Especially in arizona, the expansion of the great economy, especially when it comes to the chips act. We are not there yet. Theres still a lot of costs that we have to bring down. Housing and other things and we are going to be able to do that and the administration with me as a senator are going to work and do that for every day arizonas. Thank you very much, we appreciate it. Alex wagner tonight starts right now. Thank you, friend, good to see you again. Thanks for joining me. Donald trump is now the Presumptive Republican nominee for president. His only opponent in this race, former governor nikki haley, had vowed to stay in the race through Super Tuesday and this morning, after only winning the state of vermont and the city of washington, d. C. , nikki haley dropped out. Now, if there was anything truly significant about haleys campaign, it was the degree to which it was a symbol of dissatisfaction with donald trump. Yes, nikki haley talked about the deficit and advocated for congr
Today, in a unanimous decision, the justices ruled that its not up to states to bar trump from their ballots under the 14th Amendment, so he gets to stay on the ballot in colorado, where the primary is tomorrow, maine, and illinois. They cant kick him off either. This decision is significant because the Supreme Court has never had to rule before on whether or not states have the power to disqualify a candidate, even an insurrectionist. This outcome is not necessarily surprising. The moment most legal experts heard the Oral Arguments and, specifically the back and forth with the justices, most of them predicted the court wouldnt take the step of barring the republican front runner from the ballot, that they would find a way out, and they did. Now, would a different outcome have sent a stronger message that you cannot foment an insurrection and be allowed to run for federal office . Yes, it would have. Would it be better for the prospects of president bidens reelection if donald trump go
From their ballots under the 14th Amendment, so he gets to stay on the ballot in colorado, where the primary is tomorrow, maine, and illinois cant kick him off either. This decision is significant because the Supreme Court has never had to rule before on whether or not states have the power to disqualify a candidate, even an insurrectionist. This outcome is not necessarily surprising. The moment most legal experts heard the Oral Arguments and, specifically the back and forth with the justices, most of them predicted the court wouldnt take the step of barring the republican front runner from the ballot, that they would find a way out, and they did. Now, would a different outcome have sent a stronger message that you cannot foment an insurrection and be allowed to run for federal office . Yes, it would have. Would it be better for the prospects of president bidens reelection if donald trump got kicked off the ballot given the fact that he attempted to overturn the last election . Yes, th
repercussions for the election this year and also for the future of american democracy. it is arguably the most important election case to reach the supreme court since bush v gore nearly a quarter century ago. the question before the court is pretty simple actually. does section 3 of the 14th amendment, which bars, quote, an officer of the united states who, quote, engaged in insurrection from holding public office actually apply to the man who incited the january 6th riot, who tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power for the first time since the civil war. the colorado state supreme court has already ruled that, yes, trump should be barred from the ballot in that state based on the insurrection that he clearly engaged in. quote, president trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under section 3 because he is disqualified it would be a wrongful act under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot
ago, actually, we got a pretty good window into how trump s legal team plans to make their arguments. and let me tell you, this brief, i read it today, it includes a fair number of arguments from an alternate universe. for starters, trump s lawyers claim that the former president is not in fact and officer of the united states, which is who the 14th amendment covers. now, this is not a new or surprising argument necessarily being made by the trump team. but let s be real. it kind of defies logic. i mean, how could it be that the president of the united states is not an officer of the united states with an obligation, by the way, to abide by the constitution. it s kind of what the founders had in mind. but then, there s the other, perhaps even more startling piece, at least to me, of revisionist history that is included in this brief, that donald trump did not engage in an insurrection. in fact, according to the argument here, it was not an insurrection at all. the brief actua