Wednesday brought about another Supreme Court hearing and yet another set of liberal meltdowns. CBS Mornings co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King tried to feed that frenzy, but longtime legal correspondent Jan Crawford wasn’t having it and repeatedly called out the zaniness.
King said “[t]he Supreme Court hears arguments this morning in a high-stakes case on voting laws” that “many analysts” (read: fellow leftists) “say the outcome could potentially, ‘damage American democracy.’” She then asked Crawford to “explain what this case is really about” since it seems like “a very big deal.”
With the chyron “Dems Argue GOP Redistricting Efforts Would Wreak ‘Havoc’ on Democracy” below her, Crawford took a giant pin to the brown paper bags liberal journalists were planning to spend the day breathing into: “[T]his is an important case about election oversight and redistricting. But it is not, as some commentators have suggested, some back door way for state legislatures to try to steal a presidential election. That is overblown.”
Crawford then soberly broke down the case as having come from North Carolina in which the GOP-dominated legislature “drew up a new congressional map that was extremely favorable to them” and “would likely flipped [sic] a number of seats from Democratic to Republican, so the Democrats challenged that and the state supreme court, which is majority Democrat, threw out the Republican maps as too partisan.”
She added that, in response, the state GOP has deployed a “new theory...called the independent state legislature theory, and that says that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the sole authority to set the ‘time, places, and manner of holding congressional election’” that they hoped will sway the justices.
Even if they win and “sap the power of state courts to review state election rules or congressional maps,” Crawford burst two more leftist bubbles as courts could still hear “challenges based on race” and while some argue states could use this to send faulty slates of presidential electors to Congress, “there are federal laws that would prohibit that.”
Exit question: With Pete Williams’s retirement from NBC and Laura Jarrett being hired from CNN as a Justice correspondent, can NBC viewers expect the daughter of longtime Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett to deliver such reality checks?
To see the relevant transcript from December 7, click “expand.”
CBS Mornings
December 7, 2022
7:11 a.m. Eastern[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Voting Laws Case]
GAYLE KING: The Supreme Court hears arguments this morning in a high-stakes case on voting laws. Now many analysts say the outcome could potentially, “damage American democracy.” Chief legal correspondent — that's Jan Crawford — is outside the Supreme Court. Jan, the fact that it's gone to the Supreme Court means this is a very big deal. But explain what this case is really all about.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Supreme Court Hears High-Stakes Elections Case; Dems Argue GOP Redistricting Efforts Would Wreak “Havoc” on Democracy]
JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean —
KING: Good morning to you.
JAN CRAWFORD: — Gayle, I mean, this is an important case about election oversight and redistricting. But it is not, as some commentators have suggested, some back door way for state legislatures to try to steal a presidential election. That is overblown. Now, this case came about when Republicans, who were in control in the legislature there in North Carolina, drew up a new congressional map that was extremely favorable to them. It would likely flipped [sic] a number of seats from Democratic to Republican, so the Democrats challenged that. And the state supreme court, which is majority Democrat, threw out the Republican maps as too partisan. So, the Republicans then decided they're going to pull out this novel, new theory that's called the independent state legislature theory, and that says that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the sole authority to set the, “time, places, and manner of holding congressional election” and that state courts don't have a say in that. If North Carolina wins on that argument, it would really sap the power of state courts to review state election rules or congressional maps, but it would not affect other challenges like challenges based on race. Those are heard in federal court. And it also would mean that state legislatures could somehow try to substitute a new slate of electors after Election Day to try to steal a presidential election. Even if they tried, there are federal laws that would prohibit that. Nate?
NATE BURLESON: Jan, thank you.
