than $178 million worldwide. that is far more than the first chapter of the dun dun which earned just $41 million domestically when opened in october 2021, warner brothers pictures, which distributed the film along with cnn, are owned by warner brothers discovery we all like sand worms >> so killed. you guys are weird thanks so much for joining us. this is cnn news central, cnn newsroom, jim acosta, up next >> cnn breaking news good morning. >> you were alive in the cnn newsroom. i'm jim acosta in washington. and at any moment, the supreme court may release a major decision with major implications for the 2024 presidential election. less than 24 hours before the colorado primary, the nation's highest

election. some state election officials have objected to trump collation of the constitution's 14th amendment, which bars any person who engaged in a rebellion or insurrection from holding public office. let's bring in cnn chief anchor and chief political correspondent dana bash and cnn senior legal analyst, elie honig. guys, as we're waiting to see what the supreme court decides here, let's do a little bit of a pre-game because we don't want to presuppose what the supreme court is going to do but elie all weekend long were anticipating this could happen before the colorado primary as part of super tuesday and then yesterday, there was this indication from the supreme court that something's coming down, something's cooking. yeah. >> we don't know for sure that this is going to be colorado, but all indications are that it will be because the primary is tomorrow, colorado how his

voting tomorrow and it would make sense for the supreme court to decide its needs to interrupt you because i got to interrupt because we have been just told they just told me in my ear, the supreme court has handed down a ruling in the colorado ballot issue, elie, let me go back to you. so i hate to make you do this, but as were all refreshing and joan biskupic because onset with us as well we have other folks over the supreme court right now, laura coates, paula reid, were all refreshing to read through this just to make sure dana bash that we don't add 2.2 and get 22. but elie, you were just saying a few moments. >> so this excuse me. this is the 14th amendment ruling out of colorado, trump versus anderson, one of the big things that we're looking for, of course first of all, how do they rule? now, if we list, we listened to the oral argument, it sounds likely they're going to side with donald trump. it sounded like they were going to rule that he's not disqualified. so number one, how do they actually rule? and number two, how narrowly or broadly do they rule? do they rule in a way that will be narrowly confined to colorado or will they rule in a way that's brought on and off that will settle this issue across

the entire country. yeah. all right. and i want to go to laura coats, who is over at the supreme court this is moving fairly quickly. laura, what do we know right now? >> a really consequential decision has just been handed down. paula reid, the court has made a decision. >> this is a win for former president trump here the supreme court has reversed first a ruling from the colorado supreme court that would have removed former president trump from the ballot under section three of the 14th amendment, the so-called insurrectionist ban. now, this is very much what we expected based on what we saw about a month ago during oral arguments, justices on both sides of the aisle appeared skeptical of colorado's argument that trump could be removed by the state under the 14th amendment. so this is a huge win. it means that former president trump will appear on the primary ballot. and this applies not only to colorado, but also to states across the country, because as we've seen, many states have tried this way of moving, removing trump from the ballot. it was considered a novel, long shot way to bump

trump out of out of eligibility for the white house. but we've only seen colorado, maine, and illinois actually remove him. but here the supreme court as the final word on constitutional questions saying no it's up to congress, not the states to do this. so an enormous win for former president trump is is so significant, paula, we knew in the two-and-a-half-hour argument that was had that they were they were leaving in this direction. they asked the question, is you remember the moment in time of why should colorado be the one to decide for the rest of the nation a matter of such consequence. and there were some pushed back on whether a state could actually do this. it same time, they want congress to actually make the decision because of ambiguity, maybe a little bit vagueness, but this is very important because he was already sold on the ballot, as you know. but the idea of them saying this is for congress to look at, not us it means they don't want politics and the supreme court right now, that's exactly right. and even though i'm sure they'd love to avoid all of these trump-related cases. this is the first of at least, at least two big trump related cases. they're taking down because

immunity is still on the horizon. exactly in the o mount than a half, we'll be back on april 22. they're going to hear oral arguments about whether former president trump has immunity to protect him from the special counsel's federal election subversion case. but let's look at the timing here, right? it was almost a month ago that we were here for oral arguments. this was a case that they were considering on an expedited basis. i don't know about you, but i was a little surprised that it took them a month to unanimously do what we expected them to do, especially because they typically that very quickly. it wasn't that they were in the case in immunity. they said seven weeks from now, we'll hear something in this case. they said we're going to hear it pretty quickly. they had a pretty easy turnaround. >> but >> this is the day before super tuesday as well. he's already on the ballot. as you mentioned, other states are wanting to see if they have a leg to stand on here. but hello, the idea that supreme court was going to make this decision was not so shocking, but they took that case up in the first instance or some was surprising. >> it was surprising because so many people thought this was such a novel legal theory that

you weren't really going to successfully be able to remove trump based on this obscure provision of the 14th amendment that was enacted after the civil war but then we saw in this state of colorado, even the courts within that state were split on whether this apply to presidents. but once you've got that supreme court, colorado ruling that removed him, it really seemed inevitable that the supreme court would have to take this up because even in states that a try this and they didn't remove him, they left the door open and without the supreme court clarifying this question, we would likely see litigation and arguably a lot of chaos and confusion throughout the presidential contest. so this also of course, applies to the general election for anyone that's confused, former president trump will appear on primary ballots and cmyk, he is the nominee as we expect them to be on the general election ballot. very much expected, but an enormous win for the former president. it really is. and remember to go back, it was a trial court in colorado who made a finding surrounding insurrection without having actual jury trial. he has not been charged with insurrection

