MSNBC’s Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace — which can be affectionately referred to as Rich, White, Liberal, Wine Mom Story Hour — serves as a meeting house for liberal activist groups and the kind of apocalyptic fear-mongering the left decries as supposedly undergirding conservative media. Naturally, Wallace and company were unhinged Monday as the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous opinion that Donald Trump cannot be thrown off state ballots.
Over two segments, Wallace and her doom-filled panelists blasted the “humble bragginess” of the Court for “dodg[ing] the facts of January 6”, putting “its thumb on the scale for Donald Trump”, and refusing “to deal with the whole insurrection thing” to “instead” grant “Trump a second gift on a constitutional technicality” as “[h]is insurrectionist accomplices in the Congress are ascendent”.
In turn, one argued, the Court behaved like segregationists shuttering Radical Reconstruction after the Civil War, plunging America into another “dark period” like the one that lasted from the 1870s “until the mid-20th century”.
Below is a Notable Quotables-style round-up of all the zaniness, presented in no particular order.
ACTUALLY, the REAL Ruling Was 5-4! Oh, and ACB Doesn’t Know What She’s Doing!
Former Trump-Mueller probe official Andrew Weissmann: “[T]he reason this is a 5-4 decision is where it sort of went....The reason it’s 5-4...was that [the majority] said this applies not just to the presidency, but all federal office holders. Technically, what was before them was just the President, but the big sort of 5-4 split was that the majority said only — it’s not that the states can’t do it, it’s that only Congress can do it...No room...for the Courts...to step in. That’s the part where Amy Coney Barrett said, look, why do we need to reach that? You are sort of needlessly inflaming in a political year, the issue when we — our job in the Court should be to try to just decide this issue and lower the volume.”
Host Nicolle Wallace: “Lowering the volume by not weighing in, Tim Heaphy, on whether he is or is not an insurrectionist?”
— Conversation at 4:04 p.m. Eastern.
Wallace Unhinged: SCOTUS ‘Doesn’t Want to Deal With the Whole Insurrection’, Stuck ‘on Earth 2’
“I guess what’s so amazing — I’ve been back in the chair six days and this is the second day where another body is — is — I guess it’s the same body — doesn’t want to deal with the whole insurrection thing, doesn’t want to deal with the extraordinary nature of what Trump did. They’re not allegations, Trump carried out an insurrection. By — by November, it’ll be part of his convention video, right? I mean, it’s — it’s who he is, he’s running as an insurrectionist. He’s running on pardoning his fellow insurrectionists. His insurrectionist accomplices in the Congress are ascendent. The people who aren’t quite as into it are either gone, out of office, or retiring and resigning. And now, you’ve got the Supreme Court living over on Earth 2 where maybe that didn’t happen, maybe not, the voters will get to see all the facts in the case against him.”
— Wallace, 4:08 p.m. Eastern.
Court ‘Carrying Water...for’ Trump, ‘Doesn’t’ Care About ‘Wrongfully Accused’ Americans
“It’s one of the great mysteries is, for those of us who thought — and I know we’ve been talking about this for two years now, that the Court was sensitive to plummeting approval ratings, to a complete lack of confidence from the public. You know, we all thought, this is a Court that knows how to pump the brakes. This is a Court that knows how to do a little razzle dazzle to confuse us about the fact that it certainly is carrying water, I think now we can say, for one person and doesn’t carry water for multiple criminal defendants ever, some of whom are wrongfully accused...[I]t’s not an accident that it’s the women who are taking the position that this is really a question of institutional integrity, confidence in the institution...[T]here is a really interesting split between those who are deeply worried about how this impacts the institution...and the folks in that kind of majority, the — the folks who signed the per curiam and say nothing else, who don’t seem to be bothered at all about the fact that the election is coming, they’re not making proclamations about the insurrection.”
— Longtime Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick, 4:16 p.m. Eastern.
Glaude, Wallace: How Is It Possible That ANYONE Could Vote for Trump?!?!
