MSNBC Legal Analysts Are Not Taking the New SCOTUS Decisions Very Well
“an existential threat to the rule of law”
As you’re probably aware, the United States Supreme Court made some monumental decisions yesterday that almost unilaterally benefit the Trump administration.
Most notably, the birthright citizenship decision and the decision on lower court injunctions.
The legal analysts over at MSNBC are taking the news as well as you’d expect, which is to say, not well at all.
NewsBusters reports (emphasis is theirs):
University of Michigan assistant law professor Leah Litman’s jaw literally dropped when the rulings were released (pictured above, she’s wearing the green jacket). To take a break from clutching her pearls, she touted the belligerence and hyperbolic dissent from the liberal activist justices:
I just want to note the Democratic appointees’ strong dissents in this case. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calls the court’s decision, “an existential threat to the rule of law.” Justice Sotomayor’s dissent says, “no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates.” She calls the court, “complicit in a grave attack on our system of law.”
“The reality is the Supreme Court’s Republican justices took away lower courts single powerful tool – the most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration and holding them accountable to the law,” Litman decried…
Further in the show, legal correspondent Lisa Rubin touted how liberal attorneys general had “predicted” how the conservative Supreme Court would supposedly strip away our civil rights, particularly touting New Jersey’s Matt Platkin, who claimed blue states were better places to live:
Attorney General [Matt] Platkin in New Jersey told me, and I’m reading from our transcript, “I think it’s fair to say, today, your rights and privileges as an American citizen vary based on what state you live in. So, if you want to be free from gun violence, if you want to make sure you have access to reproductive health care, if you want your kids to get a quality public education, all of those are meaningfully different depending on whether you live in a state, frankly, with attorneys general like us, or if not, so that when they created the Constitution and gave power to the states on law enforcement, on education, and a whole range of areas health care, this is what happens when the federal government gets out of that space, and we are standing up for those rights.”
Watch this video:
See more below:
This woman is melting down over SCOTUS; her eyes are nearly popping out.
Make no mistake, this is a HUGE WIN for the Trump administration. pic.twitter.com/7TnCElGFQB
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) June 27, 2025
This is AWESOME.
MSDNC is directly admitting this is a historic win for Trump.
TRUMP KEEPS ON WINNING! https://t.co/BGTqvKbsCz pic.twitter.com/1esfNUKurU
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) June 27, 2025
They seem even more panicked now than they did after election day.
Featured image via NewsBusters video.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Will the leftists learn anything from this? Naaa…
.
I guess the Leftist legal establishment actually believed that their ‘Heads we win, tails you lose” interpretation of the Constitution was chiseled in stone on the wall of the Supreme Court chamber.
So when the Supreme Court rules overwhelmingly against an Dem administration and they keep doing it anyway, MSNBC goes ‘meh.’
But when the Trump administration obeys the injunctions laid down against it and takes them to the Supreme Court where they are overturned, MSNBC goes into shrieking hysterics.
In 2022 they probably argued the exact opposite. We know Justice Kagan came right out in an interview saying district court judges should not have the power to stop the Presidents agenda
https://nypost.com/2025/06/28/us-news/cnns-scott-jennings-rips-liberal-supreme-court-justice-elena-kagan/
So SCOTUS is now an existential threat to the rule of law, I guess i was mistaken in that SCOTUS was the final rule on what the law meant in relation to the Constitution, which is a great companion to Trump who is an existential threat to Democracy. What’s next? Who is an existential threat to humanity? The Galaxy? Time itself and the 4th Dimension?
If that wild eyed chick is an associate professor of anything other than how to live a full life with nothing but a wine box from WalMart and 10 cats she should be immediately fired and disbarred.
To give the benefit of the doubt, I think what she meant was that restraining the authority of a district court so as to confine its injunctions to its own district, giving the POTUS free rein everywhere else, is the threat, not the SCOTUS itself.
What I find disproportionate here is that all this hyperbole is over a ruling that largely does little more than acknowledge precedent and that settles any questions that may have been unresolved concerning a district court’s authority with regard to nationwide injunctions. They’ve got to realize (do they?) that this will be beneficial to any POTUS, including one of their own and not just beneficial to Trump.
That’s like arguing that laws forbidding sleeping under bridges forbid the rich as well as the poor.. To wit, only one side plays this game in the first place
I’ve reached the point when MSNBC, CNNand the rest of the leftist operations run by women are out of touch of the real world.. I’m tired of seeing all these women show their virtues by attacking anything that does not go their way. Would they allow and illegal to camp on their lawn? Martha’s Vineyard.
Do they:
Shop at the average grocery store or totally support the upper echelon Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s?
Have a clue how much has been stolen from the he middle and lower classes because of fraud? Stolen SSNs?
Know of the billions of govt checks sent top to non existent people who but being cashed by SOMEONE?
Their virtue signaling is so telling and selfish. How much of their own money do they give to those who need it? Probably a pittance.
It’s call e d standing. What you claim every Republican must have.
This guy Platkin is an idiot. I want him to tell me again that dramacrat AGs protect citizens against gun violence. I’ll see his statement and raise him NY, LA, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark for starters. Tell me again how there is no gun violence in these cities??? While he is added he can tell be how women in those cities can get reproductive health care other than abortion. He can also tell me how good the schools are in those cities. He should be embarrassed.
Straw man. No Dem claims there is no “gun violence” in those cities. What they claim is that there is a lot less such violence in those cities than there would be without their gun-grabbing laws, and there’d be even less if the rest of the country had their laws. As proof they point to the undisputed fact that their states have significantly lower crime rates than do states with R governments and respect for the RKBA.