not been convicted of insurrection in a criminal proceeding. the colorado supreme court was the one that say yes, actually, he did. he should be removed from insurrect from the actual ballot. now, paula, though, this is going to suggest that because there's been no finding, there's been no ruling or conviction. this might stand across the nation. >> yeah, that's what we expect that this will be the final word because again, when you start even within the state of colorado, the courts didn't agree, but the highest court did remove him. we also saw in maine they removed but an illinois as well. but one of the many arguments that trump's lawyers made when they were here at the supreme court is that they insist that he didn't engage in an insurrection. and as you remember, the justices kind of stayed away from a mentioning the former president's name. but also this larger question of insurrection instead, it appears that they focus more on whose role is it to determine who gets removed from a balance? but in here, not surprisingly, they determined that it is congress, not the states that can remove potential candidates from the ballot. >> jim, a really consequential moment today, the supreme court finding that he should still be on the ballot will still be on

the balance, not been disqualified. and again, they found the exit ramp that's many thought they were looking for. it was apparent yeah, absolutely. >> laura and paula and they're doing this on the eve of super tuesday, which makes sense. i guess i guess gives us some sense that the supreme court is looking at the political calendar, not just the legal calendar. >> all right. laura and paula. thank you. let me go. joan biskupic is on set with this as well as dana bash and elie honig joan, your sense of this? >> well, first of all, it's 90 to reverse the colorado supreme court. so former president donald trump will remain on the ballot and other state ballots. but the justices actually split on how far to go the majority decision written as a per curiam likely by the chief justice of the united states, because it's unsigned gives much more authority to congress about when someone should be disqualified and justices barrett, justice, and then the three liberals writes separately. and what's key

here, it is, justices i'm listening to two different things. excuse me. a second >> seem to two different conversations, but i'll listen to our its first >> okay. this is an important part that even though they came out and gave us something unanimous, that's very useful in the political scheme, especially for tomorrow, for super tuesday. it shows how divided this for important still is because the three liberals broke off and said, you majority are going too far in terms of how you would dictate the rules for future disqualifications and again, it was a three liberal specifically writing i less justices sotomayor, sonia sotomayor, elena kagan, and our newest justice, ketanji brown jackson. now, justice barrett, one donald trump's appointees. the third one, in fact, split off a bit also, but not joining the liberals. >> interesting and aly, i'm just wondering read, it looks like page 13 of those it says for the reasons given responsibility for enforcing section three against federal office holders and candidates rests with congress and not the

states, right? the judgment the colorado supreme court therefore cannot stand. so they're saying essentially that congress has to make this decision >> whether there >> are insurrectionist who need to be kept off of ballots. is that essentially what they're saying? essentially what they're saying is it's up to congress to tell us how this works. so if congress had, let's say 50 years ago, congress had passed a law saying, we're going to let the states do it, so long as they they abide by due process, then what colorado did would have been fine, but congress has done essentially nothing in the 150 years since the 14th amendment was ratified. in 18, 68. now, i want to make sure people understand this. it's a very important feature of this decision. there is no substantive discussion in here by the supreme court of whether donald trump did for, did not engage in insurrection. interesting, there is no conversation about what the meaning of his words at the rally were or what happened inside the capital or any of donald trump's actions. that's not what the supreme court has done here. that's not what the supreme court typically does. this is a procedural legalistic

decision. and essentially if i had to boil it down to one sentence, it would be it's up to congress, not the individual didn't want a big messy situation where all the states goes over there and that sort of thing. the word i circled in >> this decision is quote, patchwork. they said we don't want a patchwork or one states doing one thing, and another states don't another. >> but you know, donald trump better than most covered him for many many leaders, many years as a reporter covering him as a politician and as a figure who takes things and we'll turn them the way that he wants america and the world to see them. >> i will be shocked if donald trump doesn't, as soon as he can get out there and argue, not only that the supreme court is behind him, but he's probably going to argue, even though there's nothing in here that specifically says, as elie reportedly pointed out anything about what happened on january 6, it's just procedural about whether the states or congress have a right. he will claim

victory and i'm guessing he will do it in a more broad way than this decision actually says. yeah. and joan, i mean, there i mean, there are countless americans out there who believed that the supreme court just bailed out donald trump here, and they're going to bail them. they might bail well amount again, on the immunity issue, which i know a lot of folks feel like that's not going to happen, but the fact that that can got kicked down the road means that the january 6 trial may not happen >> that's what federal courts. so what you're referring to there is the fact that the justices have scheduled an oral argument for the week of april 22 on whether donald trump should be immune from criminal prosecution. qin for election subversion. but let me just tell you was concerned the three liberals about this ruling and how far the majority went. and just read it now, it's their concern was that the majority went further than they needed for this particular case, and essentially is over favoring donald trump. ultimately, under the guise of providing a more quote,

complete explanation for the judgment, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about section three. that section three of the 14th amendment, the anti-insurrection span it forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an by an insurrectionist and raises the fence on that score. i mean, it's the language hints of what's happening with donald trump right now. so i think that's their concern is that fuller majority has gone further. now, this is a concurrence just so you know, so the all nine have signed onto the basic principle, reversing the colorado supreme court and keeping him on the ballot. it's just about what happens down the road. >> can i just add one thing? absolutely. yes kind of to bring it up a few thousand feet politically this was considered by a lot of democrats as too big of a swing to be taken by the groups that filed these suits in these states remember