Wallace: “So, Eddie, we don’t know what else Jack Smith has developed, but we know from this probe...the attack was premeditated, never planned to leave. He started declaring — he — it was impossible to lose...We know...the violence was something he was enthusiastic about because he knew ‘they’re not here to hurt me.’ We knew that risking Mike Pence’s life was part of the plan all along...Trump was fine with it. And we know that the people who carried out the acts are people that Trump plans to pardon so that they’re at the ready should he need them again. What part of this is there any suspense about in this country?”“
Princeton University’s Eddie Glaude: “I have no idea, to be honest with you. And what I’ve been trying to understand and figure out, with your help, what’s the motivation behind it all? What are the fears that block it — block us from holding this man accountable? Is it the millions of Americans that — that seem to support him? Is it the fear that somehow the very fabric of the country will be ripped apart? What does it mean for us to willingly risk the very foundation of the rule of law for this guy, for what they’ve done? I mean, so, the evidence has been before us, and we can go through it over and over again.”
Wallace: “Yeah.”
Glaude: “I don’t know why Jack Smith didn’t, you know, charge him, Andrew. You might know. I don’t know why — it’s — it’s baffling. And from my vantage point — right — it just shows that some people are above the law.”
— Unhinged back and forth, 4:27 p.m. Eastern.
J6 Committee Hack: Despite Court Ignoring ‘Core Facts’, It Found Trump WAS an Insurrectionist!
“[The Court’s ruling] doesn’t touch the core facts, Nicolle. The Supreme Court decides questions of law, not questions of fact. They, as Andrew just explained, found that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment could not be invoked by a state government. It has to be invoked by Congress. The — some of the justices went further and said they’ll take enabling legislation. But what America should take away is that’s a question of law, not a question of fact. The Supreme Court didn’t find that Colorado was wrong in its finding that a former President engaged in insurrection. They actually found that he did, several states have similarly found, much as our committee recommended. And those are the allegations, the factual allegations that are going to come before federal juries, barring a Supreme Court ruling on an immunity question, down the road. So, it’s a victory for the president because it keeps them on the ballot. It just doesn’t touch really the core issue, whether or not what he did on and whether January 6 was criminal. We found that it was. The special counsel has alleged that it is, and ideally a jury will get to decide that question in some months.”
— January 6 Committee lead investigator Tim Heaphy, 4:05 p.m. Eastern.
Justices Are Plunging U.S. into ‘Dark’ Time Refusing to Hold ‘Traitors’ Accountable
Glaude: “I keep thinking about the historical parallels. I’m thinking about the Civil War amendments, I’m thinking about Radical Reconstruction between 1863 and 1877. And I’m thinking about the context of the 14th Amendment in response to Andrew Johnson’s refusal to hold the South accountable. To hold — I mean, we have literally traitors who are running for office, who are taking hold of the reins of power in the South, after leaving over 600,000 people on the battlefield dead. And people are, like, “no, we have to hold these folks accountable.” And so, the Civil War amendments emerge in the context — Section 3 — emerges in the context to hold folk accountable. And here, we have in this context — right — a hesitance — that is, a reticence, a refusal this man, and those folk who engaged in an insurrection. It’s a historical echo that has all — that screams with irony...[W]e’re at this inflection point, and what’s so striking about the moment in the context of the collapse of Radical Reconstruction is that we went into a dark period that didn’t get un — that didn’t open up until the mid-20th century...[T]he Courts played a central role in that dark — in — in ushering that dark period. And, here we are in this moment again, and it seems to me — I’m not a lawyer, Andrew, but it seems to me that the Court is playing another central role in ushering the shadows.”
Wallace: “Well, and I mean, it’s not the only echo, right? What Jack Smith has charged also draws on some of the legal toolkit that emerged from this stain on our country’s history.”
— Conversation at 4:11 p.m. Eastern.
