On Monday morning’s CNN Newsroom, host Jim Sciutto brought on political analyst Sabrina Siddiqui, chief legal analyst and national politics reporter Jeffrey Toobin, and Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic to celebrate the Supreme Court striking down a Louisiana law regulating abortions. Rejecting the guise of a news network, the panel unabashedly applauded the ruling. Toobin proclaimed it “extraordinary” that Chief Justice Roberts sided “with the liberals” and Scuitto complimented the judge by saying that he was “taking remarkable stands.”
Siddiqui began the segment’s obvious pro-abortion activism by praising Roberts for supporting “women’s health advocates”:
In 2019 alone, there were more than 350 pieces of legislation introduced across the country seeking to chip away at access to abortion, but I think that a lot of women’s health advocates are taking this as positive sign that he is increasingly seeming to be the new ideological center of the Supreme Court.
“Women’s health advocates” is a very positive term for those who advocate a practice which kills hundreds of thousands of girls every year. Women who have had abortions performed on them also face substantially increased risk of physical complications such as cardiac arrest, uterine rupture, and death. Furthermore, women who have had abortions are at an 81% percent increased risk for mental health issues and the suicide rate for such women is six times higher than women who give birth.
But, since CNN is the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party and thus supports abortion, its employees must find a way to describe abortion advocates positively.
Toobin praised Roberts for ruling with the liberal members of the court:
To see John Roberts side with the liberals on those three cases is an extraordinary thing, and it -- it -- it -- it will I -- I think it will in part shape the presidential campaign because it will inject the Supreme Court back into the conversation, which year after year, it tends not to be except among the base of the Republican Party.
Supreme Court case rulings must only be “extraordinary” when the justices produce results that the media and the left (now indistinguishable from one another) agree with.
Biskupic also proved herself to be a hack by complimenting Roberts for ruling the way she desired:
And I don't think we should discount either the Trump administration or this election year in John Roberts' thinking. And I do not think that we are not looking at a transformed liberal here. I think we're looking at a jurist who is taking cases one at a time and thinking very seriously about the integrity of this court and his own personal legacy.
So as a Supreme Court Justice, Roberts is supposed to become involved in “election year” politics? Is it not the job of the Supreme Court to decide whether or not laws are Constitutional? Oh wait, she wants him to get involved in politics because she is unashamedly partisan and hateful of Trump.
Furthermore, are the only justices that have “integrity” and a good “personal legacy” those who side with the Democrats? [Removed sentence] This is Democratic propaganda, not objective analysis of the news.
Sciutto further praised Roberts: “And yet, here you have the chief justice taking remarkable stands, Joan.” Of course, he only said this because he agrees with the ruling.
Quite ironically, Biskupic then praised Roberts for not being partisan:
It was not out of the question that he was going to do what he did, but, as I said, it's the very first time he has ever on the merits, voted to let -- to not revive an abortion regulation, so this is -- this is huge, and as I said, the -- the right wing had already sort of dismissed John Roberts, but it's going to make the vetting for the next judicial candidate if it comes during this administration or the next Republican administration be all the more adamant and serious because they -- they fear this, but, you know, this is -- this is, these are matters that are important for the country, not one particular party. I just want to stress that -- that what John Roberts did here went beyond party politics and went beyond his own personal ideology.
What she means by that is that he ruled with her party. “Beyond party politics” in her world is siding with the Democratic Party because Republicans have no “integrity.”
Instead of reporting the news on Monday’s Supreme Court decision, CNN conducted a pep rally for abortion activists and liberal judiciary picks.
This Democrat propaganda was brought to its viewers by Otezla.
The full June 29 transcript is here. Click "expand" to read more.
CNN Newsroom
06/29/20
10:23:30 AM
JIM SCIUTTO: Sabrina Siddiqui, national politics reporter for The Wall Street Journal joining us as well. I don't have to describe to you the enormous political implications of this decision, and -- and I haven't seen it yet, but I imagine within minutes we will have the president tweet something along the lines of we need another justice.
SABRINA SIDDIQUI (CNN POLITICAL ANALYST): Well, just to break down this ruling a little bit. This law, of course, would have required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and because complications from abortions are extremely rare, it's often difficult for those doctors to enter into contracts with hospital because they simply don't generate enough patients. Now, the interesting thing is that Chief Justice John Roberts when examining a near identical law in 2016 in Texas, in that case he dissented even though the court struck down that law. This clearly has to do with precedent and not going against the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. So it is a victory for women's health advocates who were very concerned about what access to abortion will look like with President Trump having added two justices, in Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, to the Supreme Court, and it does have at least some bearing on the court's willingness to re-examine Roe v. Wade which is of course, is the biggest concern among advocates for abortion, among advocates for women's health, I should say. We, of course, don't know what -- what this means for how Chief Justice John Roberts would rule in other abortion cases that may come before the court. In 2019 alone, there were more than 350 pieces of legislation introduced across the country seeking to chip away at access to abortion, but I think that a lot of women’s health advocates are taking this as positive sign that he is increasingly seeming to be the new ideological center of the Supreme Court.