a lot of states, even those who are run by democrats, where the secretaries of state are democrats they said to the people in their states who were trying to get donald trump off the ballot, like michigan, for example. we're not going to do that this is not something some of them said. it's because of the state law, but others just said that this is not the right way to go. that was not the case in colorado. and in maine, and then just recently in illinois and even though there are some constitutional scholars, jamie raskin is one of them, the congressman from maryland who said that this is an appropriate avenue. others said, no. let's this is never mind the legal part of it, just politically denying voters the right to vote for the person who their party says is there nominate is just bad politics. never mind the legal side of it. >> and elie, you wanted to just a quick point. >> the scope of this ruling

will essentially end all the 14th amendment challenges. the one, the ones fain, what we heard about just last week in illinois, they are all done at this point because of the way the supreme court put this decision together. and when we step back and look at the national landscape on this, here we have a 9-0 ruling from the supreme court, different slightly different bases as joan pointed out, but a 9-0 ruling reversing what colorado did and even before that, there were dozens of these challenges, somewhere between 20.30, depending on which you count or don't count and the success rate was very low for these 14th amendment challenges. they really only ever got any traction in those three states. but this has been rejected by state courts, by federal courts, by trial courts. but as dana mentioned by state level secretary of state i'd raffensberger, the guy on the other end of that phone call from trump, i need you to find 11,700 votes and he rejected it. so there is a very broad consensus on, again, not on whether trump committed insurrection or not, but on the legal grounds for these 14th amendment challenge. and i wanted to go out to laura

coates, who's out standing in front of the supreme court and putting the side that there are a lot of americans out there. they're just their blood is boiling over what donald trump did on january 6. what he did leading up to january 6, and they they they just think that he's just getting lead off the hook scot-free left and right but i mean, let's dive into the legal part of this because you have to put those emotions to the side and talk about what's in this ruling and what the supreme court has done one of your on page six of the opinion or it says this, we conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office, but states have no power under the constitution to enforce section three with respect to federal offices especially the presidency, it sounds like laura, what the supreme court is saying here is that colorado can't decide what hawaii and oregon and virginia and i mean, they can't just do it and have that be sort of a blanket way of doing things across the country that they can't force the hands of all of these other states it sounds like what we're talking about in

anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that, what is prickly and you're writing motions, don't run very, very high on this matter. it's also a reason people are wondering whether these supreme court cases four cases involving parent present united states are supposed to be really the panacea for everyone's woes. they are not the supreme court is deciding a specific question that is given to the actual court, paula, when you heard that comment about state staying in their lanes, that's what it means, right? that's if there's an issue in your particular state, you can go ahead and cited as relates to others. i think justice thomas, during the oral argument, made the comment of a hold on a second. should you be in charge of making decisions for every other state in the consequences, even justice kagan had a comment on this as well. and so we saw this coming, but a state deciding his state issued sounds right. but they can't do it. federal government exactly it in the opinion, they talk about what would happen if you allow to each state to decide this on their own, you'd have what they

described as a patchwork. and he said that doesn't give the appropriate deference to the national consequences of a presidential election. and that's why we needed the supreme court to step in here they will settle constitutional questions and also resolved disputes between states. this has been litigated at least two dozen times. we only have three states that have removed the former president, but we knew other states that opted not to remove him, left the door open to relitigate this, and without answering this question this would have prompted a lot of chaos and confusion throughout the election, particularly if you had different outcomes would be very confusing for people, but also want to get to jim's comment about the insurrection we saw in the oral argument, the justices didn't want to touch that question. they didn't even mention the former president's name. they did not want to get into the issue of what happened on january 6, though in a month-and-a-half we will be back here dealing with special counsel jack smith's case against the former president. the efforts to interfere in the 2020 election they will then have to look a little more

closely at that issue as they contemplate whether former president trump has immunity, that would shield him from that question. so anyone who's frustrated or feels like in your words, trump got it the way with a gauging in an insurrection, it was clear the justices in view that as being the issue here. but when we come back in late april for the special counsel's litigation over questions of immunity, they may have to revisit some of that, some things around a little closer to that issue though again, he hasn't been charged with insurrection though. he has been charged connected with his efforts to subvert the election well, that's because in that case you're talking about what constitutes an official act exactly. his actions leading up to and including january 6 will be all on display. but here they go on even more about the state specific aspect, what that was really fascinating here, the supreme court, because they are saying, look, every other state doesn't have the same rules may be in colorado, secretary of state is the one that you would sue. you try to get a result, you'd like other states might say, you know what, and allegations enough. others may say, i've

got to have a criminal prosecution and still others may not have any way to decide this issue. and so the patrick is talk about is really important here. the supreme court wants to have no confusion among the states, right? so as long as you have different states arguably different results, there is confusion and that means that the electorate cannot rely on a single guidepost and they don't want that to happen. >> and they said that if congress wants to offer some legislation to clarify this, they can do that. now i think we all know it's unlikely that that's actually going to happen or one of them things that i certainly not going forward. i've ever we're not gonna help you out with this election, but it does appear that if you look at the law, there's a lot of ambiguity. we needed the supreme court to weigh in. and you really can't have an election. were different states have different people on the ballot when it comes for the presidency. so again, not a big surprise in terms of this this decision, but it is notable that this was one of the really big concerns was this quote, patchwork really is, you think about electoral votes and how every state's decision will impact the ability to have the accumulation and beyond. it's

