On Friday afternoon, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell displayed a classic example of journalists reacting negatively to a development that goes in favor of conservatives as a "setback" or an action that "doesn't bode well," sympathizing with the liberal point of view.
As she interviewed New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse to promote her new melodramatic book decrying conservative makeup of the Supreme Court, Justice on the Brink, Mitchell recalled that recent action by the high court regarding laws against abortion in Texas "doesn't bode well."
After revising her statement by adding, "for the people who believe that Roe v. Wade was decided," she then referred to court decisions on voting rights as a "setback" for "those believing that the Voting Rights Act has already been gutted in 2013."
Mitchell posed: "Let's talk about abortion and the fact that they even took the Mississippi case on December 1st. There's been so much focus on Texas, but the Mississippi case is really the guts of Roe v. Wade, and the fact that they let Texas -- the ban -- stand -- which is a de facto ban on abortion in Texas. That doesn't bode well in addition to the fact that they took the Mississippi case."
Greenhouse asserted that the Mississippi abortion ban is "flatly unconstitutional under current law," adding: "So the only reason that this new court with three Trump justices would have even taken Mississippi's appeal was because they have some issue with current law or some change they want to make, and we're going to find out how drastic that change is going to be."
Mitchell then jumped back in to revise her previous suggestion that a conservative victory was a bad thing:
So -- and I should have said, "Does not bode well," you know, the implication there is for the people who believe that Roe v. Wade was decided and whatever you think about the, you know, philosophical or legal justification for using privacy as the justification for it, that it is, you know, precedent. And, up until now at least, precedent has mattered.
And in her next followup, Mitchell again put a negative spin on a conservative victory:
And there are so many other issues. The end of the last term, voting rights, a setback for those believing that the Voting Rights Act has already been gutted in 2013, but, you know, more -- more action against it from the Supreme Court. Affirmative action is another thing you think could be at stake with this court.
This episode of Andrea Mitchell Reports was sponsored in part by Fidelity. Their contact information is linked.
Transcript follows:
Andrea Mitchell Reports
November 12, 2021
12:40 p.m. Eastern
ANDREA MITCHELL: Let's talk about abortion and the fact that they even took the Mississippi case on December 1st. There's been so much focus on Texas, but the Mississippi case is really the guts of Roe v. Wade, and the fact that they let Texas -- the ban -- stand -- which is a de facto ban on abortion in Texas. That doesn't bode well in addition to the fact that they took the Mississippi case.
LINDA GREENHOUSE, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, that's right, and I spent actually -- in the book, I spent quite a lot of time talking about whatever -- what must have been a heated internal struggle at the court over what to do with Mississippi's appeal. So Mississippi bans abortion -- seeks to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy -- something that's flatly unconstitutional under current law. So the only reason that this new court with three Trump justices would have even taken Mississippi's appeal was because they have some issue with current law or some change they want to make, and we're going to find out how drastic that change is going to be.
MITCHELL: So -- and I should have said, "Does not bode well," you know, the implication there is for the people who believe that Roe v. Wade was decided and whatever you think about the, you know, philosophical or legal justification for using privacy as the justification for it, that it is, you know, precedent. And, up until now at least, precedent has mattered.
GREENHOUSE: Yeah, we had the right to abortion as a constitutional matter for almost half a century. And every court that's encountered a law like Mississippi's law has of course had to declare it unconstitutional because, under current law, a woman has an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, which is way later than 16 weeks in Mississippi. Of course, it's way later than six weeks in Texas. And so that's really the issue. Is the court going to stand by its precedent or is it not?
MITCHELL: And there are so many other issues. The end of the last term, voting rights, a setback for those believing that the Voting Rights Act has already been gutted in 2013, but, you know, more -- more action against it from the Supreme Court. Affirmative action is another thing you think could be at stake with this court.
