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
these are about affirmative action. we re live outside of the court. plus opening statements in the criminal trial against the trump organization. we ll look at those charges against the former president trump s personal business. and the man accused of attacking nancy pelosi s husband will be charged. what he brought with him when he broke into the speaker s home. but the supreme court will begin hearing oral arguments as can considers two cases on affirmative action in higher education. jessica schneider joins us now now. the supreme court has upheld affirmative action but it could be banned nationwide. all eyes and ears are on the conservative justices because it is very likely they will in fact ban affirmative action in particular the chief justice here john roberts has been outspoken about racial issues in many cases in past years. he put it this way in one of the cases. he said the only way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on
Never lost? well, i don t think it is immunity at that point. this court will in what i have described have said that there is no immunity and maybe some other types of challenges as evidence comes in at trial, but again, that would lead to this extraordinarily complicated litigation that is not the top line reason, but among the reasons that the courts should not go down that path. since president trump concedes that he can be criminally prosecuted in some circumstances if he is first impeached and convicted by congress, do you agree that this appeal largely boils down to whether he is correct in his interpretation of the impeachment judgment clause, and that is, if he is correct that the impeachment judgment clause includes this impeachment first rule, then he wins, and if he is wrong, and if we think that the
Lost. well, i don t think it is immunity at that point. i think this court will in what i described will have said there is no immunity. there may be some types of other challenges as evidence comes into trial. but i think that would lead to this extraordinarily complicated litigation that is not the top line reason, but certainly among the reasons why the court should not go down that path. since president trump concedes that a president can be criminally prosecuted under some circumstances, he says that that is true only if he is first impeached and convicted by congress, do you agree that this appeal largely boils down to whether he s correct in his interpretation of the impeachment judgment clause, that is if he s correct, that the impeachment judgment clause includes this impeachment first rule, then he wins, and if he s wrong, if we think the impeachment judgment clause does not contain an impeachment first