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.”
Although it is an evil troll, the Texas state that updated their abortion laws made something even more illegal. Still, Martin hyped the political benefits of Newsom’s position:
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.
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 said that he saw many other applications for laws like this, and urged people to get rid of guns. 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 GriswoldDecision, although it seems that is also the case for voting rights. Can these laws be used to fuel political debates? I mean, most likely they will, right?”
Swerdlick did not answer the question but rather repeated the idea that the Court was hypocritical. It could become a rallying cry to Newsom and Democrats. Additionally, no laws are being passed banning contraceptives.
This segment was sponsored and produced by Behr.
This transcript is for the show on July 22, 2018.
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. 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. Will these “Bonus laws” really reduce the power of judges to interfere and weigh in, or even fatally?
AREVA MARTIN – Laura, you stated that Newsom had basically said it. But it wasn’t. 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. This was done by Senator Bob Hertzberg in California. The bill was his sponsor. It made it to Gavin Newsom’s desk and he signed. He is quite clear on that.
He then went into Texas and ran this massive ad, trolling Texas. It stated, “If you can save women’s lives– what do you believe is the best for them by prohibiting abortions, we’ll protect the lives and property of Californian citizens.”
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 desire to see this bill succeed — the Supreme Court is called to challenge it.
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, you should act consistent and let it stand in California.
Laura, there’s lots of politics and legal — that I will call shenanigans by 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 DobbsIt tries not to, it tries not to, it is inconsistent. The basic rule will apply here, here is the base logic but nothing else can be made from this same thing. It is possible that the trolling of the Supreme Court over a matter of consistency might prove futile. We will find out.
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 GriswoldDecision, although it seems that is also the case for voting rights. Can these laws be used to fuel political debates? You’re most likely to see them, don’t you think?
SWERDLICK If you change the words a bit, shame on you can become a rallying cry for campaigners. 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 is going to win the regular election. He is able to express his willingness to fight for the Democrats.
About Post Author
