Very hard to listen to

The court will see right through that. The questions they ask will be telling.

No logical coherent argument to rely upon so he is all over the place and naturally, some of it is contradictory.

To his ridiculous arguments, which were basically to assert what the plain text of the Constitution doesn't say what it says.

It really shows how phony this absurd concept of the conservatives being "textualists" or "originalists" is: it's a completely threadbare position that they're willing to twist to make the text and origin mean whatever fits their agendas.

... had any validity at all, there would be no Amendments, nor a process to enact them. They're so full of shit their eyes are brown.

And he's on a lifelong mission to punish humanity for it - unless you're rich enough to bribe him, of course.

That was even more insane IMHO than this case. There are some gray areas here that he can point to, while the immunity claim he made up out of whole cloth as did the SC with their ruling and the written majority opinion. I subscribe to a podcast called Oral Arguments which I listen to for most of their cases, that immunity one was a real whopper. This one isn’t as wild but yeah Sauer is reaching and trying to muddy the water with much of his arguments.

...& was reexamined & reaffirmed in 2000 by the OLC (Executive Branch Office of Legal Counsel).
It's been DOJ policy & practice since the original memo, issued in the wake of Nixon, more than 50 years ago. (See Mueller for a notable example.) OLC opinions, like the immunity memo, have been considered binding on Executive Branch agencies unless overturned by the courts.
Nothing was made up out of whole cloth for the 2024 SCOTUS decision, the legal & Constitutional arguments for it, in addition to the policy & practice, were 50 years old at that point.
Of course... where were these details published by our media? Nowhere that I saw. I only know because I've been paying attention to the consequences of that 1973 memo for decades.

He sounded just as insane then, making his con arguments usually on economic subjects. Hartmann would gut him every time.

What does Trump say about DUAL CITIZENSHIP -- people who are citizens of two contries?

Much of the argument today revolves around citizenship and allegiance to a specific country. Where is the allegiance of a dual citizen?

Melanoma and her anchor baby Barron both have dual citizenship -- US and Slovenia. Wonder where she will go when Trump croaks (I'd like to get the answer to that question tomorrow).

That prima facia makes the rest of this an absolute absurdity, I cannot believe the court even considered hearing this farce to begin with.
I want 13 Justices on that bench and I don't really care if WE are the ones that have to ditch the filibuster to do it.

where his mother got off the boat from... at least per some of the arguments (I think from Barrett as it came near the end of the arguments, when the CSPAN feed had cut off but the SCOTUS feed was actually still going but with no annotations regarding who was speaking, where an example was given of a baby born in the U.S., born from a mother from Ireland, would automatically be a citizen of Ireland too, and IIRC, the same "ancestry" option is available within the UK).

Edited to add: Her 2nd stop would be a cathedral to thank God.

Was he arguing at one point that Native Americans should not be guaranteed US citizenship?

America has a lot of shameful history around this issue.

As is everyone in Rapist's orbit.

Is that normally, he’d be laughed out of court, but none of this is normal.

When you dont have the facts or the law....