On Friday afternoon, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell displayed a traditional instance of journalists reacting negatively to a growth that goes in favor of conservatives as a “setback” or an motion that “does not bode properly,” sympathizing with the liberal standpoint.

As she interviewed New York Occasions reporter Linda Greenhouse to advertise her new melodramatic e-book decrying conservative make-up of the Supreme Court docket, Justice on the Brink, Mitchell recalled that latest motion by the excessive courtroom concerning legal guidelines towards abortion in Texas “does not bode properly.” 

After revising her assertion by including, “for the individuals who consider that Roe v. Wade was determined,” she then referred to courtroom choices on voting rights as a “setback” for “these believing that the Voting Rights Act has already been gutted in 2013.”

 

 

Mitchell posed: “Let’s discuss abortion and the truth that they even took the Mississippi case on December 1st. There’s been a lot concentrate on Texas, however the Mississippi case is actually the heart of Roe v. Wade, and the truth that they let Texas — the ban — stand — which is a de facto ban on abortion in Texas. That does not bode properly along with the truth that they took the Mississippi case.”

Greenhouse asserted that the Mississippi abortion ban is “flatly unconstitutional beneath present legislation,” including: “So the one motive that this new courtroom with three Trump justices would have even taken Mississippi’s attraction was as a result of they’ve some difficulty with present legislation or some change they need to make, and we’ll learn the way drastic that change goes to be.”

Mitchell then jumped again in to revise her earlier suggestion {that a} conservative victory was a foul factor:

So — and I ought to have mentioned, “Does not bode properly,” you realize, the implication there is for the individuals who consider that Roe v. Wade was determined and no matter you suppose in regards to the, you realize, philosophical or authorized justification for utilizing privateness because the justification for it, that it’s, you realize, precedent. And, up till now no less than, precedent has mattered.

And in her subsequent followup, Mitchell once more put a unfavorable spin on a conservative victory:

And there are such a lot of different points. The top of the final time period, voting rights, a setback for these believing that the Voting Rights Act has already been gutted in 2013, however, you realize, extra — extra motion towards it from the Supreme Court docket. Affirmative motion is one other factor you suppose could possibly be at stake with this courtroom.

This episode of Andrea Mitchell Reviews was sponsored partially by Fidelity. Their contact data is linked.

Transcript follows:

Andrea Mitchell Reviews

November 12, 2021

12:40 p.m. Jap

ANDREA MITCHELL: Let’s discuss abortion and the truth that they even took the Mississippi case on December 1st. There’s been a lot concentrate on Texas, however the Mississippi case is actually the heart of Roe v. Wade, and the truth that they let Texas — the ban — stand — which is a de facto ban on abortion in Texas. That does not bode properly along with the truth that they took the Mississippi case.

LINDA GREENHOUSE, NEW YORK TIMES: Properly, that is proper, and I spent truly — within the e-book, I spent numerous time speaking about no matter — what will need to have been a heated inner wrestle at the courtroom over what to do with Mississippi’s attraction. So Mississippi bans abortion —  seeks to ban abortion after 15 weeks of being pregnant — one thing that is flatly unconstitutional beneath present legislation. So the one motive that this new courtroom with three Trump justices would have even taken Mississippi’s attraction was as a result of they’ve some difficulty with present legislation or some change they need to make, and we’ll learn the way drastic that change goes to be.

MITCHELL: So — and I ought to have mentioned, “Does not bode properly,” you realize, the implication there is for the individuals who consider that Roe v. Wade was determined and no matter you suppose in regards to the, you realize, philosophical or authorized justification for utilizing privateness because the justification for it, that it’s, you realize, precedent. And, up till now no less than, precedent has mattered.

GREENHOUSE: Yeah, we had the fitting to abortion as a constitutional matter for nearly half a century. And each courtroom that is encountered a legislation like Mississippi’s legislation has after all needed to declare it unconstitutional as a result of, beneath present legislation, a lady has an absolute proper to terminate a being pregnant earlier than fetal viability, which is manner later than 16 weeks in Mississippi. In fact, it is manner later than six weeks in Texas. And in order that’s actually the difficulty. Is the courtroom going to face by its precedent or is it not?

MITCHELL: And there are such a lot of different points. The top of the final time period, voting rights, a setback for these believing that the Voting Rights Act has already been gutted in 2013, however, you realize, extra — extra motion towards it from the Supreme Court docket. Affirmative motion is one other factor you suppose could possibly be at stake with this courtroom.