Guest-anchoring the June 25 edition of Now with Alex Wagner, MSNBC's Joy-Ann Reid took the opportunity to react to a 2-hour-old Supreme Court ruling with an appropriate amount of sky-is-falling bluster.
Reid's overwhelmingly liberal panel was distraught at the decision and agreed that this would lead to a “slow but steady erosion of voting rights in the South.” When asked his opinion about the ruling, Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, had this to say:
MSNBC’s penchant for stoking racial animosity in service to a liberal agenda reached a new low on June 25 following the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Voting Rights Act. Following the decision that Section 4 of the Act was unconstitutional, MSNBC’s Chris Jansing claimed that the ruling was an outright “setback for civil rights.”
That's doubtless a claim that many liberal advocates will make, but is patently irresponsible and biased for an ostensibly objective journalist like Jansing to claim. [See video after jump. MP3 audio here.]
Thousands of people gathered March 26 to “March for Marriage” on the National Mall to defend traditional marriage and families as the Supreme Court decided whether to upheld California’s prop 8. The diverse group carried signs that read “1 Man + 1 Woman= Marriage,” and “Every Child Deserves a Mom & Dad.”
The march ended in a rally in front of the Washington Monument, where religious leaders, political speakers and leaders gave impassioned speeches in defense of marriage.
Supreme Court justices traditionally wear black robes to hear arguments. Unless they’re hearing – and potentially agreeing with – arguments lefties don’t like. Then they’re decked out in white sheets.
That’s how conservative justices were painted in former Newsweek reporter Robert Parry’s hysterical February 28 article at unhinged liberal website Alternet. In “The Neo-Confederate Supreme Court Gearing Up to Restore White Rule Over America,” race-obsessed “journalist” sputtered that “The Court’s striking down Section Five of the Voting Rights Act will mean that jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting – mostly in the Old Confederacy – will be free to impose new obstacles to voting by African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities without first having to submit the changes to a federal court.”
On Wednesday's edition of the Bill Press radio show, Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim put on his best conceited act and expressed that the Supreme Court just doesn't have great brains on it, and they're not qualified to overturn Obamacare. In fact, if they overturn Obamacare, Grim warned, "people's lives are at risk and people will probably die as a result." Conservatism kills.
It's amazing that Grim would say it's the Supreme Court with the failing brains, since he originally boasted (before oral arguments) that Obamacare would be upheld 6 to 3. Now he doesn't believe that, because the Justices are too stupid to rule on it, especially Antonin Scalia:
Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear three days of oral arguments in the healthcare lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, otherwise known as "Obamacare."
We now know the law was based on phony predictions about its cost. After promising the price would be under $940 billion over 10 years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has issued a correction of its initial estimate, which appears to have been based on sleight of hand accounting tactics by congressional Democrats and the White House. CBO now projects the measure will cost taxpayers at least $1.76 trillion over a decade.
ABC, CBS and NBC's morning shows on Wednesday offered a scant 41 seconds to a major Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling permitting the state's collective bargaining law to go into effect. These are the same networks that, just four months ago, praised the "people power" of the liberal protesters and ignored signs comparing conservatives to Nazis.
On February 20, This Week host Christiane Amanpour compared events in the Middle East to protests in the U.S.: "This week: people power making history...Populist frustration is boiling over this week, as we’ve said not just in the Middle East but in the middle of this country as well." On Wednesday, ABC's Good Morning America skipped the latest ruling entirely.
"Supreme Court extends gun rights" a headline on the Web site for the Chicago Tribune erroneously claims today.
The link on the page brought readers to a story entitled "Supreme Court extends gun rights in Chicago case." Here's the opening paragraph:
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court reversed a ruling upholding Chicago's ban today and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe the "right to keep and bear arms."
But that language suggests that the Court invented a right out of whole cloth rather than grounded its decision in the Constitution itself. In truth, what the Supreme Court found in McDonald v. City of Chicago was that the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of the individual's right to firearm ownership is incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
"The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an even handed manner," Justice Alito wrote for the Court.