important and tomorrow of course, jim is super tuesday and so we know trump will be on that ballot. he will remain on other ballots. he obviously could not be taken off because they'd already been printed anyway, the supreme court is now saying that was the right call. >> all right. laura and paula. thank you very much. and we should note, trump has responded as only he can on truth, social. there it is right there as dana bash predicted, a few moments ago victory lap from the former president that being taken right now he says big win for america with me now is former trump white house lawyer and cnn legal commentator jim schultz jim, your reaction to all of this, and i guess i mean, it seems as though trump whatever you want to say about him has sort of played the legal system like a fiddle over the last couple of years. he's thrown the kitchen sink into the gears of americans judicial system. and it's panned out for him just about every step of the way. what do you agree

with this supreme court decision? what's your take on it >> well, sure. this supreme court decision was quite frankly an easy one across the board, right? you don't want states making these determinations as it goes far beyond donald trump, who was an insurrection that's what constitutes insurrection. have they been charged with a crime the past? it's work that they talk about is the important issue here, right? so you have main, for instance, where you have someone that sits in the post that makes that determination who's elected by the state legislature, not by the people, not by the not by the people of maine, but by the state legislature, which is overwhelmingly democratic. >> to have that issue. >> so khuza'a poynting these folks, how are they being whose governing these issues? he's a quarter law really going to decide these things will a person be able to face their charges? this is the patchwork that concern the court and should concern everyone. and what the court did was say,

look, this is really up to come. they need to set forth the guidelines. this is not something we should just leave up to the states to willy-nilly decide and jim, but there is no mention in this decision of whether trump qualifies as an insurrection is. a lot of americans feel that he isn't. insurrection is that he betrayed the country on january 6, he did not accept a legitimate election in this country of president biden is he an insurrectionist? >> but he is being, he's been charged with defrauding the united states government. there has not been one prosecutor in the united states important to this decision as has made a charge of insurrection including jack smith. i think jack smith put together a pretty darn good case against the foreign president on, on defrauding the united states government overturning the outcome of a valid election. it was a valid election. he attempted to over the allegations of the attempted to overcome turn it. he's got strong evidence to show it from

what we've seen from the, from the testimony through the january 6 hearings, and likely through the grand jury testimony that we're going to will become front and center in this upcoming trial. we're not going to see that trial for some time at least until this immunity defense is straightened out from the supreme court. i think the supreme court goes handedly against trump on the immunity issue and rightfully so. but i think the supreme court got it right in this instance. >> but i mean, jimmy bring up the immunity question in that hearing, apparently is going to be coming up in late april that also isn't that kind of a win for trump in that it really pushes back the january 6, the jack smith january 6 case here in washington to a point where it may not even happen in time before the general electorate. and so all of these issues that you're talking about, you're saying, well, you know, jack smith built a good case and so on. there are some fair questions in there, but we may never get to that

>> well, we may never get to it if donald trump was elected president and the case does not move forward prior to the election, right? and that's the that's the risk associated with the supreme court taking up the last that the immunity case and not instead of just doing nothing on it and letting that circuit court case fan that's going to have the impact of perhaps pushing the trial out. i believe the earliest we're going to see it as august and then you get into this. does the department of justice want to take up this case that's going to potentially impact the upcoming election. my sense is they're going to try to forge forward with that. and i'm not sure that tanya chutkan is going to judge chutkan is going to give a care about the upcoming election. she's going to want to administer justice in this case one way or the other. so i do believe that we see this priority election, but it's going to be darn close there's going to be a whole lot of controversy surrounding it, whichever decision judge cut.

chuck, it makes in terms of when this things hurt. >> and jim, what do you say to all those americans out there are watching this who are frustrated and say trump is getting away with breaking the law that he files appeal after appeal, he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him in a way that is just it just goes against what our judicial system should be about. i mean, isn't he treated differently than just about everybody else in this country? i mean, just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things. and so kingdom come well, actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system. well, that provide practical purposes. it doesn't that doesn't happen. i mean, the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out, and umpteen different cases across the country fair enough. >> it's a wreath. if you're talking about resources, yes. the average person can't take the case beginning to end

through the united states supreme court >> donald trump does, right? and he can avail himself of that, of those rights. but also i think jim, the important thing here is these cases took a long from time to break, right? so this comes right back. jack smith's case didn't happen overnight. we went through an entire months of the jan. sixth hearings, grand jury testimony, and then finally indict an indictment pretty late in the game. so they knew when they when they when they brought this indictment, that they were gonna be up against it on a timeline and that there were going to be appeals in both interlocutory appeals, which are intermediate appeals that could be immediately taken up to the supreme court and then appeals after the fact after judgments rendered. so it's part of the process the justice system doesn't spin fast. this one in particular, though, given where jack smith's case was when it was filed, is probably moving along faster than most other federal

cases. he in philadelphia, we have we have a number of criminal trials. would it be going on for four or five criminal cases that going on? for four or five years in the political corruption room >> all right. jim schultz. thank you very much. i want to go back to joan, who's onset with us, joan, you wanted to weigh in on something? >> i did. do you know? i had mentioned earlier about how the three liberals broke off in a concurrence. and justice barrett responded to them this opinion by the majority sweep, so broadly against federal office holders in the future and any presidential candidate is that effectively make sure that donald trump would never be held accountable under this provision. and probably no one else down the line. but what happened because of how broadly they swept is that the three liberal justices, sonia sotomayor, elena kagan, and ketanji brown jackson wrote about an oath-breaking insurrectionists. they incited that kind of a phrase, not specifically naming trump as one, but certainly the tone is

there and straightened enough that justice barrett, when she wrote separately, even though she didn't agree with how far the majority was going, she said, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. we should be taking the temperature down rather than bringing it up but you can see why the liberals don't know by the way, does not believe in raises the temperature, will justices wanted to send a message? ditch that they this ruling was inevitable, you know, the colorado supreme court was really an outlier with what it did that under any scenario, the liberals did not want to go this far and give states this kind of power, but they did not want to have a really open-ended invitation for dominance. >> to that >> no, ellie and i were just the first sentence of what justices sotomayor kagan and jackson says it's a quote threw up, basically throwing the dobbs decision in the face of their fellow justices. yeah.

