MSNBC Gives Extremely Absurd ‘Analysis’ About Latest Supreme Court Decision



Following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling, which acknowledges that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers, and beyond that, at least presumptive immunity for official conduct, MSNBC decided it would be a good idea to bring on a legal analyst who claims former presidents could order assassinations and get away with it. 

This decision today makes it so imperative that the person who holds the office understand the limits and exercises those powers with restraint because the thing that is not dealt with here is the hypothetical that was dealt within the court of appeals about SEAL Team Six. And it is unclear how they studiously avoid dealing with that because you could make the argument that is official conduct.

The anchor asked the legal analyst how he would make that argument. He said:

You would sit there and say I have determined as Commander-in-Chief that this is necessary in the way that Judge Pan in the lower court phrased it was, ‘What if the president decides that a political adversary is a threat to democracy and orders the killing.’ And why isn’t that now an official act, with the presumption of immunity? And remember, you don’t look at motive; you can’t consider that he’s doing it to get rid of his adversary.

MSNBC is desperate because they see that the tide is turning, and they will say anything with the hope that their message sticks. Per usual, MSNBC’s incendiary comments are designed to stoke fear and distract from the actual content and implications of the ruling. Suggesting that the decision could lead to presidential assassination orders is not only irresponsible but also blatant misrepresentation. it’s a classic tactic of the left: If you can’t win on the merits, scare the public with outlandish hypotheticals. 

The left’s reaction to the Supreme Court decision, exemplified by MSNBC’s legal analyst’s hyperbolic rhetoric, reveals a deeper fear of a judiciary that adheres to constitutional principles rather than progressive activism. That’s why the left wants to expand the court, remove Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and paint the court as illegitimate. 

Former federal prosecutor and current New York Rep. Dan Goldman (D) had this to say about the ruling:

Today is a dark day for American Democracy. The Supreme Court’s ruling gives expansive immunity to a corrupt president who purports to use acts within his official authority to conspire to overturn a lawful election. This ruling is perhaps the final nail in the coffin of this rogue Supreme Court’s claim to institutional legitimacy.

Typical Democrat talking point and continuous fear-mongering about democracy “dying” due to the conservative justices and Donald Trump. 

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) had this to say about the ruling, calling the justices “partisan”:

This decision by the Supreme Court today is a travesty and perhaps the most dangerous judicial opinion from our Supreme Court in generations. By smooth and naive legalese, these partisan justices have created a framework for a President to commit any acts he or she chooses … This opinion is nothing less than a blueprint for a lawless dictator to take root in the Oval Office of the White House.

Democrats won’t give up these talking points until they are defeated soundly at the ballot box or until they get exactly what they want: expanding the court and passing their leftist agenda via the court. For the sake of the country, we hope it will be the former and not the latter.





Source link

Scroll to Top