that had a seal on it, and the person asked for it no, discretion at all, but the take-care clause, there is no statute that could impose on the president, a, a mandatory duty to engage, and the notion that when the president is meeting with the department of justice and enforce federal fraud statutes and that being ministerial strikes me as insupportable. well, i think that you are missing what i am asking. which is, i think that it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be fait
along with analysts chuck rosenberg and lisa rubin. what can we expect based on arguments put forward in advance by both sides? reporter: to set the scene, because donald trump is here in person the security has really been ramped up. there s a much greater police presence. in terms of in the courtroom, this is a long shot for donald trump, this idea that a former president can t be prosecuted for any acts whited while serving in offense, it s belied by the fact that gerald ford pardoned richard nixon. this three-judge panel is an all-female panel with two judges appointed by president biden and one appointed by former president george h.w. bush. in addition to arguing immunity, trump lawyers are also making the argument that this produce is improper under double jeopardy. ken, i need to interrupt you because the hearing is starting. let s listen in right now. our jurisdiction was challenged by an amicus. you are not questioning our collateral order jurisdiction? [indis
that judge pan set out, but with respect to the immunity and given the language in rose it would supply the basis for the court to apply the immunity claim. why aren t you taking position that we should dismiss this appeal because of the interlocutory, because it should advance your interests? our interests are twofold as in the united states versus nixon, it is doing justice and in the second, it is indeed to move promptly to satisfy and vindicate the public and defendant s resolution of the trial, but doing justice means to get the law right, and it is our view that even if a dismissal on the jurisdiction might move this case faster and empirically, it is hard to know, but it is not the right analysis on immunity or the second claim. we have a line of cases including cramer versus gates and american hospital association versus azar, and it says that we can assume
language in rose that would supply basis for this court to entertain the immunity claim. now why aren t you taking the position that we should dismiss this appeal because it is interlocutory? doesn t that advance your interests? our interests are two fold. one, as the united states versus nixon it is doing justice. and second is indeed to move promptly to satisfy and vindicate the public s and the defendant s interest in a prompt resolution of this trial. but doing justice means getting the law right, and it is our view that even if a dismissal on jurisdiction might move this case faster, that s hard to know, we just don t think that s the right analysis here on either immunity or the second claim. we have a line of cases including cramer versus gates and american hospital association versus azar, it says we can assume hypothetical statutory jurisdiction and reach the merits of a case.