The liberal media were up in arms Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the legal question of presidential immunity. Too busy trying to tear down American institutions and delegitimize the court, the liberal media didn’t want to mention that Special Counsel Jack Smith literally asked the court earlier this month to take up his case. But the facts didn’t matter to the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View as they collectively attacked the court and flaunted their profound ignorance of the high court’s duties.
Obviously ignorant of the fact that legal cases were pre-selected ahead of a session and new cases that come up during a SCOTUS session often got pushed to the next one, co-host Joy Behar falsely suggested that the justices were “kicking the can down the road” because the hearing would be in April.
“What is their motivation for not doing it right away?” Behar asked staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) who was once a federal prosecutor.
Hostin steered clear of the truth and proposed a sinister motive from the conservative justices, without evidence, that they just wanted to help former President Trump (Click “expand”):
HOSTIN: Well, unfortunately, some people are saying the motivation is that there are certain conservative justices that have been appointed by Trump that want to help him. Because we know the end result is if this case is not resolved by the time of the election and he, God forbid, becomes the president of the United States –
BEHAR: Pooh, pooh.
HOSTIN: — the Justice Department policy is you cannot indict, nor put on trial a sitting president. Right? And so it's his get out of jail free –
GOLDBERG: He can throw him in jail.
HOSTIN: But it's his get-out-of-jail-free card.
Ignoring the dissimilarities in how critical time was, Hostin tried to compare the timing of the immunity case to Bush v. Gore in 2000. Being an election denier, Behar shouted: “That was the day democracy died!” “Well, it was certainly an injustice to many people,” Hostin agreed. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg claimed the case was at least “choking” democracy.
In reality, multiple recounts confirmed that President George W. Bush did, in fact, win the election.
Eventually, Hostin admitted that even Trump “gets due process of law just like all of us.” “And so, if the Supreme Court takes it, they decide he does not have presidential immunity, now he gets convicted, he then can't on appeal say, ‘you got to let me out of jail because I didn't get due process,’” she explained.
Goldberg proclaimed that giving Trump due process was “a bad look” of the Supreme Court because – to her warped mind – being fair to Trump was them “showing favoritism.”
Proudly flaunting her profound ignorance of what the duty of the court actually was, Goldberg bloviated that “there is no reason for them to actually take this case because the two lower courts” had already made rulings. “So if they were to…turn against what the two lower courts thought – I think this is very bad for them,” she said.
The Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings all the time. According to The New York Times, a liberal paper Goldberg would likely trust, “From 2006 to 2015, the Supreme Court heard 160 cases from the Ninth Circuit, reversing 106 decisions and vacating 24…” And in 2017, the First, Third, and Sixth Circuit Courts each had 100 percent of their rulings reversed.
Earlier in the month, ABC chief Washington correspondent Jon Karl noted that SCOTUS, including Trump-appointed justices, had ruled against him multiple times on election matters.
Behar couldn’t take talking about the court treating Trump fairly anymore. “I find it depressing because I feel like not only are we alone in the universe, we're now alone in the country! We're supposed to rely on the Supreme Court to be up above reproach and they're not!” she shouted. “There is so much corruption in government right now! I feel like I'm in the wrong country!”
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
ABC’s The View
February 29, 2024
11:04:32 a.m. Eastern(…)
JOY BEHAR: So, they’re basically kicking the can down the road, though. They're not taking up this case immediately.
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Right.
BEHAR: So, what's their motivation then, if we all know they can't do what you just said because of the extreme power that a president would have, what is their motivation for not doing it right away?
SUNNY HOSTIN: Well, unfortunately, some people are saying the motivation is that there are certain conservative justices that have been appointed by Trump that want to help him. Because we know the end result is if this case is not resolved by the time of the election and he, God forbid, becomes the president of the United States –
BEHAR: Pooh, pooh.
HOSTIN: — the Justice Department policy is you cannot indict, nor put on trial a sitting president. Right? And so it's his get out of jail free –
GOLDBERG: He can throw him in jail.
HOSTIN: But it's his get out of jail free card.
GOLDBERG: No, no. I’m saying Biden could throw him – See? This is a slippery slope, because if they give him this immunity --
BEHAR: What's good for the goose is good for Joe Biden.
HOSTIN: What I also will say is: they're listening to these arguments in April. The end of their term is June. Right? They return again, I believe, in October. The Bush v. Gore case happened real quick. [Rhythmically snapping her fingers] Do you remember that? The Supreme Court knows how to work real fast.
BEHAR: That was the day democracy died!
HOSTIN: Well, it was certainly an injustice to many people.
GOLDBERG: It was choking it!
BEHAR: It’s on its way.
(…)
11:10:53 a.m. Eastern
HOSTIN: He gets due process of law just like all of us. And so, if the Supreme Court takes it, they decide he does not have presidential immunity, now he gets convicted, he then can't on appeal say, “you got to let me out of jail because I didn't get due process.” So, that's how I'm trying to look at this; in a very positive way.
BEHAR: That's why they took it in the first place.
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But – And I think that's right.
HOSTIN: I think that's maybe why they took it.
GOLDBERG: I think it's a bad -- it's a bad look for them. It's a very bad --
HOSTIN: To take it?
GOLDBERG: To have taken this, yes. Because this, you know, in some of their other rulings, which I’ve wondered about, you know, people say, “Well, you know, we don't want it to look like we're showing favoritism so looking at it in a very deep way.” And suddenly now it doesn't feel like they're looking at it in a deep way; this feels like, “Ooo, we got to help him do this.” And that's what I don't like about it.
Because there is no -- I mean there is no reason for them to actually take this case, because the two lower courts said, “Listen, this is what it is.” This -- and so if they were to turn it -- turn against what the two lower courts thought – I think this is very bad for them.
HOSTIN: It was --
GOLDBERG: Or looks bad for them.
HOSTIN: It wasn't shocking to me that they took it because they took so long to grant it –
GOLDBERG: See, it feels like they just did this the other day.
HOSTIN: Yeah, no. It took some time.
BEHAR: I have to say, I find it very depressing. I find it depressing.
GOLDBERG: Oh, don't be depressed.
FARAH GRIFFIN: Can I say one thing?
BEHAR: I find it depressing because I feel like not only are we alone in the universe, we're now alone in the country! We're supposed to rely on the Supreme Court to be up above reproach and they're not!
[Crosstalk]
GOLDBERG: But, wait a minute. They never have been –
[Applause]
HOSTIN: The chief justice knows that and cares about that sentiment and I agree with Alyssa – this is not going to – I mean Whoopi, they're not going to --
BEHAR: There is so much corruption in government right now! I feel like I'm in the wrong country!
(…)
