CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates guest hosted Friday’s edition of Don’t forget Lemon tonight Where she and her friends praised California’s governor. Gavin Newsom’s “trolling” of the Supreme Court and Texas on the issue of gun control.
Coates portrayed the law as similar to Texas’s “bounty” law before reporting the ACLU opposes the California law and asking fellow legal analyst Areva Martin, “I’m wondering from your perspective, first, is that right to you? And will these so-called bounty laws, will this really undermine, maybe fatally, the power of the judiciary to intervene and weigh in?”
Martin did not answer the question and observed that the law is Newsom’s way of “trolling” Texas, “he went in to the state of Texas with this big ad trolling the state of Texas, saying, look, if you can protect women’s– what you believe women’s lives by banning abortion, we’re going to protect the lives of citizens by preventing individuals from selling and transferring assault weapons and ghost guns in the state of California.”
This is a trolling, however it’s not very effective as it makes illegal something that was already legal in Texas where they updated its abortion laws. Still, Martin hyped the political benefits of Newsom’s position:
In some ways Gavin Newsom trollingly mocks the Supreme Court. He is saying that if this flawed legal reasoning was to permit this Texas abortion law to be passed, then it is okay. If you refuse, I will shame you and call you hypocrites.
Coates also enjoyed the idea of the Supreme Court having to come to terms with its alleged hypocrisy, “The reason I, kind of, chuckle at the idea of consistency, Areva, and I think we all will chuckle in harmony here, if that’s even a thing, Chuckling in harmony, is the idea of the Supreme Court on the very case overturning Roe V. Wade.”
Ultimately, Coates cast doubt on the law’s future, not because it’s a poorly thought out troll or because the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but because the Supreme Court does not listen to its own logic, “The Dobbs … is inconsistent and saying, hey, this fundamental rule is going to apply here and here is the base logic, but not anything else that comes from that same thing. So, I do wonder, the idea of trolling the Supreme Court on a matter of consistency, it might be sort of the exercise in futility, we will see.”
Coates realized that these laws could be used in other ways than just for guns and asked Coates to clarify. New Yok Times opinion staff editor David Swerdlick, “the law also comes as states are dealing with other politically sensitive issues like contraception – who knew that would be politically sensitive after the Griswoldvoted rights, but it appears that decision is made by the Supreme Court. These laws could fuel political fights. I mean, most likely they will, right?”
Swerdlick avoided asking questions, but instead repeated the notion of the Court’s hypocrisy. This could serve as a rallying call for Newsom or the Democrats. The fact that no laws are being passed to ban contraceptives is another reason.
This segment was sponsored and produced by Behr.
The transcript of the July 22 broadcast is available here:
CNN Don’t forget Lemon tonight
7/22/2022
12:00 PM ET
LAURA COATES (I mean, I think the idea that this was nearly anticipated was almost immediately called out when we saw Texas’ law regarding the bounty. So why would other states, so-called “blue”, do it?
Actually, I would like to read you something, Areva. The ACLU issued a statement regarding the law. They said, “this legal framework is unsound and invalid no matter what activity it is directed at because it eviscerates basic principles of constitutional government by destroying an individual’s ability to petition a court to block the state from violating a legal right.”
Your perspective is what I am asking. These so-called bounty laws will likely reduce, if not fatally, the ability of the judiciary, to weigh in and intervene.
AREVA MARTIN : Laura, I’ll start with the fact that Newsom was basically stated. The fact that it was not stated in its entirety is a surprise. The Supreme Court rejected to overturn the Texas bounty statute, which permits individuals to sue those who aid and abet people in obtaining an abortion. It was an unambiguous decision.
Newsom was clear. His Democratic state lawmakers were invited to bring a bill to Newsom’s desk. It was to be based on the Texas law and had to address gun safety. California Senator Bob Hertzberg did exactly that. This law was sponsored by him, passed to Gavin Newsom, who signed it. This is why he’s very specific about it.
Then he went to Texas to trolling it with this huge ad saying: “Look, if we can protect women’s–what you believe in women’s lives through banning abortion, then we will protect citizens’ lives by stopping individuals from selling or transferring assault weapons in California.
Gavin Newsom knows very well, California’s attorney general is also very intelligent. He and his team expect, anticipate, and want to see this bill challenged in constitutional court. They would like to see the bill pass — that it is challenged by the Supreme Court.
Gavin Newsom may be trolling the Supreme Court in some aspects. What he’s saying is that, if your state was willing to accept this flawed legal reasoning in order to make this Texas abortion law valid, then California must also allow it to remain in California. And if California doesn’t allow it to stay in California, shame on them and you will be called hypocrites.
There’s a lot going on in politics, Laura. And some legal, I’ll call it shenanigans, by governors such as Governor Newsom.
DAVID SWERDLICK, Yes.
COATES: The reason I, kind of, chuckle at the idea of consistency, Areva, and I think we all will chuckle in harmony here, if that’s even a thing, Chuckling in harmony, is the idea of the Supreme Court on the very case overturning Roe V. Wade
It DobbsDecision tries to be inconsistent, attempts to compartmentalize and is inconsistent. It says, Hey, This fundamental rule is going apply here and Here is the base logic but not everything else that arises from that same thing. The idea of trolling Supreme Court for consistency is a bit of futility.
David, the law also comes as states are dealing with other politically- sensitive issues like contraception –
SWERDLICK: Yeah.
COATES – Who would have thought that this would prove to be so politically sensitive in the wake of the Griswoldvoted rights, but it appears that decision is made by the Supreme Court. These laws could fuel political fights. They will most probably, I suppose.
SWERDLICK This shame on YOU, when you alter the language a bit can be a rallying call for candidates. This becomes an issue where Governor Newsom and the other Democrats can continue to run if they do.
Governor Newsom has some wide-open runway right now. He won his — he won his runoff challenge– excuse me, his recall challenge last year. He will be reelected in the regular elections this year. He is able to express his willingness to fight for the Democrats.
About Post Author
