Andrea Mitchell frets conservative rulings as “joke”, “does not bode well”

0
16

On Friday afternoon, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell showed a classic example of reporters reacting negatively to a pro-conservative development as a “joke” or action that “doesn’t bode well,” sympathizing with the liberal point of view.

How he interviewed New York Times journalist Linda Greenhouse to promote her new melodramatic book that denounces the conservative makeup of the Supreme Court, Justice on the brink, Mitchell recalled that the recent High Court action regarding abortion laws in Texas “does not bode well.”

After revising his statement adding “for people who believe it Roe v. veal it was decided, “he then referred to the court rulings on voting rights as a” setback “for” those who believe the Voting Rights Act has already been gutted in 2013. “

Mitchell posed: “Let’s talk about the abortion and the fact that they even took the Mississippi case on December 1. There has been so much attention on Texas, but the Mississippi case really is the nerve to. Roe v. veal, And the fact that they left Texas – the ban – valid – which is a de facto ban on abortion in Texas. This doesn’t bode well beyond the fact that they’ve taken the Mississippi case. ‘

Greenhouse said the Mississippi abortion ban is “clearly unconstitutional under current law,” adding, “So the only reason this new three-judge tribunal Trump would even uphold the Mississippi appeal was because they have some problem. with the current law or some change they have we want to make, and we will find out how drastic this change will be. “

Mitchell then went back to review her earlier suggestion that a conservative win was a bad thing:

So and I should have said, “It doesn’t bode well,” you know, the implication is there for people who believe that Roe v. Wade has made up his mind and whatever you think of the, you know, philosophical or legal justification for using privacy as a justification, that is, you know, a precedent. And, until now, the precedent mattered.

And in his next sequel, Mitchell has again given a negative twist to a conservative victory:

And there are so many other problems. The end of the last term, the voting rights, a setback for those who believe the Voting Rights Act has already been gutted in 2013, but, you know, more – more action against it by the Supreme Court. Affirmative action is another thing you think may be at stake with this court.

This episode of Andrea Mitchell Reports was sponsored in part by Fidelity. Their contact information is linked.

The transcription follows:

Reports by Andrea Mitchell

November 12, 2021

12:40 Eastern

ANDREA MITCHELL: Let’s talk about the abortion and the fact that they also took the case of Mississippi on December 1st. There has been so much attention on Texas, but the Mississippi case really dares to Roe v. veal, And the fact that they left Texas – the ban – valid – which is a de facto ban on abortion in Texas. This doesn’t bode well beyond the fact that they’ve taken the Mississippi case.

LINDA GREENHOUSE, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, that’s right, and I actually spent – in the book, I spent a lot of time talking about everything – what must have been a heated internal court struggle over what to do with the appeal. of Mississippi. So Mississippi bans abortion – it tries to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy – something that is absolutely unconstitutional under current law. So the only reason this new three-judge Trump court would even uphold the Mississippi appeal was because they have some problem with the current law or some change they want to make, and we’re going to find out how drastic that change will be.

MITCHELL: So – more I should have said, “It doesn’t bode well,” you know, the implication is there for people who believe that Roe v. veal what did he decide? and whatever you think of the, you know, philosophical or legal justification for using privacy as a justification, that is, you know, a precedent. And, until now, the precedent mattered.

GREENHOUSE: Yes, we have had the right to abortion as a constitutional issue for almost half a century. And every court that has come across a law like Mississippi law obviously had to declare it unconstitutional because, under current law, a woman has the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, which is much later than 16 weeks. in Mississippi. Sure, it’s much later than six weeks in Texas. And so this is really the problem. Will the court keep its precedent or not?

MITCHELL: And there are so many other problems. The end of the last term, the voting rights, a setback for those who believe the Voting Rights Act has already been gutted in 2013, but, you know, more – more action against it by the Supreme Court. Affirmative action is another thing you think may be at stake with this court.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here