why do you think if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case? than it is necessary not to decide more, meaning. i mean, my translation of that is okay, so you can do it narrowly in dobbs, but not in this point. that's all right. i mean, it's bringing up all the old wound. yeah. right. in this one, they also cite bush versus gore. yeah. i mean, that's that's pretty loaded, but it's important for people to understand this is a nine to zero ruling. it, okay, so all nine justices agreed colorado cannot do it the way they did it. the states cannot do it. the point of disagreement and joan correct me if i'm getting this wrong, this is a fast read. is the majority, the six justices, other than the three liberals, say only congress, the only way this can work as if congress passes a law saying, here's how we will determine whether someone is or is not an insurrectionist. >> the three >> liberal say, you didn't have to go that far. it would've been enough to just say states can't do it. and then let everyone else figure out how to do it. i mean, essentially the liberal side,

there could be other ways that this could be enforced by the states other than if congress gives them permission. so basically, what about a successful prosecution or exactly that's exactly the presidential candidate for insurrection, exactly right. so the way in then that's perfect examples of the liberal say, take this scenario where someone were successfully prosecuted for insurrection the liberal say that should be enough. but the conservatives six conservatives say no, you still just need calm. >> it's correct that real quick, only five of the conservatives, one barrack does break away from them, but she says, i'm breaking away. you're going too far, but i am not going to engage in the tone that my callees to the left are saying yes. >> here's a question that i have because it is, again, it seems like the supreme court is in a bubble or perhaps it's some of the justices are in a bubble and they're not dealing with when they say, oh, congress can do this there are members of congress and we can go through the list who were never going to do anything that would make life difficult for donald trump. so to think that

the congress is going to solve this, they barely can get a post-office name. these days. it's true. i mean, you can go down the list of supreme court decisions that kicked whatever issue over, across the street, over to congress, whether it is al-balah care which is something that the democrats were very happy about when they, when they did that at different a little bit of a different kind of court voting. rights i. think is maybe the primary example. what you're saying before this you know, look unfortunately for america the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. they wanted congress, the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the roles of the laws that doesn't change the fact that because of gerrymandering in the house and all kinds of other issues. they're not doing their job. and a lot of these big issues, i agree it's very unlikely close to impossible.

the congress will take action, but this is now a fair question that manu raju and melanie he's known as should be asking members of congress, are you willing to pass legislation that would give us rules for how this works? it could only be in the future by the way, even if congress passed a law tomorrow, they're not gonna be able to apply it backwards to trump. so that's, that's an important question for congress moving forward. >> and joan, i mean one of the things that i find, you know, kind of interesting about the conservatives on the supreme court is that they are originalists. it seems when they want to be and in this case, you're you have text from after the civil war and this is going back a ways. why not honor its in the text, you can't have somebody who there was involved in an insurrection >> well, both sides made pretty good textualist arguments, but the majority went with the idea actually in i'll nine essentially went with the scope that donald trump's team was arguing there. and it's understandable given that this

provision had never been invoked in this kind of way since the late 1800s. it was adopted to stop former confederate leaders from holding future office so that that was understandable. it's the wide sweep here and the message it sends. i thought this was the case that was going to be the easy one. i think the immunity one is going to be more trickier for these justices. but i thought this could be easier for the nine just to coalesce. but now we see why it took for weeks. because clearly these concurring justices essentially dissenting and tone of the three limit is were taking decided to lay down a marker that they wanted to say. once again, this conservative majority is serving something other than the law. here. >> and it's interesting, i mean, we got to go, but there's also the notion that we used to say all the time states run elections in this country. well, to some extent, not as much as they used to with this decision actually address that they say not when it comes to necessarily when it

comes to federal offices, especially they say the president our guys great conversation. we did get through all of the discussion points that we could have gotten through, but graded an inside work that will get on it. >> there's a great show coming up you did it? definitely. all right. >> all right. >> and we are anticipating the former president to make some comments on all of this around noon eastern. so dana will have that with her panel that you on and we'll be right back. thanks, everybody >> i'll just was caught in a trap. any couldn't get out. >> vegas was having an identity crisis that was the beginning of the downfall. but vegas at a different idea, vegas the story of sensitive next sunday at ten on cnn >> when you're the leader, is asked to clean and restoration, how do you make like i've never even happened happened >> brandi whatever comes your

way. >> there's a pro for that serve bro like never even happened >> 40 years of data. >> that's incredibly valuable. >> i don't know when do we introduce siracha? >> not suited up exactly. >> these are our sales by product, by region sen. against evolving demographics, you can actually see tastes trend >> since when can we do that? >> since we started working with bdo people who know know bdo realtor dot com's real view maps show you precise wildfire flood, and noise ratings on every homeless. they don't all have to do that. >> not really. trust the number one real estate professionals trust, download the realtor.com app. >> today, we had a six-hour layover in rome, which was just

