MSNBC Demands Democrats Refuse Any SCOTUS Nominee Who May “Go After Abortion”

National   Kyle Drennen   Jul 3, 2018   |   9:21AM    Washington, DC

On her 12:00 p.m. ET hour MSNBC show on Monday, anchor Andrea Mitchell promised viewers “a colossal political showdown” over President Trump’s replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. She demanded that Democrats refuse to take any nominee “at face value” and “drill down” on their abortion views.

“I’m Andrea Mitchell in Washington, where a colossal political showdown is shaping up over the president’s choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy….A major flash point, Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion,” Mitchell proclaimed at the top of the show. She feared: “President Trump making it clear during the campaign that any of the conservatives on his list that he would appoint would go after abortion rights.”

Mitchell eagerly predicted that the issue would be, “a litmus test for at least two female Republican senators whom the president needs in his corner.” That included Maine’s Susan Collins, who the host touted as “already signaling she could break with her party.”

Even so, Mitchell lamented that Collins “still is buying in, to the disappoint of many Democrats, to that very quick timetable of Mitch McConnell’s to get this done before the midterms.”

Minutes later, in a panel discussion, Mitchell claimed that “many Democrats” thought Trump’s previous nominee to the high court, Neil Gorsuch, was “a qualified nominee” who was “not replacing someone that will change the complexion of the court.” That conveniently ignored the fact that Democrats attempted to filibuster Gorsuch.

Mitchell was emphatic that “this is different,” and called on liberal lawmakers to interrogate whoever is nominated to replace Kennedy: “So are they going to sit there at that hearing…and take, ‘Well, I can’t answer that’ or ‘I don’t want to answer that’ or ‘Yes, I believe in precedent,’ on face value?’”

After playing a clip of then-candidate Trump advocating during a 2016 presidential debate that Roe v. Wade be struck down, Mitchell fretted to New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters: “So, in the Judiciary Committee, Jeremy, how much time will they have to drill down on this nominee?”

Peters noted that Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley would not “want to draw this out into a spectacle.” However, the Times journalist then assured Mitchell that there would be a “messy” confirmation fight:

Although inevitably that could be what this becomes. I mean, just think about how politically toxic our climate is right now, and then throw into that about the most combustible fight Washington is capable of having, and that’s a Supreme Court nomination battle. It’s going to be a long, hot, messy summer, Andrea.

It’s remarkable to see supposedly objective members of the news media openly rooting for rancor in Washington. The broadcast networks promised similar hostility the morning after Kennedy announced his retirement.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Here is a full transcript of the July 2 discussion:

12:01 PM ET

ANDREA MITCHELL: And good day, everyone. I’m Andrea Mitchell in Washington, where a colossal political showdown is shaping up over the president’s choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, with the announcement now scheduled for a week from today. A major flash point, Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion.

A litmus test for at least two female Republican senators whom the president needs in his corner. One of them, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, already signaling she could break with her party. Another Republican, Lindsey Graham telling Chuck Todd on Meet the Press that Roe is settled law and should not be overturned.

But President Trump making it clear during the campaign that any of the conservatives on his list that he would appoint would go after abortion rights.

(…)

12:05 PM ET

MITCHELL: And we should point out to both of you that when Susan Collins said that Roe was a critical test, stare decisis, not overturning past precedents, she still is buying in, to the disappoint of many Democrats, to that very quick timetable of Mitch McConnell’s to get this done before the midterms.

(…)

12:14 PM ET

(…)

ANDREA MITCHELL: Now, the Gorsuch nomination went through with many Democrats and critics saying, “He deserves this. This is a qualified nominee and he’s not replacing someone that will change the complexion of the court.” This is different. So are they going to sit there at that hearing, Jeremy, and take, “Well, I can’t answer that” or “I don’t want to answer that” or “Yes, I believe in precedent,” on face value? Despite the fact that this is what the president said. Just listen to the president in that last debate.

DONALD TRUMP [OCT. 19, 2016]: Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states.

CHRIS WALLACE [FOX NEWS]: But I’m asking you specifically, would you like to –

TRUMP: If they overturned it, it’ll go back to the states.

WALLACE: But what I’m asking you, sir, is do you want to see the court overturn? You just said you want to see the court protect the Second Amendment. Do you want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade?

TRUMP: Well, if we put another two, or perhaps three, justices on, that’s really what’s going to be – that’s what will happen. And that’ll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this. It will go back to the states and the states will then make a determination.

MITCHELL: So, in the Judiciary Committee, Jeremy, how much time will they have to drill down on this nominee?

JEREMY PETERS: Well, Republicans control the committee. So, you know, that’s probably up to Chuck Grassley.

MITCHELL: Exactly.

PETERS: And I can’t imagine that he’s going to want to draw this out into a spectacle. Although inevitably that could be what this becomes. I mean, just think about how politically toxic our climate is right now, and then throw into that about the most combustible fight Washington is capable of having, and that’s a Supreme Court nomination battle. It’s going to be a long, hot, messy summer, Andrea.

(…)

LifeNews.com Note: Kyle Drennen is an MRC News Analyst and a graduate of Providence College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and Political Science. This was originally posted on the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters.