Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stuns Nation - Shreds Anti-Trump Attorney

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and a liberal Supreme

Court Justice laid the smackdown on Colorado attorneys who are trying to keep Trump off

the 2024 presidential ballot. Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe

Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow

It's not often that we at Explain America or I agree with Supreme Court Justice Elena

Kagan, but I think ultimately you have to understand these Supreme Court Justices take

their jobs very seriously, no matter who appoints them. They have certain ideals and certain things they fall in line with, especially when it

comes to things like abortion, gun rights, those type of things. But when it comes to the law, they're usually pretty in lockstep

It's actually interesting, you'd be surprised how many anonymous decisions come out of the

Supreme Court. The media would have you believe it's constant division. It's not

There is big division on the monumental cases, the precedent setting cases

There tends to be a lot of dissension and disagreement on those cases, but in a lot

of cases, they're easy ones and they side all together. This, even according to CNN, looks like an easy one

It looks like CNN said, it looks like they're probably going to get a unanimous decision

just based on the questions the justices were asking. Unanimous decision in favor of Trump, 9-0 to keep him on the ballot

And you can hear it in one of the questions here from Elena Kagan, Justice Elena Kagan

where she basically says, well, if you can keep Trump off the ballot, Colorado, and basically

not just decide only for your citizens, but for the citizens of the whole country, this

man can't be president. If one state can decide that, where does it go from here

This could happen every election, where one state could decide somebody's not eligible

and that person can't be president. It's very dangerous. This is the short-sightedness of a lot of the liberals in politics

And the justices are looking at it and saying, this is really, this could bring down the Republic

I mean, this is super dangerous. I want you to listen to Elena Kagan's argument, her question here, and then I want you to

give me your opinion in the comments. So please again, remember to like, comment, share, and subscribe

Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow

I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you

Take care, everybody. Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their

own citizens, but for the rest of the nation? Because Article 2 gives them the power to appoint their own electors as they see fit

But if they're going to use a federal constitutional qualification as a ballot access determinant

then it's creating a federal constitutional question that then this court decides

And other courts, other states, if this court affirms the decision below, determining that

President Trump is ineligible to be president, other states would still have to determine

what effect that would have on their own state's law. What's your read of the question and the answer

Well, I think that the advocates for disqualification probably expected a cold reception, but this

was perfectly glacial. The problem for Jason Murray is that his toughest questions came from the left of the court

Many people have been saying how the conservatives are going to sandbag this entire appeal and

how they have to look deeply within themselves. Many of the toughest questions were coming from Justice Jackson and Justice Kagan

And Justice Jackson notably kept on raising this first question, which is perhaps the

presidency is just not covered by this provision. And she has always taken a particular interest in the 14th Amendment and said, you know

it's plausible that he was not. And some of the other justices raised the fact that the 14th Amendment was designed

to take power away from the states. And yet, as Chief Justice Roberts said, you are curiously finding that there's a provision

here that radically expands that power