MSNBC asked three Democrats to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling on Alabama’s redistricting plan, neglecting to acknowledge any alternate view point. NBC senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice Michael Waldman, and former Alabama Democratic Senator Doug Jones expressed surprise that the conservative Supreme Court would uphold Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when they previously “gutted the 65 [Voting Rights] Act.”
“While the court isn't breaking new ground by just simply reaffirming what the law has been for the better part of several decades, it was a surprising decision, especially from this conservative majority,” Laura Jarrett said, alluding that a conservative court would traditionally choose to ignore the Voting Rights Act.
Michael Waldman, author of The Super Majority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, agreed with Jarrett’s assessment and added, “Overwhelmingly, that population growth comes in communities of color, and they are not being represented in the maps that legislatures have drawn. So this will have an impact beyond this one case as these rulings often do, though it is upholding what had been the law for decades.”
Waldman portrayed the court as doing the bare minimum in its ruling, which fits the narrative of his new book. The following quote was a summary of The Super Majority from Waldman’s website and accurately described Waldman’s view of the court:
Its [The Supreme Court’s] ruling in Bruen radically loosened gun safety laws amid an epidemic of mass shootings. West Virginia v. EPA hobbled the government’s ability to fight climate change and other environmental threats. And in Dobbs, the Court revoked the constitutional protection for abortion rights promised by Roe v. Wade and Casey for nearly 50 years. In these rulings, the supermajority relied on “originalism,” a new, extreme, and deeply flawed method of interpreting the Constitution.
Jones, another opponent of conservatism, hinted that Republicans only won the House because of the unconstitutional redistricting and suggested, without evidence throngs of people were out celebrating the verdict. “So, this is a major, major victory. You know, Andrea, I gotta be honest with you. I haven't seen so many people out dancing in the streets since Alabama won their last national football championship. It is really exciting down here,” He asserted.
“That's a big deal when we talk about elections and football in the same breath,” Mitchell quipped, lending him credence.
Continuing to belittle the conservative Supreme Court, Mitchell and Waldman claimed that the court gutted the Civil Rights Act in 2013 and Walden agreed. “This comes after a decade when they gutted the entire rest of the act, especially as it relates to voting rules and not just redistricting. You’re right, John Roberts, as a young lawyer, opposed the provision that he said precedent requires them to uphold today,” he said.
Waldman believed the only way a conservative court would support minority voting rights would be if they felt threatened and needed to protect their reputation. His assertions went unquestioned as did the other allegations aired on MSNBC.
Even when MSNBC agreed with the Supreme Court’s verdict, it still portrayed the conservative court as corrupt. If this is how they treat decisions they support, one can only imagine their response to a decision they dislike.
MSNBC’s anti Conservative coverage of the Supreme Court was made possible because of a sponsorship from Liberty Mutual. Their contact information is linked.
The Transcript is below, click "expand" to read.
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Report
6/8/2023
12:01 p.m. EasternMSNBC Presents One Sided Coverage of Supreme Court Ruling
ANDREA MITCHELL: Good day everyone, I'm Andrea Mitchell in New York as the Supreme Court rules today on voting rights.
In a surprising decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by the three liberal judges and in part by Justice Kavanaugh, upholding a lower court decision, a victory for supporters of the Voting Rights Act, in a case challenging an Alabama redistricting plan.
And joining me now, NBC senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett, Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, and author of The Super Majority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, and former Alabama Democratic Senator Doug Jones. So, Laura fill us in on the case, the Chief Justice’s opinion.
LAURA JARRETT: Yea, so the high court here citing with voting rights advocates who had argued the way that Alabama had gone about drawing up the congressional districts had violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which of course prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. And, the voting rights advocates had said the way that Alabama had gone about doing it, it had crammed the majority of black voters into one single district in a way that diluted their power to elect the candidates of their choice. And today the high court agreed with the voting rights advocates that the lower court had found that the way that the legislature had gone about doing it had violated Section 2.
And while the court isn't breaking new ground by just simply reaffirming what the law has been for the better part of several decades, it was a surprising decision, especially from this conservative majority.
MITCHELL: And Michael, I think we’ve got a graphic of the way they had redistricted. And this was, of course, relevant for the 2022 midterms. So the election was decided on that. And it's quite obvious from this graphic how this was made to just have one black -- one minority representative.
MICHEAL WALDMAN: In Alabama, the election was run using a map a lower court had already declared to be illegal and racially discriminatory, so this is a big win. And it will have an impact across the South and across the country.
The South is the fastest growing region. Overwhelmingly, that population growth comes in communities of color, and they are not being represented in the maps that legislatures have drawn. So this will have an impact beyond this one case as these rulings often do, though it is upholding what had been the law for decades.
MITCHELL: Doug Jones, in Alabama, this is a victory, of course, for fellow Democrats, your fellow Democrats, in Alabama, but also potentially states like Louisiana and Georgia, where there are pending cases that could mean more seats for the current House minority.
DOUG JONES (former senator, AL): Yea, no, there's no question about it. I think people forget sometimes, and Michael just alluded to this. I mean, in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the black population is growing faster than the Hispanic population. It's very, very significant, and those cases in Georgia and Louisiana are almost identical fact situations.
And, also, and I think people forget this sometimes. When you are dealing with a House of Representatives that only has a four or five vote majority, this could have made a big difference in the 2022 elections and what we see playing out right now in Congress right now.
So, this is a major, major victory. You know, Andrea, I gotta be honest with you. I haven't seen so many people out dancing in the streets since Alabama won their last national football championship. It is really exciting down here.
MITCHELL: That's a big deal when we talk about elections and football in the same breath.
(…)
12:05 p.m. Eastern
MITCHELL: Michael, because the Supreme Court – First of all, this chief justice had written before he was on the court even about voting rights. And in 19- In 2013, they gutted the 65 act.
WALDMAN: This comes after a decade when they gutted the entire rest of the act, especially as it relates to voting rules and not just redistricting. You’re right, John Roberts, as a young lawyer, opposed the provision that he said precedent requires them to uphold today.
The question is, they have to be aware – And certainly John Roberts is aware that the court's credibility with the public has collapsed in all the polls because of the rulings last term and with big rulings coming up now. One of the lessons is that people raising their voices, people saying we don't want them to rule this way on something like voting rights, sometimes it might make a big difference.
(…)
