For people who spend most of their time warning of the dangers to “our democracy,” media pundits seem to know very little about how the American government is supposed to function. Take MSNBC’s Joy Reid, for example, as she spent the first five minutes of Thursday night’s ReidOutBemoaning the monumental Supreme Court decisions of this term.
Reid began by expressing thanks that this Supreme Court session was finally over, “Today was the last day that we heard from them this term, and actually thank God, because in the past month the conservative majority has successfully weakened Miranda Rights, kneecapped state gun safety laws, betrayed indigenous sovereignty, begun to dismantle the separation of church and state, and curtailed women’s rights to privacy and liberty.”
Singling out the Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, Reid lamented, “Yep, at a time when the climate catastrophe is giving us a collective beatdown, with the U.N. recently warning that we need to do something not now but right now, the Court struck down this regulation that the EPA drafted under authority granted by the Clean Air Act, claiming that it amounts to an ‘extraordinary’ overreach by the EPA.”
Reid then accused the conservative Justices of politicizing the Court, “Now make no mistake, these Justices — who swore under oath that they had no political opinions — have proven that they very much do have a political agenda.”
Perjury would result if anyone swears under oath they have no political views. And if progressives like Reid are worried that many of their pet projects can’t be accomplished by unaccountable bureaucratic agencies and judicial fiat, then maybe — just maybe — they should focus on accomplishing their goals through the legislative branch as required by Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Reid attempted to discredit conservative Justices who worked for Republicans during Florida’s recount in 2000. Is Reid now an insurrectionist due to this tendency on the Court to re-litigate 2000.Reid vocalized her philosophical disapprovals with the Court. She also decried Originalism.
Gone is the concept of judicial restraint, and in its place is the made-up conservative philosophy of “Originalism.”According to The Washington Post, taken together as a whole, “the decisions mark, for now, the triumph of Originalism, a radically conservative judicial philosophy that maintains that the only legitimate way to decide constitutional disputes is to ask how they would have been resolved when the constitution was drafted.” YYou may not have known that women had no rights in those days, when only white landowners were allowed to vote and the Constitution didn’t mention them.
Reid uses the definition of totally-unbiased Washington PostThis misses all the point. Originalism asserts, because words’ meanings change with time, that the Constitution and the legal implications of it must be understood in context.
This extends to Constitutional amendments as well, which blows Reid’s snarky comment about the lack of electoral representation in early America out of the water. For example, if a Court’s decision depends on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment — as it did in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson — then the Court’s opinion would be influenced by the meaning of the amendment in its original context.
The recent Supreme Court rulings were not about overturning fundamental freedoms, but rather returning to Congress the power to create those rights, regulations and privileges. The progressive media can’t stand this.
The Constitutional Illiteracy Showcase was possible because Trivago Sleep number. You can find their contact information here.
Click “Expand” to see the relevant transcript.
MSNBC’s ReidOut
06/30/22
7:01:30 PM ETJOY RID: Tonight we begin by looking back on one of most significant and life-changing Supreme Court terms, since those courts which overturned segregation or expanded women’s right. This Court is the only one to reverse segregation and expand women’s rights.
Today was the last day that we heard from them this term, and actually thank God, because in the past month the conservative majority has successfully weakened Miranda Rights, kneecapped state gun safety laws, betrayed indigenous sovereignty, begun to dismantle the separation of church and state, and curtailed women’s rights to privacy and liberty.
This was just a few days before the Court’s final decision. The Court’s 6-3 conservative majority effectively revoked the EPA’s authority to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants contributing to global warming.
Yep, at a time when the climate catastrophe is giving us a collective beatdown, with the U.N. recently warning that we need to do something not now but right now, the Court struck down this regulation that the EPA drafted under authority granted by the Clean Air Act, claiming that it amounts to an “extraordinary” overreach by the EPA.
Not only will the decision have significant implications for survival of the planet but it will also influence how the federal government implements any new regulations. Emboldened by the ruling the chief plaintiff, the Republican attorney general in West Virginia — Joe Manchin country — warned that they were just getting started. This Christmas, coal will be in every stocking.
This year’s ruling should really not come as a surprise. These rulings are the result of nearly a century of effort by conservative politicians to reform the federal judiciary after years of radical progressivism.
Now make no mistake, these Justices — who swore under oath that they had no political opinions — have proven that they very much do have a political agenda, and it all began back in 1991 with the contentious confirmation hearing of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justice Thomas, who had survived sexual harassment claims and an bruising confirmation hearing was clear that he had an agenda. He was open to retribution. In 1993, The New York TimesTwo law clerks reported that Justice Thomas said to them that he wanted the Court to stay until 2034. When they asked why he reportedly said, “the liberals made my life miserable for 43 years, and I’m going to make their lives miserable for 43 years.”
And if you had any doubt that he had an axe to grind, his wife — you know, the active insurrectionist, told People magazine that “he doesn’t owe any of the groups who opposed him anything.”
In the year 2000, Thomas was part of the 5-4 majority that took the extraordinary step of putting a stop to a Florida recount effectively ending former Vice President Al Gore’s presidential aspirations and putting the Republican majority on the Court’s preferred candidate in the White House.
Thomas is now the senior member of a group of conservative justices who now join his once extreme views, and who always played — and who also played a role in that Florida case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett were part of the team working for Republicans in Florida during recount battles. This culminated in the landmark Supreme Court decision. The Court majority felt so ashamed about it that they decided not to use it as precedent.
The embarrassment has ended. Another set of wins for the Republican Party, and its evangelical ruling wing, was delivered by the conservative majority this summer. During his confirmation hearing Chief — um, Chief Justice Roberts famously said that his job was to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat. It is evident that five of Roberts’ colleagues don’t agree with that policy. They are all very active in the field for one team.
Gone is the concept of judicial restraint, and in its place is the made-up conservative philosophy of “Originalism.” According to The Washington Post, taken together as a whole, “the decisions mark, for now, the triumph of originalism, a radically conservative judicial philosophy that maintains that the only legitimate way to decide constitutional disputes is to ask how they would have been resolved when the constitution was drafted.” You know, at a time when no one except landowning white males had any rights at all and when women weren’t even mentioned in the Constitution.
And unfortunately, you — you should probably brace yourselves for more, because they are not done. Today, the Court heard a case regarding whether state legislatures are exempt from state courts’ judicial supervision when setting election rules. North Carolina Republicans want the Court grant immutable power to state legislatures to create voter suppression laws or gerrymander electoral map.
This means that the right to perform exactly what Donald Trump ordered swing states to perform as part of his January 6 coup attempt. And this just in time to 2024. Clarence is not the husband and insurrectionist Ginni’s fiancee.
About Post Author