enough time to tow the room >> if we skip the line wrong >> do not waste any time one-half over 300,000 travel experience as you remember, to do more with bias >> she random plays like a puppy. again, it's numbered use is a brand-new dog maul than less than a year. >> and people switch their dog's food from kibble to the farmers dog, they often saying that it feels like magic >> but there's no magic involved >> it's simply fresh meat and vegetables with all the nutrients dogs need. instead of dried pellets, just food made for the health of dogs delivered impacts portion for your doc. it's amazing what real food can do here, you can

expect to find crystal clear audio expansive display space >> endless entertainment and, more comfort for everyone. >> but even with all that you still left room for all the unpredictability, spontaneity on objective things. you'll find out here >> the >> new 2024 grand cherokee lineup jeep. there's only one why always the couch doesn't need to get a puppy >> school, get his little puppet diploma >> no. must have been spending all this little guy. >> when your questions about life turned into questions about money. there's erica, the virtual financial assistance to help you spend save and plan smarter. only from bank of america. what would you like the power to do? >> don't abandon me >> a second term, we can all

agree on. >> i legally have to read what's in the prompt or so and the news host comedy central's the daily show tonight. i'm 11 on comedy central. >> my name is sister monica clare because of tiktok. i've created a community where people can feel safe asking questions about spirituality. i tried to provide a really accessible way of them learning about religion spirituality. that's not intimidating somebody in the comments said, i have no idea how he got on nontoxic, but i'm not mad about it i'm going to teach you how to pray. i'm going to teach you how to meditate, how to connect with a higher power, because we need that, we need strength comfort >> i'm evan perez in washington >> and this is cnn >> we are back now in front of the supreme court and the united states, they have made a very consequential decision. we've all been waiting to figure out what they would do about the issue of whether

donald trump, the foreign press i think it would actually be on the colorado ballot. remember there are a number of states, paula, that have asked this very question whether to keep them on the bower disqualify him under this the insurrection ban of the 14th amendment. they have made a decision. he remains on the ballot. they say a patchwork system where different states, we have different rules, different burdens of proof to figure out whether or not he has been an insurrection or not cannot apply. they don't want to go into the detail of the criminal matter at all. he has not been criminally charged, but this incident a win for donald trump. >> it's a huge win for donald trump. and this is very much what we expected coming out of oral arguments. the justices on both sides of the aisle appeared skeptical of colorado's argument that they could remove a candidate for that for the presidency off of a state ballot. and we heard the chief justice kinda signal this during the arguments asking if this is really what was intended that each state could potentially be removing some people not be removing other people for a national office. so it is what we he expected. and if you listen to

the arguments, if you look at what little case law there is on this, this does appear to be the correct decision based on the law. >> and >> really the lack of clarity around section three of the 14th amendment. >> now this is unanimous, but there is a concurring opinion from the three so-called liberal justices they do not believe they had to go as far as they did in the majority. they all had the same discussion and result, which is a patchwork cannot work. but when it comes down here i've seen on the screen when there comes down to what actually is supposed to happen, there is a moment the justices talk about the opportunity being foreclosed to have any other ability of other people to look at this case. and so the idea of going too far or going further, i have to say, look, it might be the case that in this instance, congress is supposed to act or not. they seem to think they're just closed for closing at all >> they went too far even though they agree with the overall opinion and this is likely learn what took so long right you were able to get this narrow consensus about this concern about a patchwork

across the country of different states, having different candidates on their ballots. but these three liberal justices say they went too far. now what's interesting is just justice barrett she also had a concurring opinion where she didn't want to adopt the same language that the liberal justices had, but she also acknowledged which is the moment, right? we're all in. she talks about how it is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. the court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election, particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up and that's interesting because it speaks to the real challenge, the legal questions, are complicated enough, but this case arrived at the supreme court at a moment that they are increasingly under scrutiny only for questions about ethics, but also about partisanship, which is why this really is a victory for the chief justice that even if everybody didn't agree with every word and you do have concurrences. you were able to get a 90 opinion on such a consequential issue, you know

that matari of state for colorado, remember this is the person who was actually charged with trying to disqualify him from the election said, this statement, i am disappointed in the us supreme court's decision stripping states of the authority to enforce section three of the 14 member fellow candidates colorado, should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists from our ballot. a really important statement. now this goes back to the heart of the matter, right? of whether a state isn't is able to actually disqualify are hassell going to a federal government official or a state official, but paula, the timing of this is really important. i want to look ahead though, because this case was quickly seize defined by the supreme court for an oral argument hearing for the oral arguments self. and now a ruling, if that same timeline worked to hold we have an april 22 oral argument for the immunity issue about a month could go by before it using his made. what would that mean for a trump trial down the line if they find he is not immune. >> but this is such a great question because as much as we're grappling with historic

constitutional questions, timing is everything because the former president is certainly not trying to delay the ballot but eligibility question, but his two criminal cases as federal ones, he's trying to push them until after the election because he's reelected, he can make them go away. so any delay a day, a week, a month works to his advantage. so when it comes to the immunity case, we know they're going to hear it on april 22. a lot of really smart people who cover the court believe that we won't get a decision until late june because that's usually who when the court issues there, most significant decisions. but then that really throws into question, assuming that the former president doesn't win, which is what looks at soares's on his legal team telling me they don't expect that he when when that trial could go when january 2, you're exactly so the argument is going to be on april 22, and then the question of how long does it take the supreme court to get us a decision? if they follow this calendar and only take a month. that means we get the decision in late may. that means the trial could potentially be scheduled in august or september. the justice department made it clear on friday they believe that there is no there is no limit, there is no carve-out