SCIUTTO: Jeffrey Toobin, this run of decisions in the last couple weeks with -- with Roberts consistently siding with the liberals when you take in the LGBTQ decision, the decision on DACA and this, truly remarkable, is it not? Place that into context. Have you seen in your many years of covering the course, covering the court a -- a move like this?
JEFFREY TOOBIN (CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST; NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER): Well, you do see justices evolve over time, and it -- it does happen. I mean, it -- it happened with David Souter, who was a George Herbert Walker Bush appointee, who started out pretty conservative and wound up a pretty steadfast livel, liberal. John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford, who turned out to be an extremely liberal justice. Going back even further, Dwight Eisenhower's appointees of Earl Warren and William Brennan turned out to be -- turned out to be very liberal. John F. Kennedy's appointment of Byron White turned out to be pretty conservative, so you know, justices do change over time, but certainly in the modern era, in the last 20 years, we have not seen justices change dramatically. Now, these are three very big cases. You know, John Roberts is going to be chief justice for a long time. I don't know if we can say this means a sea change for the decades he is likely still to serve on the court, but for this year and for very important cases, you know, the -- the future of discrimination against gay people in the workplace, that's a huge issue. The future of 5 -- 700,000 young people is a huge issue, and abortion, I need hardly say, is perhaps the most controversial issue before the Supreme Court. To see John Roberts side with the liberals on those three cases is an extraordinary thing, and it -- it -- it -- it will I -- I think it will in part shape the presidential campaign because it will inject the Supreme Court back into the conversation, which year after year, it tends not to be except among the base of the Republican Party.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, I mean, these -- these are not ivory tower Supreme Court decisions. These are decisions with real effects on real people immediately. And -- and Joan, you -- you know better than anyone, you know, the -- the, Roe v. Wade, in particular abortion laws like this, were an explicit target, were they not, of conservatives in -- in terms of generating candidates like a -- a Gorsuch or a Kavanaugh for the court hoping that that would turn things, and that strategy has failed, at least for now.
JOAN BISKUPIC (CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST): That's exactly right. And President Trump said that he was going to appoint people who were against Constitutional right for a woman to end a pregnancy. But it's -- it’s interesting when I think back over -- over the course of history, our more modern history, when justices have moved over on abortion rights, it has been exactly in this kind of moment. In 1992, when the Supreme Court in a ruling known as Planned Parenthood versus Casey suddenly affirmed Roe, it was with the votes of three Republican -- three key Republican appointees that we all thought were more conservative, Justices Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy. Harry Blackman and John Paul Stevens were also on that ruling but -- who were Republican appointees. But it was Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy who were so crucial there, and that's when Justice Kennedy himself flipped over on abortion rights after earlier being just like John Roberts voting to uphold abortion restrictions. And I don't think we should discount either the Trump administration or this election year in John Roberts' thinking. And I do not think that we are not looking at a transformed liberal here. I think we're looking at a jurist who is taking cases one at a time and thinking very seriously about the integrity of this court and his own personal legacy.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Listen, and -- and, Joan, you know this as well as anyone better than anyone perhaps. The -- the name David Souter, for instance, I mean, that's a rallying cry for conservatives to say we -- we can't have another justice like that who -- who goes to the dark side, as it were, in their view. And that's part of the vetting for these candidates to make sure in their writings, in their questions in the confirmations hearings that they don't show a signal that they might go that way, right, in their view. And yet, here you have the chief justice taking remarkable stands, Joan.
BISKUPIC: That -- that’s right, and I have to say, Jim, the right wing had already written off John Roberts after his 2012 vote to uphold Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, so, you know, they had seen him inching to the left. They saw his vote in February of 2019 putting a hold on this Louisiana law. It was not out of the question that he was going to do what he did, but, as I said, it's the very first time he has ever on the merits, voted to let -- to not revive an abortion regulation, so this is -- this is huge, and as I said, the -- the right wing had already sort of dismissed John Roberts, but it's going to make the vetting for the next judicial candidate if it comes during this administration or the next Republican administration be all the more adamant and serious because they -- they fear this, but, you know, this is -- this is, these are matters that are important for the country, not one particular party. I just want to stress that -- that what John Roberts did here went beyond party politics and went beyond his own personal ideology.