There is of course no denying that this is a fact, but the conclusion they draw from it is invalid. And one indication of the flaw in the argument is the fact that even in R-run states, the high crime rates are concentrated in D-run cities. The true cause for the disparity between crime rates in D and R states becomes apparent when you adjust for demographics.
The phrase “an existential threat” is SOOOO common with these people. They are the real “existential threat”
They can’t tell us what a woman is, and I’ll bet they can’t tell you what existential means.
Remember “gravitas “? That’s a word that was on all of their lips, until it wasn’t anymore. They all used it but I doubt they could spell it.
It’s hard to take them seriously when they use big words that they don’t know what they mean.
Gravitas is important. Without it, we’d all go floating off into space. And that’s worse than causing an island to capsize.
Well, your burros would, at least.
You are correct. I have no idea, though, why people were running around using the Russian pronunciation
We. have approximately 700 federal district court judges, which invites forum shopping. Find the right judge, and you can get the opinion you want and it will apply to the whole US. The opposition to Trump loves this system because some rogue judge will issue an injunction, and define a “putative” class which makes the opinion even more far reaching. BTW “putative” in this context generally means it doesn’t exist. Trump’s opposition has used this system to block much of his agenda. No wonder we get hysterics. These female “legal analysts” sound like something one would hear on a visit to the woman’s ward in a psychiatric hospital. Trump has driven his enemies completely insane.
As a way around this decision, I suspect that we are shortly going to see class action suits, which could include the whole world, amped up on steroids.
Which requires class certification. Also keeps it in single case; can’t run in multiple Districts nor is judge shopping as easy. Class cert opt in/opt out decision is a double edge sword; opt in on an ultimately victorious claim is all good but it only applies to the class members not those who opted out. Opt in on a ultimately losing claim and that’s the end of the road. Then there’s the greater likelihood of requiring bond to be posted by the plaintiffs with a class action v the laxity of enforcement of this requirement in the prior single plaintiff cases.
There actually is a sort of logic to these reactions. They’ve been calling President Trump “lawless” for years now. It’s a complete lie but they don’t care. They like saying it, so it must be okay.
From there, it’s a small step to claiming that anything that works in his favor must also be lawless. The fact that the law says otherwise is irrelevant to them.
The truth and the law are irrelevant to them. All that matters is that they want President Trump stopped!
Truth and the law are entirely incidental.
Much of the d/prog base is ill informed taking their cues from headlines and social media posts. They have no appreciation of the actual issues nor any inclination to independently investigate/research. They don’t understand how badly they’ve been lied to and manipulated into believing falsehoods. In a word they are fanatics.
I was talking to a progressive fascist neighbor and brought up the Dems Russian collusion lie and how their special prosecutor was unable to prove the claim. He stated that the AG changed the report so it didn’t show Trump was guilty.
I think they’re influenced by the (frankly unbelievable) Marbury v. Madison decision, saying courts “say what the law is”.
So these judges think it’s their job to decide what the law is, and since they don’t like Trump, he’s lawless.
There has got to be a better way. Maybe courts needed more power than they had before 1803, but they took too much for themselves there. Frankly the right response to such a grab by one of the branches of government is to tell the grabber to go grab themselves.
The salt of sh*tlib womb-men tears is incredibly tasty right now.
If there is blame to be cast over this SCOTUS decision, it can be laid at the feet of billionaires like Reid Hoffman and groups like William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, who never learned like the NRA did long ago, to pick your battles carefully lest you get a decision that is unhelpful.
The NRA learned the wrong lesson, as we see from battles such as constitutional carry and Heller, both of which they actively opposed, and were victorious in spite of them.
You will also note their eerie silence on the current suppressor and SBR campaign being waged by pretty much every other national 2A rights group, and their missing name on all the joint filings.
“Your NRA Dues Inaction.”
“So, if you want to be free from gun violence…, if you want your kids to get a quality public education, all of those are meaningfully different depending on whether you live in a state, frankly, with attorneys general like us,”
When NJ AG Platkin finished this statement, was he still in the studio, or did MSNBC have to hurriedly arrange a remote from the rail he was riding?
A pity it wasn’t the third rail
In the mid 80’s, I bought a punk rock album, titled “Life Is Ugly, So Why Not Kill Yourself?”
MSNBC employees might want to consider.
This would also save the world from more of them vomiting the word “existential”.
https://www.rlsmedia.com/article/update-mercer-county-authorities-investigate-deadly-shooting-trenton I think Platkin works out of Trenton NJ. This happened Thurs. night. Four shot, three adult males and a 16 year old girl. @4 year old male died. Walking around this town at night while white is basically unheard of. I live right outside of town. The shootings and murders are commonplace. Don’t get me started on Newark, Camden, Paterson, Irvington.
24 year old male died. Tried capitalizing my 2.
I love it ! Pass the popcorn. These fools don’t even know what the rule of law means. They think the 1619 project is real history and they can’t be bothered to likely even read the Supreme Court decision. Meltdowns are all they got ; it’s all emotive acting and performance art with these yahoos.
Aktuel SCOTES justices disagreed with the magority. So the descent must be korrect.
The loudest screaming by the left have nothing to do with the law or Constitution. It’s that they are losing their ability to legislate through the courts. Lawfare is dieing in front of them and they don’t know what to do
As Jackie Gleason used to say, “How sweet is is!”
“it is!” Apologies to the Great One.
To those who call Trump’s EO’s “lawless” or “a threat to the rule of law”, I have a newsflash.
An EO is the law, unless it’s superceded or a unelected court steps in to substitute its own opinion. The presidency is not just an honorary title. What are these lawyers learning in law school that they don’t understand this?