Share This Episode
The Charlie Kirk Show Charlie Kirk Logo

The Great Supreme Court Flop

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk
The Truth Network Radio
February 8, 2024 6:05 pm

The Great Supreme Court Flop

The Charlie Kirk Show / Charlie Kirk

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 644 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

February 8, 2024 6:05 pm

Plenty of people on the left said it would be a bad idea to take Trump off the ballot. But they just couldn't help themselves. Now, after an ugly day at the Supreme Court, the left's zealots are humiliated and Trump is looking as strong as ever. Mike Davis of Article 3 Project breaks down how yet another attack by the left turned into an unmitigated embarrassment.

For more content, become a member at!

Support the show:

See for privacy information.


Hey everybody, today on The Charlie Kirk Show, Mike Davis joins us for a flash update regarding the lawfare against Trump and how the Supreme Court is going to rule. Mike Davis makes a prediction. Email us as always, freedom at, subscribe to our podcast, and get involved with Turning Point USA at Buckle up everybody, here we go. I want to thank Charlie, he's an incredible guy, his spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at That is It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to Joining us now is Mike Davis from the Article 3 Project. Mike, thanks for taking the time. Mike, walk us through what happened today in the Supreme Court.

We got lots of time, you know, walk us through it all. The Supreme Court today heard the Colorado Supreme Court case where they tried to disqualify President Trump from the Republican primary ballots in Colorado based upon a bogus reading of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. We enacted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments after the Civil War to outlaw slavery, guarantee equal protection and due process to the freed slaves, and to guarantee voting rights to the freed male slaves. And after the Civil War, you started to see Confederate sympathizers who engaged in insurrection, rebellion against the United States winning office, including in the House of Representatives, and undermining the post-Civil War reconstruction effort, undermining the Union. So they added Section 3 to the 14th Amendment to disqualify those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding office. And more than 150 years ago, there is a controlling case by then Chief Justice, Solomon Chase, the Griffin's case, that if you want to disqualify under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Congress has to pass a federal criminal statute for insurrection or rebellion with a disqualification clause, which Congress did 155 years ago.

It's still in the books. You have to have a federal grand jury indict. A federal jury finds guilt unanimously with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. A federal judge has to convict, and that conviction must be upheld on appeal for insurrection or rebellion with that disqualification provision. That's the only way you can disqualify. You can't have four partisan Democrat justices on the Colorado Supreme Court or an unelected, non-lawyer Secretary of State in Maine, like Shenna Bellows, just unilaterally decree that someone committed an insurrection and therefore we're going to take away the choice of American voters to vote for the candidate they want.

That is the most anti-democratic thing imaginable. The Supreme Court was right. They were all over this. I thought this would be a six to three decision.

It should be nine to nothing. Well, we don't know the decision yet, so can you tell our audience? I don't want to get too ahead of it, but why do we think we know, Mike?

Because, I mean, you've been around, you've clerked. Can you just fill us in on that? I mean, the questioning today by the conservative judges, the six Republican-appointed justices was predictable, but this case went so badly for the anti-Trump forces that even Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Katanji Brown Jackson sounded extraordinarily skeptical of the anti-Trump position. So this could be, you know, at least a six to three, maybe a seven to two, maybe an eight to one. I doubt it's nine to nothing because Sotomayor sounded pretty dug in on her position, but this is going to be an overwhelming victory at the Supreme Court for President Trump. And I imagine the Supreme Court's going to rule pretty quickly here, maybe within the next 30 days or so. Sotomayor is one of the least appreciated radicals in the country. I mean, if you read some of her opinions, it's complete psychobabble at times. I mean, it's just the affirmative action one in particular. I remember Blake highlighted, they just make stuff up.

They're like, yeah, we know what the law says, but what the greater good is what we want. I mean, so I wouldn't put it past that. And Kagan, I think, was always the one that I mean, Mike, fill us in on some of the line of questioning. There has to be some check in the gut of Kagan or Katanji Brown Jackson or whoever.

Like, huh, if they do this to Biden, then I mean, if they do this to Trump, they could do this to Biden. Like, this is not a great precedent when someone's not even convicted of the thing. Yeah, I mean, I think what bothered Kagan the most is she was asking questions of her former law clerk, Jason Murray, who was arguing for the anti-Trump forces. Jason Murray also clerked for Gorsuch on the 10th Circuit.

