Just like CNN on Monday, MSNBC’s live coverage of the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity quickly launched into the hot talk of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, all about Trump ordering a Seal Team Six assassination of a political rival. These Democrat judges can’t get enough of this hyperbole.
Legal analyst Neal Katyal — an Obama appointee — reduced the 6-3 decision to Republican-appointed justices vs. Democrat-appointed justices, and then he read from Sotomayor’s bluster, finishing with “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” Katy Tur oozed: “It doesn’t get any stronger than that.”
Tur then quoted from more of the dissent, including the line that this decision “lies about like a loaded weapon” for a corrupt president.
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.”
Tur wrapped up, “The president is now a king above the law.” She asked Katyal: “She’s arguing that he can assassinate somebody now. Is that what this majority opinion is saying?” Katyal agreed: “That is basically what she’s saying the majority is saying, and I’m sure that is how Trump will take it.“
Katyal then moved on to electioneering, saying the stakes now are “astronomical” and people need to vote for Biden. “This is a — you know, a clarion call to the American public to understand the law, the courts are not going to protect us against a president who wants to violate the law.”
Legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg became the dissident in the midst of this MSNBC panic: “I’m still reading through it, Katy, but I don’t see anything in here that says the assassination of a political rival is part of a president’s core constitutional responsibilities for which he or she would be absolutely immune.” He didn’t like the “indeterminate” language of the decision, and “there is a lot more immunity here than I would have imagined, and I think it sets up some dangers. But I don’t see anything here that sanctions, for instance, the assassination of a political rival.”
Later, in the 11 am hour, pundit Maya Wiley added: “My topline legal thoughts are [the decision is] cray-cray!”
Tur suggested Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was “Trump-like,” because he wrote of an “energetic executive” and Trump describes himself as energetic. She didn’t suggest the Sotomayor dissent was…”Rachel Maddowesque.”