this is a historic moment for the united states supreme court and for american democracy. the justices about to consider whether donald trump is constitutionally barred from being president again. we ll hear the unprecedented arguments and the court s responses live. welcome to cnn s special live coverage of the trump ballot battle at the u.s. supreme court. i m kaitlan collins live outside the supreme court. and i m jake tapper. the nation s highest court will review this landmark case. the division by colorado s supreme court to disqualify former president trump from the 2024 ballot based on what some call the insurrectionist ban 12349th amendment to the u.s. constitution. today the nine justices, three of them nominated by trump, are poised to have the most direct impact on a presidential election since the supreme court decided bush v. gore nearly a quarter sentry ago. now among the questions before the highest court in the land today, did trump incite an insurrecti
fraud. stone may regret letting the cameras roll in that room. there is new video from that session and we have it for you exclusively later tonight. we begin with news on a story that i can tell you some on the right are hoping the nation forgets. the kind of story they re hoping that you news viewers and citizens will forget because we live in a time of growing inequality and corruption. take supreme court justice thomas blatant taking and grifting gifts from insiders, or billionaires, shaping our politics and clashing with anyone who dares disagree with the power they think they bought over our democracy, or this ongoing rolling trumpian takeover of a political party which has resulted in rallying the gop around rank, transactional calculus, self-interest as a kind of new norm to be minimized or even defended. and i ll tell you this as introduction to some really important stuff we re about to show you. the modern republican party has long embraced capitalism, sure. bu
achieve a, quote, major break through. they re building up an extensive system of trenches in the south. tell us what you re seeing. yeah, there has been an extraordinary network dug possibly according to this british intelligence report the largest we ve seen since world war ii across the southern area of vap wreegsa and we ve driven along the ucrayian side of it for quite a past number of weeks here. often these are deep trenches followed by a significant sand back backed up by razor wire and these dragons teeth peer med shaped pieces of concrete form a complex set of defenses but certainly a challenge. there ll be very much in the mind of ukrainian forces as they probably in the days ahead if not already in the days behind begin the counter offensive in these areas. we simply don t know the full details of their plan to be honest, and weather is potentially playing into it. there s been an extraordinary lack of videos from ukrainian military over the past weeks they norm
three years. arguing about who could sue. finally we got the plaintiff s standing. let me jump in there. i mention the questions people ask. there s a famous adage from dick cheney, if you really want to kill something in government, you don t say no. you say later. no is appealable and it flushes out the debate. and later, you buy time and later becomes an endless no. you mentioned the suits you re involved in. i mentioned how long this took. the house democrats here through this process got this. voters can weigh it. what do you say to the question of why it took so long? and if it is against the constitution, what if anything is the remedy or deterrent for it not happening again? the problem is there s no enforcement clause in the constitution. it s not criminal. it should be. and it is a cheap white house
boxes from pushing their children down certain routes that maybe the child does not want to go. but being certain there s transparency on those algorithms that as you mentioned that duty of care that is there. those are just primary components of this legislation. senator blumenthal, this new version of the bill still includes the enforcement clause that reads in part, quote, in any case in which the attorney general of a state has reason to believe that an interest of the residence of that is or threatened effective by the engagement of any person in a person the state may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the state. i have to say, senator, you might have a lot more faith in state attorneys generals than i do, but this really allows state attorneys generals, which generally speaking are elected officials no offense to