CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates guest hosted Friday’s edition of Don Lemon Tonight where she and her guests hyped California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “trolling” of the Supreme Court and Texas on the issue of gun control.
Coates portrayed the law as similar to Texas’s “bounty” law before reporting the ACLU opposes the California law and asking fellow legal analyst Areva Martin, “I'm wondering from your perspective, first, is that right to you? And will these so-called bounty laws, will this really undermine, maybe fatally, the power of the judiciary to intervene and weigh in?”
Martin did not answer the question and observed that the law is Newsom’s way of “trolling” Texas, “he went in to the state of Texas with this big ad trolling the state of Texas, saying, look, if you can protect women's-- what you believe women's lives by banning abortion, we're going to protect the lives of citizens by preventing individuals from selling and transferring assault weapons and ghost guns in the state of California.”
It is a troll, but not a very good one as it makes something illegal that was already illegal in the state where the Texas law updated its abortion laws. Still, Martin hyped the political benefits of Newsom’s position:
And in some ways, Gavin Newsom is trolling the Supreme Court because what he is saying to the Supreme Court is, if you were willing to allow this flawed legal reasoning to let this abortion law stand in the state of Texas, then you must act consistently and allow this law to stand in California, and if you don't, shame on you, and I will call you out for the hypocrites that you are.
Coates also enjoyed the idea of the Supreme Court having to come to terms with its alleged hypocrisy, “The reason I, kind of, chuckle at the idea of consistency, Areva, and I think we all will chuckle in harmony here, if that's even a thing, Chuckling in harmony, is the idea of the Supreme Court on the very case overturning Roe v. Wade.”
Ultimately, Coates cast doubt on the law’s future, not because it’s a poorly thought out troll or because the Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution, but because the Supreme Court does not listen to its own logic, “The Dobbs … is inconsistent and saying, hey, this fundamental rule is going to apply here and here is the base logic, but not anything else that comes from that same thing. So, I do wonder, the idea of trolling the Supreme Court on a matter of consistency, it might be sort of the exercise in futility, we will see.”
Moving away from guns, Coates saw other uses for these types of laws, asking New Yok Times opinion staff editor David Swerdlick, “the law also comes as states are dealing with other politically sensitive issues like contraception – who knew that would be politically sensitive after the Griswold decision but apparently it is, also voting rights. Could these types of laws fuel political battles? I mean, most likely they will, right?”
Swerdlick also avoided question, instead repeating the idea of the supposed hypocrisy of the Court could be a rallying cry for Newsom and the Democrats. Additionally, nobody is passing any laws banning contraceptives.
This segment was sponsored by Behr.
Here is a transcript for the July 22 show:
CNN Don Lemon Tonight
7/22/2022
11:30 PM ET
LAURA COATES: I mean, the idea here that this was almost anticipated, this was almost called immediately out when we saw the Texas law about the bounty, why wouldn't other so-called blue states do this?
And in fact, I want to read you something because the ACLU put out a statement on the law, and here is some of what they said, Areva. They said, “this legal framework is unsound and invalid no matter what activity it is directed at because it eviscerates basic principles of constitutional government by destroying an individual's ability to petition a court to block the state from violating a legal right.”
I'm wondering from your perspective, first, is that right to you? And will these so-called bounty laws, will this really undermine, maybe fatally, the power of the judiciary to intervene and weigh in?
AREVA MARTIN: Well, let me start first, Laura, with -- you said Newsom basically stated. It wasn't basically stated. He was emphatic when the Supreme Court refused to strike down that Texas bounty law, that law which allows individuals to sue individuals that aide and an abet those who assist someone with getting an abortion after the six-week ban in the state of Texas.
Newsom was very clear. He invited his Democratic state legislators to send a bill to his desk that was based after that Texas law but that had to do with gun safety. And Senator Bob Hertzberg here in the state of California did just that. He sponsored this law, it made its way to Gavin Newsom's desk, and he signed it. So, he is very clear about that.
And then he went in to the state of Texas with this big ad trolling the state of Texas, saying, look, if you can protect women's-- what you believe women's lives by banning abortion, we're going to protect the lives of citizens by preventing individuals from selling and transferring assault weapons and ghost guns in the state of California.
Now, he knows, Gavin Newsom is very smart, our attorney general in the state of California is very smart, they expect, they anticipate, they actually want a constitutional challenge to happen with respect to this bill. They want to see this bill make its way -- challenge of this bill makes its way to the Supreme Court.
And in some ways, Gavin Newsom is trolling the Supreme Court because what he is saying to the Supreme Court is, if you were willing to allow this flawed legal reasoning to let this abortion law stand in the state of Texas, then you must act consistently and allow this law to stand in California, and if you don't, shame on you, and I will call you out for the hypocrites that you are.
So, a lot of politics going on, Laura, as well as some legal -- I'll call shenanigans by governors like Governor Newsom.
DAVID SWERDLICK: Yeah.
COATES: The reason I, kind of, chuckle at the idea of consistency, Areva, and I think we all will chuckle in harmony here, if that's even a thing, Chuckling in harmony, is the idea of the Supreme Court on the very case overturning Roe v. Wade.
The Dobbs decision tries to not, tries to compartmentalize, and it is inconsistent and saying, hey, this fundamental rule is going to apply here and here is the base logic, but not anything else that comes from that same thing. So, I do wonder, the idea of trolling the Supreme Court on a matter of consistency, it might be sort of the exercise in futility, we will see.
David, the law also comes as states are dealing with other politically- sensitive issues like contraception –
SWERDLICK: Yeah.
COATES: -- who knew that would be politically sensitive after the Griswold decision but apparently it is, also voting rights. Could these types of laws fuel political battles? I mean, most likely they will, right?
SWERDLICK: Yeah, and just to Areva's point about Governor Newsom and the California legislature wanting to have a challenge at the Supreme Court so that if the Supreme Court isn't consistent in its application of constitutional principles, they can say, shame on you. That shame on you, if you twist the wording around a little bit, becomes a campaign rallying cry. It becomes an issue that obviously Governor Newsom can run on and other Democrats, if they follow his lead, can run on.
Governor Newsom has some wide-open runway right now. He won his -- he won his runoff challenge-- excuse me, his recall challenge last year. He's going to coast to reelection in the regular election this year. He's got that bandwidth to be able to say look, I'm going to be the fighter the Democrats need.
