CNN, MSNBC Laud Newsom ‘Taking Fight to the Enemy’ With Anti-Gun Proposal

CNN and MSNBC cheered Newsom’s rhetorical attack on Republicans, as well as his antigun actions.

CNN will air Monday’s Morning News on Monday Day of the NewAn all-liberal panel was assembled to address the topic. Podcast host Mara Schiavocampo and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin joined the discussion. Toobin admitted that he feels so “cynical” toward the conservative Supreme Court, that he anticipates that there will be a double standard regarding whether California’s gun laws are repealed. Schiavocampo also cheered Newsom’s political statement.

On the same date’s Deadline: White House on MSNBC, host Nicolle Wallace gushed over her MSNBC contributor Barbara McQuade accusing the conservative court of “hypocrisy,” and contributor Claire McCaskill predicted similar laws to help round up possible illegal immigrants based merely on how a person looks.

Fill-in Day of the NewCaitlin Collins, host of the segment, read from Governor Newsom that his anti-gun measures would save lives and Republicans are costing them lives. It was a smart move by Schiavocampo for Democratic Governor’s future political prospects.

This is an excellent political decision for him. His actions are being praised as a brave and courageous act of resistance for the week. It could lead to gun reform. It’s also raising his national profile. It’s also important for someone like him, who is reportedly aiming to run for the presidency in the future.

She began by giving Newsom points because she made a liberal statement on politics, and then went on to wonder if such laws would cause any harm on future issues.

Collins asked Toobin if he believed such anti-gun measures “pass legal muster” before he responded, “Well, that depends on your cynicism about the Supreme Court. It is almost identical to what was passed by the Texas legislature in that same law. The idea behind law is to treat people with similar situations in the same way.

Soon, he added:

If you are cynical, however, about the Supreme Court you might think “They don’t like abortion but they like gun rights so they would find a way to keep the Texas ban on abortion but reject Newsom’s attempt to limit gun rights.” Personallly, I am quite cynical regarding the court and believe they will find a way.

Later in the day, as Wallace hosted, the former Republican turned wacky liberal MSNBC host similarly only had liberal guests to discuss the issue. McQuade cheered for the Democratic governor.

The problem with the Supreme Court, I believe is their inability to care about hypocrisy. So I believe that if the case is on gun rights they won’t hesitate to smack it down on vigilantism, but find some strange way to differentiate this from SBA. If there’s one thing that the era of Donald Trump has brought us, it is the absence of shame.

She soon declared that the court’s conservative justices “have no integrity,” leading Wallace to lavish praise on her liberal guest: “Barbara, you are blowing my mind. Your straightest shot is on this program.

Zales sponsored CNN’s New Day, while Volvo sponsored MSNBC’s Deadline White House. Their contact information is linked.

These transcripts are available:

CNN’s Day of the New

December 13, 2021

Eastern: 7:21 AM

CAITLIN COLLINS – FILL IN CO-HOST: California governor Gavin Newsom is promising to put in place gun control measures by following Texas’ legal strategy. This is basically a ban on the practice of abortion. Texas has been allowed to move forward with its law, which allows anyone to sue private citizens who help someone over six weeks to have an abortion. Newsom also stated in a statement that California would use the authority it has to safeguard people’s health, unlike Texas’ use of it to harm women.

(…)

Mara wants us to take a look at this bigger picture.

MARA SCHIAVOCAMPO PODCAST HOST : Yes, This is smart politics for him. This week, he’s being praised for his willingness to fight the enemy. It could lead to gun reform. It’s also raising his national profile.It’s also important for someone like him, who is rumored to be eyeing a presidential run in the near future.

However, if you expand your eyes and look more closely at the big picture, it is possible to see that states could use the legal process that was created in Texas in an attempt to infringe on other rights. This is what you have. Texas women have had to give up their constitutionally-protected right of abortion for three months.. Because the restriction was not enforced by law, abortion providers don’t have any legal rights. Instead, it has been left to bounty hunters to be applied to them.