ahead of an election when they will not take steps in a criminal case where charges have already been filed because, you know, sometimes the justice department tries not to do anything to close gentle action and they were precise this time there they're very clear for the first time on friday, they said that doesn't apply here. so they were willing to start this in september or october. so the big question is now all right, the supreme court will hear arguments on april 22. will they only take a month like they did here too? saw the massive question or will they wait until the end of the term, which is their custom now here, clearly they were right, right under the deadline of super tuesday, which is where the colorado republican party had asked him to come out and decide this. but again, we're always looking at timing, any clues on how long it takes them to make these decisions that in some ways is even more important than the decision itself in terms of if whether the former president sees the inside of a federal courtroom for a criminal case before the election, he will, of course, jim see the inside of a courtroom for a state-level case, alvin bragg, manhattan da on the so-called hush money payment case coming up in later march back to you all right. >> laura, paula, thank you for

that fantastic analysis there from outside the supreme court this morning, really, really appreciate it. joining me now is cnn's kristen holmes from west palm beach, florida. kristen, what are you hearing from inside the trump campaign? obviously they're very happy about this decision yet in the thrilled for a number of reasons and it's not just this decision overall. they have a rosy outlook at what's going on with donald trump's legal issues now i am told that trump will speak he's going to give them a remarks at his mar-a-lago home in response to this decision and make no mistake. they view this as a wind going into this, and i think we heard paula talking about this. they believe leaved that they were going to win this case. they believe with all the legal challenges that they are facing that this is the one that they actually had the strongest argument on. obviously, they did so so you can expect a victory lap from the former president today. but the other part of this is that immunity claim. the fact that the supreme court has decided to listen to that, to hold arguments on that, which won't be until well, april 22, again, as you heard, paula say, this delays that trial. now, whether or not it actually delayed it

passed the november election, trump's team seems to think that it will, that it's going to be after november 2020 before now, again, we don't have any solid information if that's true, but this is a win for them because this has been what they have been fighting for the entire time. delay, delay, delay. that is their biggest tactic in trying to get this to happen after the election. and with the hopes that donald trump will then be president of the united states and these can all be put to rest or he will put them teres, so again, legally speaking, there have been times of darkness for the trump campaign and times of more brightness. and this is one of the times where they are feeling very good heading into this. but obviously, as you noted, he is going to be going to trial in new york. he is going to still sit for that on march 26. big question now is how does he do that and juggle a presidential campaigns? bro, super tuesday, he's looking poised to win in pretty much every single state and he's looking like he's inching towards the republican nomination. so how is he going to actually juggle courtroom appearances? and the campaign

trail when he is forced to go to those courtroom appearances, it's not just on his win when he feels like it >> all right. kristen holmes, thank you very much. let's continue the conversation, joining me now cnn political commentator karen finney, who served as senior advisor and spokeswoman during hillary clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. and olivia troye, former adviser to vice president mike pence. olivia, let me start with you first. what do you think? >> well you know, jim, this is actually what i had been concerned about when i first heard about this case in colorado, i had been concerned that it should it go to the supreme court. they would rule this way and the reason for my concern is, while i do i need like i'm glad we are a nation of the rule of law and the highest court in the united states has hold on this and that is important, right? we are still right now, effectively a democracy. but in the court of public opinion, trump will take this spin. it spread the misinformation, disinformation on it. and americans aren't going to get into weeds like we are right now. they're just going to

hear i was wrong. this is another example. even the supreme court agreed he's with the fact that i was wrong. that's what they're going to hear. and in terms of the delays that we're seeing with these cases, all say that's it just gives him more time to gain that momentum behind him and gain that momentum behind the trump campaign. so it's a win for them >> karen, i have to ask you and it'd be a bit counter-intuitiv e here is it possible that trump getting away with all sorts of things and not being held accountable in the court of law getting a break from this prim court, left and right. if he's going to be on the ballot, does that motivate democrats? do democrats say, okay, well now we've got to go beat him at the ballot box. >> right? absolutely. and look, i'll be, you know, i think for democrats, that was really our preference. we were concerned about, we've been talking a lot about timing this morning, about the timing of this being so close to the election of a very different if it was three years ago, for example, or two years ago and so we would rather beat him at the ballot box. here's the other thing, jim, though that i think we've

got to consider. we've seen numerous polls show that americans want to know whether what the outcome of these various cases will be, because it will impact their decision. and so one of the things i completely agree, we're going to see a victory lap from trump. he's going to talk about how he was ride and he would have done guard-less of what the outcome was. but the thing that democrats could do, which having worked for hillary clinton we've had a done, i've seen this tactic used against a candidate what about what we don't know. so as voter concerns about wanting to know the outcomes of these cases increases, there's an opportunity to increase their anxiety about what we don't know. so just as he's trying to kick the can down the road, that's an opportunity for democrats to, again, continue and to raise the concerns about, well, what is he hiding? so i think that ultimately this is going to play in a couple of different ways. and yes, it means we got to beat him at the

ballot box and that may motivate our base and olivia, what about the fact that supreme court did not take up whether he was an insurrectionist. >> well, i think that's an interesting question, and i think it's interesting the way they sort of laid it out some of them said, this is really a question for congress they should write the legislation and i'm like, well, okay, but what happens if some of these insurrectionists are actually serving? in congress and support the insurrectionist, right? i mean, that's, that's an interesting question right there. so i think they didn't want to, they didn't want to broach that at all. >> all right. well, i wish we had more time. we're going to keep the conversation going next time, guys, karen finney, olivia troye i've got to speak at a quick break after all that breaking news, but really great to talk to both the really appreciate it. we'll be right back >> super tuesday coverage begins tomorrow at 06:00 p.m. on cnn and streaming on, but you need new replacement windows, but you'd just not sure if they're in the budget this year, right? >> i'm >> brian gary here with ted from renewal by anderson and he's here to talk about how to

