ExpressLane
Verified User
Rachel Maddow called out for 'dangerous' rhetoric toward Supreme Court: 'Fueling the rage'
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow challenged the legitimacy of the Supreme Court Wednesday following its decision to take up former President Trump's immunity case. On "America's Newsroom" Thursday, Fox News contributor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley hit back at Maddow and other liberal voices for "fueling the rage" toward the justices.
JONATHAN TURLEY: This is why you have such anger. This is why people go to the homes of justices. This is what they hear in this echo chamber, that the court is a bunch of robotic, partisan hacks. You've had law school deans refer to them as hacks and what people hear about that, but they don't hear the truth that the Supreme Court has ruled against Donald Trump, against conservative causes regularly, including the conservatives on the court. You had one person yesterday say that, well, this just shows the court is part of the insurrection and the insurrection is ongoing. That type of rhetoric is what's fueling the rage in this country. The court accepted this for review. There are issues here. It's a long-standing debate. I think that Trump is at a disadvantage on the merits, but some of the justices may have serious questions of where to draw this line, that is to tell future presidents when they are not protected. So this rhetoric is dangerous and it's wrong.
The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to review whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution in the Special Counsel's federal election interference case, an election-year dispute that will have blockbuster legal and political implications for the nation.
The justices have fast-tracked the appeal, and will hear oral arguments in late April, with a ruling on the merits expected by late June. Trump's criminal trial has been put on hold pending resolution of the matter.
Arguments will begin the week of April 22.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow shared her strong feelings after learning about the news on "All in with Chris Hayes" Wednesday.
"This is B.S. You are doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend, your partisan patron. And for you to say that this is something that the court needs to decide because it's something that's unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky. And they know it and they don't care that we know it. And that's disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court," Maddow said.
=========================
I water my garden with liberal tears.
What Madow is doing is potentially dangerous to SC justices. In our system of government we must accept them as the final arbiters of the law. Sometimes they go your way and sometimes they don't. Get over it. I doubt Trump will get total immunity but ALL Presidents need some form of immunity to do their job. The SC needs to clarify how much immunity ALL Presidents have. Obama killed two American citizens without even a trial by drone attack should he be prosecuted? for murder?
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow challenged the legitimacy of the Supreme Court Wednesday following its decision to take up former President Trump's immunity case. On "America's Newsroom" Thursday, Fox News contributor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley hit back at Maddow and other liberal voices for "fueling the rage" toward the justices.
JONATHAN TURLEY: This is why you have such anger. This is why people go to the homes of justices. This is what they hear in this echo chamber, that the court is a bunch of robotic, partisan hacks. You've had law school deans refer to them as hacks and what people hear about that, but they don't hear the truth that the Supreme Court has ruled against Donald Trump, against conservative causes regularly, including the conservatives on the court. You had one person yesterday say that, well, this just shows the court is part of the insurrection and the insurrection is ongoing. That type of rhetoric is what's fueling the rage in this country. The court accepted this for review. There are issues here. It's a long-standing debate. I think that Trump is at a disadvantage on the merits, but some of the justices may have serious questions of where to draw this line, that is to tell future presidents when they are not protected. So this rhetoric is dangerous and it's wrong.
The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to review whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution in the Special Counsel's federal election interference case, an election-year dispute that will have blockbuster legal and political implications for the nation.
The justices have fast-tracked the appeal, and will hear oral arguments in late April, with a ruling on the merits expected by late June. Trump's criminal trial has been put on hold pending resolution of the matter.
Arguments will begin the week of April 22.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow shared her strong feelings after learning about the news on "All in with Chris Hayes" Wednesday.
"This is B.S. You are doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend, your partisan patron. And for you to say that this is something that the court needs to decide because it's something that's unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky. And they know it and they don't care that we know it. And that's disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court," Maddow said.
=========================
I water my garden with liberal tears. What Madow is doing is potentially dangerous to SC justices. In our system of government we must accept them as the final arbiters of the law. Sometimes they go your way and sometimes they don't. Get over it. I doubt Trump will get total immunity but ALL Presidents need some form of immunity to do their job. The SC needs to clarify how much immunity ALL Presidents have. Obama killed two American citizens without even a trial by drone attack should he be prosecuted? for murder?