If this system is applied to all parties, then what rights could be at risk? This is why Chief Justice Roberts, who is a conservative and wrote his opinion last week, pleaded with his fellow justices not to take the same decision as he did because it would create precedent, which could undermine the court’s authority.

COLLINS Do you think this is legal?

JEFFREY TOOBIN CNN SECRET LEGAL ANALYST : That all depends on how skeptic you are regarding the Supreme Court. Because it’s very similar to the Texas law. The idea behind law is to treat people with similar circumstances in the same way. However, it is easy to think: “Well, if Supreme Court are consistent, they will uphold this effort.”

However, You would be cynical about what the Supreme Court would say. “They don’t want abortion. But they love gun rights. So they’d find a way for Texas to ban abortion. Newsom would reject Newsom’s attempts to restrict gun right. Personally, I find the Supreme Court quite untrustworthy.They will, I believe.

COLLINS: This is a reflection of the anger that Democrats feel over the Texas law, as well as the Supreme Court’s handling. We’ve also seen states attempt to pass similar laws. What do you think? Or what do you think in your looking at this from a big picture, kind of, the precedent that it sets?

SCHIAVOCAMPO : That is what I believe is the problem, it is the precedent. This is what you can see. Newsom gets a lot of praise for his move. Some are saying “Finally someone uses the tactics of right and is turning it against him.” It is a serious problem from a principled standpoint. You have to think about what other constitutional rights a state can decide they don’t want.

(…)

MSNBC’s Deadline: White House

December 13, 2021

Eastern at 4:44 pm

NICOLLE WALKACE: The United States Supreme Court has given vigilantism the green light. Why not take advantage of it to make an ideological policy-making factory here in America, and use that for workarounds? Justice Sotomayor may have called it “a flagrant workaround — end around,” but it could be used for good in order to remove guns from the streets.

BARBARA McQUADE MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR, I agree with your opinion, Nicolle. I believe this is what happens when ends justifies the means. For any constitutional right, a state that is blue could try to make weapons possession illegal. The state can take away rights to due process before taking away property. You could be made illegal to criticize the government.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who was certainly not a liberal and isn’t a fan of abortion rights, stated last week in an opinion that it wasn’t possible to look at the nature or the purpose of the right. You must look at the Supreme Court’s rule. This is allowing us to allow states to totally take control of the judiciary. So now We see Gavin Newsom accomplishing exactly that. You can see that Gavin Newsom is doing this.

WALLACE: So, do you believe the Supreme Court is still silent about vigilantism?

McQUADE, McQuade: The problem with the Supreme Court’s is the fact that they aren’t concerned about hypocrisy. Therefore, I feel that they would not hesitate to bring up gun rights if necessary. However, I do think they might have a problem with naming vigilantism and finding a bizarre distinction from the SBA. If there’s one thing that the era of Donald Trump has brought us, it is the absence of shame. Mitch McConnell was the one to do it, refusing to vote for Merrick Garland. But he sailed through Amy Coney Barrett’s election.

It is okay to be hypocritical, so the court may view gun rights differently. “This right is expressed directly in the Constitution and not implied rights like abortion rights. They will find a small grain of wheat to differentiate it. They lack integrity.

WALLACE: Barbara, You are amazing. This show features the most straight shooters.Let me know how you view the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor sees it as unable to escape the smell of upholding laws that were only created — or so claim the Mississippi legislators — by the person who was elected to the court.

(…)

CLAIRE McCASKILL MSNBC CORRECTOR: Barbara has a point. This is a shocking example of hypocrisy. We don’t usually think about the Supreme Court. But every now and again, someone surprises us with a decision. These days of surprises are gone, I fear. We know that Roberts and all the other right-wing extremists are in the tank, so I believe this vigilantism will catch on.

I’ll let you know what happens next, Nicolle. The red states will enforce vigilante immigration law and empower citizens to arrest anyone they believe to be foreigners. It is extremely depressing.