make window replacement more affordable. >> well, first, brian, you don't have to do them all. you could just replace your worst windows first or another way to make them affordable is to change the style of window. for example, you could do a gliding window instead of a casement we have a lot of ways to make window projects really affordable compared to other window companies, you have a completely different business model. >> yeah, with other companies, there's just too many people involved in the process. >> there's the >> manufacturer, the seller, and then the installer, and then the customer. and if you call with a problem that's when they say oh, we're the manufacturer, you have to call the installer for that problem or vice versa, where the full service replacement window division of anderson with us, there's no passing the buck at renewal. by anderson, we sell, build, install, and warrant our windows and patio doors. so if there's ever an issue, we take full responsibility for it. >> what? i don't use cell b9, a windows. >> it doesn't matter if it's a $200 window or $1,200 window. but a lot of vinyl windows just

don't last for energy efficiency and beauty. there's a much better option. our windows fiber x composite material is available in nine designer colors and it's much more durable than vinyl. >> well rex is low maintenance like vinyl, but stronger than vinyl and it's beautiful like wood, but doesn't require the upkeep of what each renewal >> by anderson's 31 days event before march 31st, save $377 on every window and save $777 on every patio door sure. and entry door with no money down, no monthly payments and no interest for 12 months are 31 day sales event ends march 31st for a free appointment during our sale call 1800, i kept the cabin for three days >> i'm 12 hour short >> on weekends this necessary

no >> neither is a blonde weekend hey, calm employees do their own payroll. so you can fix problems before they become problems >> get pay calm, and make the unnecessary, unnecessary see you down a lot >> don't abandon me yet >> a second term we can all agree on by >> legally have to read what's in a prompt or so. >> here we go have a news team hosts comedy central's the daily show. tonight. i'm 11 on comedy central >> new day. >> one were our shared values propel us towards a more secure future. through august, of partnership built upon cutting edge american australian, and british technologies will develop state-of-the-art next generation in build something stronger together securing ticket peace and prosperity for

america and our

>> call >> us and take the hearing life 30-day risk-free challenge. >> i'm pete muntean at reagan national airport. this is cnn and we're continuing to follow the breaking news this hour. the supreme court has just cited former president donald trump ruling he should appear on colorado's primary ballot, joining me now to discuss is larry sabato, director of the center for politics at the university of virginia. larry, to get your taken all that. i didn't want to play a little little bit of sound from trump over the weekend. and, you know, he's still ginning up you know, all of these unfounded lies about what took place in the 2020 election that the election was stolen from he was doing it again over the weekend. let's play that hi stand before you today. not only is your past and hopefully future president, but as a proud political dissident and as a public enemy of a rogue

regime. this is a rogue and dangerous machine. this is a anti-democratic machine. >> larry, the supreme court did not want to deal with this issue of whether or not trump is an insurrectionist. but he keeps ginning up this insurrectionist like rhetoric of course he does. he'll never change because it's worked for him. and it may work again >> in the gym. you can't save people from themselves. if they're determined to reelect him after he organized that insurrection arguably, our first coup today ty then there's nothing to stop the people from doing that. now, in particular, the legal system may intervene, but i doubt it. and he'll probably certainly going to be on the ballot. he certainly going to be the republican nominee will know that for sure tomorrow. if we don't already know it and that's the way it is. the

donald trump has had a run of great luck in several different dimensions. although jim, both of us who've been around a long time and we both know the worm always turns sometimes the worm turns repeatedly during a presidential campaign so i don't think one candidates good luck will hold for eight full months >> and what about this notion? we were just talking about a few moments ago with karen finney and olivia troye, that perhaps the democrats need a good kick in the pants. here and if the courts aren't going to bar trump from running for office. if the courts aren't going to weigh in in time as to whether or not he tried to defraud the american people in trying to overturn the election in 2020. democrats are going to have to be motivated and get out yes. >> and that's exactly what president biden needs and it's what democrats should have already done. i think maybe this will help, although you

never know with democrats, but i think it is possible that this will assist the biden campaign in motivating them and getting them out to work giving money. and a broader group thinking about the difference between a biden presidency and a trump presidency going forward the second trump administration, if there is one, is going to be very different than the first. it really is. and if you care about democracy, constitutionalism then you have every right to be concerned. notice what he did. jim, he always turns and effective attack around. ease. the one who has threatened democracy. he's the one who organized a potential coup d'etat, not joe biden, but now it's joe biden according to donald trump, who's a threat to democracy? i'd laugh if it weren't so sad >> yeah, how he calls himself a dissident as it is laughable, but larry, i mean, you and i can break this down on a news

program. the rest of the mainstream media can point out the lies that he tells out on the campaign trail. >> but the people who are in his base aren't really tuned into that. they are taking their cues from him >> we've known that for a long time and that's how it gets millions of votes. >> yeah. >> and just finally, the supreme court, what's your sense of it how they ruled today >> you can justify their decision and it was in the end unanimous, though. clearly the liberals different as far as the reasoning was concerned. but i've got to laugh again at the suggestion. well, congress should take care of this, right i think the next time there's a democratic president, a democratic senate and a democratic house that may happen. but as long as republicans anything, it won't larry sabato, thank you very much and thank you for joining me this morning. i'm jim acosta, our coverage of the supreme court's decision to keep donald trump on the ballot continues right now with wolf