CNN Grumpycats: Gay Marriage, ‘Many Rights’ People ‘Enjoy’ Are in Danger

CNN reports that things were not peaceful on Tuesday morning at the western front. Get started early Neue Day We were devastated by the Supreme Court decision that was leaked. Roe V. WadeIt could result in women being more independent, she argued. “second-class citizens”Things like gay marriage and homosexual sodomy are now illegal. “right to privacy”is canceled.

With Early Start co-host Laura Jarrett (and daughter of Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett) off, the show’s left-wing analysis was left to legal analyst Areva Martin, who said she’s had feelings of “[a]bsolute utter shock, dismay, disappointment, and even anger” And then it was declared fact. “many rights…we as citizens enjoy…not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution” Could be “eviscerat[ed].”

Martin cited broad examples such as “the right to privacy, the right to contraception” before claiming that women are being “regulat[ed]…to second-class citizens, giving men more power, more control over their bodies, more freedoms than what would be afforded to women.”

Earth to Martin: Take A Look the pictureCourt of Appeal that handed it down Roe V. Wade.

A few moments later, Martin refused to denounce the leak and how it’s created a substantial breach in trust between justices and their clerks. Instead, Martin lamented the Court’s legitimacy had already been sullied by Justice Clarence Thomas, his wife Ginni, and “the treatment of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.”

Martin, however, refused to mention the Bork and Kavanaugh hearings, as well as their negative consequences.

Transferring to Neue Day, abortion supporter, chief legal analyst, and Zoom exposer Jeffrey Toobin’s mood hadn’t improved from Monday night.

Toobin insisted Justice Alito’s opinion striking down RoeWould have an adverse effect “the right to privacy, which is implicit” And that “same right”Is “recognized in saying states can’t ban married couples from buying birth control” “can’t ban consensual sodomy between people of the same sex, or different sexes.”

Perhaps it was Toobin’s personal connection to abortion that had him spew this lie about the draft opinion:

There are some areas in people’s lives where the legislatures cannot legislate. This is a constitutional right. What Justice Alito’s opinion — draft opinion says is that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. Abortion is therefore not protected. Privative sexual activities are not covered. Constitution doesn’t protect birth control purchases. That opinion does not protect birth control purchases. It is an invitation to states to prohibit abortion and for states that regulate whole new areas once considered unregulated.

Jennifer Rodgers (liberal legal analyst) was present as well and argued that homosexual marriages are in peril.

Rodgers said it’s “not” Safe “at all” As “[t]his notion that the difference between all these privacy rights is that one involves an unborn being, whether you call it a child, a fetus, whatever, that’s nowhere either, so this is just semantics.”

In the show’s second hour, Josh Gerstein — the Politico reporter behind the leak — joined his fellow progressives in questioning the notion that Americans will have their privacy rights deeply eroded (click “expand”):

BERMAN : Josh is again looking at the draft and asking questions. Does it impact abortion? Or could it impact other decisions made in the 60s or 70s that established a right to privacy. Alito seemed to anticipate that criticism, didn’t he?

GERSTEIN – Right. He tries very hard to ring-fence abortion in this opinion but repeatedly repeats, We’re talking only about abortion ….[T]he question is can you pluck abortion out of our jurisprudence and say, “oh, we’re going to get rid of this right that we’ve had for a half a century” and leave all those other things you mentioned of like contraception, for example, or the right to marry someone of a different race. Let’s just assume that these things will not change and only one thing will be removed. You can bring this forward to other recent decisions. For example, you could guarantee a right-to-same-sex marriage. This is based partly on the same principles. It’s not the government’s business whether or not you marry someone from the opposite sex. Can you imagine being able to seperate these two issues, and place abortion in a separate box? This opinion, he refers to it as a decision concerning — concerning potential life, and that those other kinds of issues don’t involve potential life.

Tuesday’s baseless fear-mongering was brought to you by advertisers such as Farmer’s Insurance and T-Mobile. Follow the links to see their contact information at the MRC’s Conservatives Fight Back page.

To see the relevant CNN transcripts from May 3, click “expand.”

CNN’s Christine Romans and Laura Jarrett offer an early start
March 3, 2022
Eastern at 5:04

CHRISTINE ROMANS : Let’s talk about how you reacted to this shocking news over the weekend. 

AREVEA MARTIN: Shock, Christine. Absolute dismay, anger, frustration, and shock. What Politico wrote about the draft opinion reveals that Alito claims the U.S. Constitution does not mention the term abortion. Although that’s true, we have many rights, freedoms, and rights as citizens that aren’t mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. My greatest fear is that the Constitution will not end this trend. It may lead to the loss of some of our rights, including the right of privacy and the right of contraception. My — also — big fear is that this opinion affirms that women don’t have control or agency over their reproductive health, over the rights to make choices about their bodies and thereby regulating women to second-class citizens, giving men more power, more control over their bodies, more freedoms than what would be afforded to women. This draft opinion is very troubling.