Whining That the Court Gave Trump ‘Second Gift on a Constitutional Technicality’
“[O]n the very same day that the disgraced ex-President was supposed to go on trial in a federal courthouse for his efforts to end democracy as we know it — that little January 6 insurrection — the highest Court in the land today kept him on the ballot in a ruling that dodges the facts of January 6 and Trump’s role in it. But, instead, the Supreme Court handed Trump a second gift on a constitutional technicality. In an unsigned opinion, the justices say that states do not have the power to bar candidates from running for federal office....Now, that Court found that Trump did engage in insurrection by trying to overturn the will of the voters by any means possible, including violence...[T]he Supreme Court’s decision today does not touch on either the question of whether Trump is or is not an insurrectionist, or whether the text of Section 3 applies to him. Instead, it says that only Congress has the power to do anything or to enforce the 14th Amendment....In a separate opinion, the liberal justices blasted the majority for closing the door on the possibility of federal courts disqualifying Trump or any other candidate who would engage in an insurrection[.]”
— Wallace, 4:00 p.m. Eastern.
Cowardly Ruling Was ‘Most...Humble Bragginess’ Ever, Placed ‘Thumb on the Scale’ for Trump
“[O]n the one hand, you have the Court performing what looks like some version of institutional humility, right? ‘Who are we to decide whether an insurrection happened,’ right? ‘Who are we to decide these complicated questions. Congress has to decide.’ That looks like it’s a kind of democracy-expanding, democracy-affirming move and it’s very much, I think, in line, you know, with the we’re umpires, balls and strikes people, we do as little as possible. I guess I would just note two things in response to that. One is, and this comes up in the concurrence that the three liberals offer, which is they literally name check Dobbs. All you needed to do was do what Chief Justice Roberts said we do in Dobbs, which is decide as little as possible. The Court clearly did not do that today. They foreclosed a whole bunch of different avenues. But it’s also — and this is where it’s really sneaky, the Court doesn’t actually tell us what that enabling legislation would look like...[I]t is both the most braggy, humility and the most sort of humble bragginess in the history of humility. It’s strange for them to want to stay out of it while yet putting its thumb on the scale for Donald Trump.”
— Lithwick, 4:09 p.m. Eastern.
Kvetching About the Court Trying ‘To Help’ Trump Win the Election
“There is a stay that is delaying the case that was going to start today. So, these are two wins that are being given by this court. There’s — there’s no way that the three justices in the — in the — you know, sort of, essentially the dissent today, the liberal justices — think that the timing is appropriate. There’s no reason to have delayed it, so you really end up with a Supreme Court, even if you want to think there’s some merit to this case, not — it’s hard to disaggregate it and not see the Court in its two cases saying, what can we do to help Donald Trump? We are going to make sure that this will only be decided not in a court of law, but in the court of spin and disinformation where Donald Trump lives, and that there will actually not be sort of legal accountability because the Court is removing that, either in this decision or in its immunity decision, because they basically are saying we’re not hearing that and we’re sitting on that, so the chances of it going in court could be zero.”
— Weissmann, 4:15 p.m. Eastern.
Time to Get Over SCOTUS ‘Disappointment’, ‘Call Ten Friends’ to Get Biden Reelected!
“I’m going to say something that sounds cynical, but I think is hopeful, which is — and I think this is echoing what everyone else is saying. For those of us who imported all of our hopes and dreams into the Supreme Court intervening in some heroic way, it’s a disappointment, just as the kicking the can down the road on the immunity case is a disappointment. But I think Tim just said and you just said, and it’s important, there’s nothing that is going to happen in another case — I don’t want to say nothing — there’s a lot that’s going to happen — but it’s not dispositive, because what the select committee found was dispositive. The House impeachment was dispositive. Maine, Illinois, Colorado, all determined he committed the acts he committed. So, instead of having magical thinking about the Court giving us some reason to believe, I think it’s time to say, good, the Court utterly disappointed us. Now, we’ve got to call ten friends and make this happen at the polls.”
— Lithwick, 4:30 p.m. Eastern.