He's actually a good guy, but he got decimated today. He got destroyed by the Supreme Court justices, including by Kagan. And Kagan's biggest concern and oral argument, it seemed, is that a single state can decide the election, which is just crazy, right? She understood that the presidential election is national in scope, and you can't just have a presidential candidate win or lose by default, because these states are playing games with the disqualification clause in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. And Justice Jackson really surprised me today because I did not think that there was any chance of getting her. But she raised the question that she doesn't think that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment even applies to the President of the United States.

The President is not an officer of the United States under the meaning of that. Yeah, so what does that mean? I heard this, and honestly, this even went above my head. It was just so wonky. Just make it in layman terms, Mike. What were they talking about? Officer, President?

What the heck's going on here? Essentially, the President's not an officer because he's elected by the American people. The people who work for the President, like cabinet secretaries or military officers are officers, but the President is not an officer. And so you can't disqualify him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This disqualification provision, they were concerned about members of the House of Representatives and local offices.

They were not concerned about the President of the United States who was elected through the Electoral College and through a national election. So does this, and a question I asked earlier, will this take care of the main case as well? Will this be a decisive enough ruling potentially where we can just thwart all these little salvos and volleys from these radical leftists? I think so just by listening to Kagan and Jackson's questioning today. It seems like they've had enough of this, and frankly, this is really dumb by the Democrats in this lawfare campaign. This is like their Michael Avenatti case. It's such a stupid case, laughably stupid.

It's going to be overwhelmingly reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States, including by probably two of the three Democrat appointees on the Supreme Court, and it undermines the credibility of the Democrats and their overall lawfare against President Trump. Like what the Democrats did when they undermined their credibility with their Michael Avenatti claims against Kavanaugh during the Kavanaugh confirmation. They couldn't just stick to Christine Blasey Ford, who was lying through her teeth, but was the most credible.

They brought in five other bogus allegations, including Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick. Same thing here with this lawfare. They can't just stick to the obstruction case on the Mar-a-Lago raid. And I can argue all day why there's not obstruction, and that was perfectly legitimate with what President Trump did, but that's their strongest case. They couldn't just stick to that. So they brought in all these January 6th bozo cases, these illegal gag orders, these fraud cases for non-fraud.

Gene Carroll, this disqualification. These Democrats are like the fat kids at the all-you-can-eat buffet. They can't help themselves. Get six-pack towel sets for only $29.98 and take advantage of the free shipping on larger items like mattresses and mattress toppers. The 100% made in USA on sale for as low as $99.99.

Everything is on sale from the brand new kitchen towels that have the same technology as the bath towels that actually absorb dog beds, blankets, couch pillows, and so much more. To get the best specials ever, go to or call 800-875-0425, use promo code KIRK, and get free shipping on your entire order. Call 800-875-0425 or go to, promo code KIRK.

That is, promo code KIRK. I think so highly of Mike Lindell. He's a great patriot.

He's a terrific person. Go to, promo code KIRK. Yeah, and just talking about Lawrence Tribe, I want to play actually George Conway.

Yeah, that's going to be helpful. We haven't played this. Blake pulled it for us. I'd love your reaction to this. He's having a tough day.

Play cut 109. Where there's a will, there's a way, and this Court, from the get-go, from the first minute of argument made clear it does not want to go down the path of disqualification, and they are going to take the best off-ramp they can find. They're not buying this, the argument that the 14th Amendment can only be enforced by Congress. They're saying, they're going to write, as Steve said, a much narrower opinion saying the states cannot individually do this in state functionaries and state courts can't do it. And the funny thing about it is, we don't know where the exit's going to end, because the question of, well, what happens if he is an insurrectionist and the states don't disqualify him? Well, he gets elected.

What do you do then? It's not clear. So we don't know where this off-ramp goes, but they're happy to just get off the highway now. By the way, Mike, did you say when there's a will, there's a way? Is that another way of saying that we're just going to kind of make up whatever goofy argument we have to get Trump?

Am I hearing that correctly? Yeah, and they've been doing this for 18 months. I mean, they've been doing it longer than that. They impeached him twice for nonsense. They indicted him four times for non-crimes. They've illegally gagged him several times. They're trying to bankrupt him through these bogus fraud lawsuits and Gene Carroll's lawsuit. That all backfires, so they threw this legal hail Mary to just take him off the ballot because they know that he's going to win on November 5th, 2024. So they just want to take away that choice from the American people. They are showing the American people how crazy they are, and this is backfiring on them.