(….)

Eastern, 5:08 AM

ROMANS: This leak — this is the first major leak to come out of the nation’s highest court. I mean, this is really — the leak itself is just stunning. It is equally amazing what the leak contains. Do you think this will damage the reputation and credibility of the Supreme Court Was this the case? 

MARTIN: Yeah, I think when you look at this, Christine, in addition to what we’ve seen by Clarence Thomas, the comments and statements made by Clarence Thomas, his wife, the treatment of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, it’s hard to imagine that the U.S. public has any confidence or trust in the Supreme Court. And also, Christine, it’s important to note that the court represents a viewpoint that is radically different than most Americans. The vast majority of Americans agree that women have the right to choose their reproductive health. So here we have nine justices — well, in this case five according to this article — that are voting in a way that is completely inconsistent where most Americans are on an issue as fundamental as the rights that women have to control their own health.

—

CNN’s John Berman and Brianna Kilar present New Day
March 3, 2022
Eastern at 6:06

JOHN BERMAN Roe was “egregiously wrong from the start.” He then goes on to say it was exceptionally weak. These are his key words in the case he is arguing. Why?

JEFFREY TOOBIN Roe V. Wade is — the basis is the right to privacy, which is implicit, according to Roe V. WadeIt is in many different constitution provisions. This is the exact same right that was recognized by the court when it said that states couldn’t prohibit married couples from purchasing birth control. The same provision was used to say that the states couldn’t prohibit consensual homosexuality between the same or different sexes. It is possible that there may be certain parts of peoples’ lives in which the legislature cannot regulate. This is a constitutional right. What Justice Alito’s opinion — draft opinion says is that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. Abortion is therefore not protected. Privative sexual activities are not covered. The Constitution doesn’t protect birth control purchases. This opinion invites states not only to ban abortion but also to regulate new areas previously considered off limits.

BERMAN: Let me get back to the idea of exposing all of our ideas about privacy.

(….)

Eastern, 6:07

TOOBIN. As you all know, precedent is almost always honored by the Supreme Court. However, it does not always respect precedent. And perhaps the most famous example was in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education overturned a decision from the late 19th Century that — Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court said in 1954, no, states cannot have separate schools for black people, and white children and black children. It is not uncommon for the court to overturn precedent. It’s rare. It is uncommon and is only done when majority of the court believes that prior precedent has been discredited. You know, the — the court recognizes if they overturn precedence a lot, the — the court loses all intellectual and institutional respectability. One difference between Congress and Supreme Court is the fact that Congress is expected to continue its work while respecting its past. Congress is free to pass any laws that are compatible with previous laws. This is what makes the court unique in principle, but it looks more like Congress when made with decisions such as this.

BERMAN. Justice Alito, apparently anticipating your critique or analysis, suggested that this opens up the possibility of overturning any decision made on the basis a constitutional right for privacy. He writes, Jennifer: “The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this court has held to fall within the 14th Amendment’s protection of liberty. Roe’s defenders characterized the abortion right as similar to rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage. But abortion is fundamentally different,” he says, “because it involves an un-born human being.” So he writes that in this draft decision. Do you think that this means that gay marriages are safe?

JENNIFER RODGERS (Non): That is, I’m asking where it can be found in the Constitution. Let’s talk about what the Constitution says and doesn’t say. The idea that privacy rights can only be applied to unborn children, regardless of whether they are called a child or a fetus is semantics. Because he is aware that gay marriage will be a hot topic, he wants to make it clear what abortion means. But what about the rest? However, any rights that are based upon this right to privacy and which have been traditionally protected by courts since the 1960s are in danger.

(….)

Eastern, 7:06

BERMAN: So, when we’re talking about this language here, some of this language could change in ways that does substantively alter — perhaps — the meaning of all this. Josh raises questions once again. Does this ruling have an immediate effect on abortion? Or could it impact other decisions from the 60s or 70s which established a right to privacy. Alito seemed to anticipate that criticism, didn’t he?

JOSHGERSTEIN The decision does not affect any other decisions, critics claim are made on broader and more vague concepts in the Constitution. Arguably, the word privacy not really appearing there, obviously, the word abortion not appearing in that document drafted in the 18th — the 18th century. But the question is can you pluck abortion out of our jurisprudence and say, “oh, we’re going to get rid of this right that we’ve had for a half a century” and leave all those other things you mentioned of like contraception, for example, or the right to marry someone of a different race. You can just state that all those rights will remain, and then we only take one out. You can bring this forward to other recent decisions. For example, you could guarantee a right-to-same-sex marriage. This is based partly on the same principles. It’s not the government’s business whether or not you marry someone from the opposite sex. Can you imagine being able to seperate these two issues, and place abortion in a separate box? This opinion, he refers to it as a decision concerning — concerning potential life, and that those other kinds of issues don’t involve potential life. Many Americans could disagree. I think the case will be dominated by dissents. Could this make a greater impact on the question than Alito’s draft opinion promises?