First, Hardball host Chris Matthews demanded Democrats “wreak vengeance” on President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Then, Morning Joe promoted the idea of Democrats packing the court with liberals to “neutralize” any of Trump’s “extreme” appointments. Now, MSNBC’s strategy has shifted to arguing that the President should not be allowed to name anyone to the high court while under investigation in the Mueller probe.
During Thursday’s 11:00 a.m. ET hour, anchor Ali Velshi raised the prospect of Watergate while pointing out: “...there were four judges appointed by President Nixon. One, William Rehnquist, did recuse himself from consideration of anything to do with Watergate because he was actually part of the Nixon administration.” The host fretted: “If the guy hires you, nominates you for the job, what does the law say about your obligation to the man?”
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney and NBC News Legal Analyst Mimi Rocah noted that it was “way too broad” to expect a Supreme Court justice to recuse themselves from any cases involving the president who nominated them, but then warned: “We are in a very unique situation here, though. We have a president who is facing not only an unprecedented number of civil and criminal liability questions, unprecedented, but also a very credible threat of impeachment.”
Moments later, Velshi followed up by highlighting: “I have dozens of tweets from people who – lay people like myself – who are saying this president should not, being under investigation, even be in a position to nominate a judge at all.” He bolstered the case: “There are some people, legal and ethical scholars, who have chimed in on that, and said maybe that’s true.”
Rocah eagerly voiced her agreement: “Look, I agree with that. My first choice, if I were sort of putting these in order of how we should analyze this, is he should not get to nominate someone until this investigation is done.” She even touted how New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker had been pushing the same talking point: “That’s the Cory Booker view, as far as I can tell.”
Rocah proceeded to invoke the supposed “McConnell rule” and argue that Trump – still in the middle of his first term of office – was already a “lame duck president”:
I think that even under the [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell rule, he called Obama a, quote, “lame duck president,” and that’s why he didn’t get to nominate someone, in his view. Well, I think someone who, again, is facing a credible possibility of impeachment, is under serious criminal investigation, is not – you know, could be also considered a lame duck president. And just, you know, for the legitimacy of the court, for – and again, some of this is about the public view and we want people to have faith in these institutions.
Velshi feared: “Right, that’s huge. Because right now there are a lot of Americans, polls continue to show, don’t have faith in media, they don’t have faith in some of our federal institutions....If people also start to lose that faith in the Supreme Court, that’s worrisome for the fabric of society and democracy.”
What will be MSNBC’s next excuse for obstructing the President’s judicial appointments? Apparently hosts and pundits are only bound by their own left-wing imaginations.
Here is a full transcript of the July 5 segment:
11:07 AM ET
ALI VELSHI: Mimi, let’s pick this up. Politico writes that, “Many legal experts, including some prominent Republicans, say the fact that a judge was nominated by a particular president is not a basis to ask him or her to avoid all cases connected to that president.” We go back to Nixon and Watergate, there were four judges appointed by President Nixon. One, William Rehnquist, did recuse himself from consideration of anything to do with Watergate because he was actually part of the Nixon administration. But this is an interesting topic. If the guy hires you, nominates you for the job, what does the law say about your obligation to the man?
MIMI ROCAH [FMR. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY/NBC NEWS LEGAL ANALYST]: Well, first of all, the Supreme Court justices are actually relatively exempt from the recusal rules that even other federal judges are required to follow. That said, it is correct that a judge, whether it’s a justice on the Supreme Court or a federal judge, should not have to recuse themself from all cases involving the president who appointed them. That is way too broad.
We are in a very unique situation here, though. We have a president who is facing not only an unprecedented number of civil and criminal liability questions, unprecedented, but also a very credible threat of impeachment. I mean, however this turns out, anyone who’s being objective cannot say that there is now not a real possibility that there will be a report and a recommendation to Congress and the Senate, and that they will at least consider that question and that questions will come out of that to the Supreme Court. That is unique.
The people who have recused themselves in the past, as you said, you know, Kagan, who was mentioned by Kelly O’Donnell, Rehnquist, they had personal connections to the circumstances in a job sense, they had actually worked for the president in some sense. This is different. So I don’t think it’s a required recusal, even under the rules that would apply to federal judges. But, I think recusal is as much about appearance and people’s faith in the justice system as it is about what’s required.
VELSHI: I have a dozen – I have dozens of tweets from people who – lay people like myself – who are saying this president should not, being under investigation, even be in a position to nominate a judge at all. There are some people, legal and ethical scholars, who have chimed in on that, and said maybe that’s true.
ROCAH: Look, I agree with that. My first choice, if I were sort of putting these in order of how we should analyze this, is he should not get to nominate someone until this investigation is done. That’s the Cory Booker view, as far as I can tell. I think that even under the McConnell rule, he called Obama a, quote, “lame duck president,” and that’s why he didn’t get to nominate someone, in his view. Well, I think someone who, again, is facing a credible possibility of impeachment, is under serious criminal investigation, is not – you know, could be also considered a lame duck president. And just, you know, for the legitimacy of the court, for – and again, some of this is about the public view and we want people to have faith in these institutions.
VELSHI: Right, that’s huge. Because right now there are a lot of Americans, polls continue to show, don’t have faith in media, they don’t have faith in some of our federal institutions, they don’t have faith in Congress, some don’t have faith in the presidency. If people also start to lose that faith in the Supreme Court, that’s worrisome for the fabric of society and democracy.
ROCAH: It is. Now I will say, there is one thing that distinguishes – well, there are many things – but one important thing that distinguishes the Supreme Court and all federal judges that I do place great weight on it, I don’t want to ignore it, which is lifetime tenure. That is there for a reason. It is an excellent buffer to, you know, the things that we’re all concerned here with, that somebody is going to make a decision, once on the court, because they feel the need to return a favor or curry favor. They don’t need to. I mean practically speaking, they’re there –
VELSHI: Right, right. They’re there until they choose not to be there.
ROCAH: So I do have faith, for the most part, in federal judges and in this process, in large part because of the quality of the people and also because of lifetime tenure. But again, going back to very unique circumstances, the president and what he’s facing, and a president who has shown himself to make decisions in his governance and in his policies that are about him and not about the country. For example, Brett Kavanaugh, you know, he has opined in the past we know that he doesn’t think that a sitting president should be indicted. So now if he is picked, that may not be the reason, but it will cause people one hundred percent to question, is that why Trump chose him? Because people don’t expect more of this president, they expect that kind of thing from him. And that’s a real problem, because we need people to have faith in these institutions.
VELSHI: Yeah, this is something we’re all going to be concentrating on very closely, particularly come Monday. Thanks, Mimi. Mimi Rocah is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
