While hosting the scary-sounding Democracy in Peril on CNN on Thursday night, Jim Acosta blasted the "hard-right" Supreme Court for possibly overturning Roe v. Wade, which would increase democracy in the country, lamented that Democrats won't get rid of the filibuster in response to this, and decried their "life's a Mitch" attitude towards the situation.
Acosta began by declaring that Democrats pressured Justice Stephen Breyer into retirement out of fear that Sen. Mitch McConnell would block another nominee, "which is a remarkable turn of events considering this: Democrats have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections. Of course we have the electoral college system, which is how Trump, who lost the popular vote in 2016, got three picks on the Supreme Court."
Repeating the dishonest talking point that refuses to die, Acosta lamented, "a hard-right Supreme Court appears poised to turn back the clock to the 1970s. It's like Americans voted for The West Wing and instead got That ’70s Show. This has created the scenario where the minority views on major hot-button issues could carry the day for a generation. And that brings me something Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned last year, that overturning the 1973 landmark decision of Roe v. Wade would create a stench in Washington."
The media always like to cite Roe's popularity, but they never share polling that shows Americans favor abortion restrictions that Roe does not allow.
Later on in the segment, Acosta declared that, "I suppose Democrats can just say, 'life's a Mitch' which is why it's a mystery to me that some Democrats are clinging to the filibuster, the same filibuster that is preventing all kinds of legislation from passing in the Senate, from abortion rights, to gun laws, to abortion laws, to protecting this democracy with new voting rights legislation."
They won't have a show titled Filibuster In Peril, since they think it must be scrapped.
After more lamentations about the relative youth of President Trump's appointees, Acosta urged Democrats to engage in another futile attempt to get rid of the filibuster, "President Biden is likely to choose a young justice as well. Is that what the founders intended, an arms race between both parties over who can pick the youngest justices for the High Court? Is this a pillar for our democracy or fantasy football? After they get their new justice, Democrats might want to take a look, a second look at the filibuster and ask themselves what's more important. Is the filibuster more important than election rights and women's rights?"
Acosta concluded by urging Democrats to be more like McConnell -- even though McConnell previously refused to eliminate the filibuster, "Democrats could just ask themselves, what would Mitch do? McConnell has insisted he's against scrapping the filibuster. But what happens if the Republicans are back in power? And if the filibuster does live on, McConnell gets his judges. What do Democrats get? I'll tell you. More of the same."
For one thing, Democrats will get their judges too.
This segment was sponsored by AT&T.
Here is a transcript for the January 27 show:
CNN Democracy in Peril
1/27/2022
9:29 PM ET
JIM ACOSTA: Perhaps it was this biting headline from The Onion that crystallized where we are as a country when it comes to the Supreme Court: “Mitch McConnell blocks justice Stephen Breyer from retiring.” No, and I'm betting its staffers checked on this, McConnell cannot do that. But it's no secret Democrats have been begging Breyer to give up his seat on the High Court, essentially in a panic that McConnell would block yet another Democratic president from selecting a Supreme Court justice should the GOP win control of the Senate this fall. Conservatives have a 6-to-3 majority on the Court, and it will stay that way even after Breyer is replaced, which is a remarkable turn of events considering this: Democrats have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections. Of course we have the electoral college system, which is how Trump, who lost the popular vote in 2016, got three picks on the Supreme Court. Now, a hard-right Supreme Court appears poised to turn back the clock to the 1970s. It's like Americans voted for The West Wing and instead got That ’70s Show. This has created the scenario where the minority views on major hot button issues could carry the day for a generation. And that brings me something Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned last year, that overturning the 1973 landmark decision of Roe v. Wade would create a stench in Washington.
ACOSTA: Less than a year later, get this, Justice Barrett actually appeared at an event at the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. She told the crowd this: “My goal today is to convince you that this Court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.” Now, where would anybody get an idea like that? The polls show a majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. Opponents of Roe have become the dogs who have caught the car, or the getaway car, depending on your point of view. I suppose Democrats can just say, “life's a Mitch” which is why it's a mystery to me that some Democrats are clinging to the filibuster, the same filibuster that is preventing all kinds of legislation from passing in the Senate, from abortion rights, to gun laws, to abortion laws, to protecting this democracy with new voting rights legislation. And yet the Senate no longer requires overcoming a filibuster for confirming justices. It's a system that makes it easier to pack the Court than pass laws. Consider the ages of Trump’s Supreme Court justices. Brett Kavanaugh is 56, Neil Gorsuch is 54, Amy Coney Barrett is 49 years old. President Biden is likely to choose a young justice as well. Is that what the founders intended, an arms race between both parties over who can pick the youngest justices for the High Court? Is this a pillar for our democracy or fantasy football? After they get their new justice, Democrats might want to take a look, a second look at the filibuster and ask themselves what's more important. Is the filibuster more important than election rights and women's rights? Democrats could just ask themselves, what would Mitch do? McConnell has insisted he's against scrapping the filibuster. But what happens if the Republicans are back in power? And if the filibuster does live on, McConnell gets his judges. What do Democrats get? I'll tell you. More of the same.