And they keep doubling down. It's going to continue to anger the American people because the American people resent the fact that these Democrats, prosecutors and attorneys and these Democrat judges and these Democrat juries and these Democrat hellholes think that they get to decide the presidential election instead of the American people. This is not going to fly with the American people.

Yeah, it seems it's against every tradition, every process, and it's a common point, but it's worth repeating because it's true. The people that have democracy tattooed their forehead are the ones that want less options. They don't want will of the people. We want the will of the people. We want the people to be the sovereign. It's the only form of government that can sustain us and honestly heal our land. And they want something different. What that is, is a weird mixture of an oligarchy and mob rule at times and the kind of consent of the experts in addition to this kind of soft philosopher king class. It's unhealthy.

It's not American. Talk about Article three project. We're going to keep we're going to keep you on here, Mike.

Talk about your deal. Yeah, I mean, the Article three project, I started this thing to fight for Trump's judicial nominees. And then when Biden won, we opposed Trump's, we opposed Biden's judicial nominees. But where I saw a void that we really stepped in and filled was this lawfare against President Trump. And it's not going to end with President Trump. They're going after Trump's lawyers, his top aides, his supporters on January 6th. They're going after parents outraged by gender chaos. They're going after Christians praying outside of abortion clinics while they're giving amnesty to Biden, his family, Antifa, Hamas, BLM. This is not going to end well for our country. And that's why the Article three project has been fighting this every day for the last 18 months since the Mar-a-Lago raid. Let's play cut 114 and I'd love to have Mike Davis react.

Cut 114. Your argument is that it's not self-executing. But then in that case, what would the role of the state be? Or is it entirely up to Congress to implement the disqualification in Section three? It is entirely up to Congress, Justice Thomas. And our argument goes beyond actually saying that Section three is non self-executing. We need to say something more than that, because a non self-executing treaty or a non self-executing constitutional provision normally can still be enforced by a state if it chooses to enact legislation. But if this court were to adhere to the holding of Griffin's case, there would not be any role for the states in enforcing Section three unless Congress were to enact a statute that gives them that authority.

Mike, what's going on here? Well, I think that Jonathan Mitchell is an outstanding attorney for President Trump, and he very smartly and ably handled all of these very tough questions and really won this case at oral argument today, which you don't see happen very often. Like he brought Justice Kagan and Jackson over to President Trump's side in oral arguments today. And basically, what Trump through his attorneys is arguing that is if you want to disqualify an officeholder under Section three of the 14th Amendment passed after the Civil War to chase out of office insurrectionists, Confederate insurrectionists and people who engaged in rebellion, Congress has to pass a federal criminal statute on insurrection or rebellion, which Congress did more than 150 years ago. That's the only way that you can disqualify under Section three. And they cited the Griffin's case, which was by then Chief Justice Solomon Chase, who was writing circuit. He was on the Supreme Court, but he was hearing a federal appellate case called the Griffin's case. And it's the controlling case.

It's the only case on point that holds just that. You can't just disqualify through four partisan Democrat judges on the Colorado Supreme Court or an unelected non-lawyer secretary of state, Shenna Bellows in Maine. You have to do it through the federal criminal process.

All right, really quick, I'm going to put you on the spot rapid fire. Will Donald Trump be convicted before Election Day? No, he won't be convicted because presidential immunity has to be decided on the January 6th case that was supposed to start in March. The Supreme Court's going to have to take that case because the D.C. Circuit screwed up the case law so badly and set a terrible precedent.

And so the Supreme Court is going to have to take and decide that case. And Trump will not be convicted before the election. Do you think that he will have to stand trial for Alvin Bragg or Fannie Willis, or do you just think there will be no trials before Election Day? No, he will not.

The only case that had a chance of going to trial before Election Day was the January 6th case in D.C. That is going to be delayed beyond Election Day because the Supreme Court is going to have to decide presidential immunity because the D.C. Circuit screwed it up so badly. Got it. Mike Davis, excellent work. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks so much for listening. Everybody email us, as always, freedom at Thanks so much for listening and God bless.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-02-08 20:16:09 / 2024-02-08 20:23:05 / 7

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime