The liberal media were beside themselves on Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a unanimous, 9-0 ruling that former President Trump was to remain on the Colorado ballot, and in other states that were looking to remove him. The ruling also had the low-IQ brains of ABC’s The View short-circuiting as moderator Whoopi Goldberg flipped out and proclaimed Trump had “been given a rubber to put on and walk through the poo” and compared it to pro-segregationist courts of the past.
Goldberg’s profound ignorance of federal supremacy over federal elected positions was on full display from the get-go as she opened the show by comparing their ballot ruling to overturning Roe v. Wade and state laws on abortion:
The Supreme Court has just ruled unanimously that Colorado courts cannot keep you-know-who off the state's ballot for engaging in insurrection finding that a state cannot make a call that could have a national impact on a federal election. Of course, unless it's about a woman's right to choose, but let's not get into that.
Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) admitted that the justices made “the right decision” because “we’d have this chaotic sort of process where you’d have 50 states and some are choosing to put him on the ballot and some are choosing not to put him on the ballot.”
But she went on to whine, without evidence, that SCOTUS went too far and “overstep[ed] in favor of Donald Trump,” and asserted the justices “behaved in a partisan manner.”
In their second segment talking about the ruling, Goldberg attempted to delegitimize the court and teardown American institutions and continued with a mind-numbing analogy that dabbled in long-debunked election denialism and talk of condoms and poo (Click “expand”):
GOLDBERG: No. No. Oh my goodness. It doesn't even matter, but it doesn't matter because for a second we all said, “Well, why are they all voting and making it okay for Bush to become president?” We got very annoyed with that.
HOSTIN: The Bush v. Gore. This is the first time the Supreme Court really dabbled in politics like that.
GOLDBERG: Like that, yeah. And so this -- this thing where he is now once again been given a rubber to put on and walk through the poo -- Yes. Yes. You heard me.
Having been born in 1955, Goldberg ridiculously insisted that this court (comprised of four women, two black people, and a Latino woman) looked “more like” the pro-segregationist “Supreme Court I grew up with.”
Faux conservative co-host Ana Navarro lamented that justices used to be confirmed with “90-something votes” in the Senate. But Goldberg chalked it up to “when it was all men voting for all men, we ended up with the grand wizard, you know, we ended up with all kinds of people on the bench.”
In reality, the first female justice, Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed 99-0; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3. The slide toward party-line confirmations had nothing to do with the gender of anyone and had more to do with Democrats making confirmations political, starting with Robert Bork.
Prior to the commercial break, Navarro showed off her lack of ability to understand nuance and law by whining about Justice Clarence Thomas refusing to recuse himself from any election-related cases. She tried to claim that Thomas sleeping with his wife Ginni was somehow a “conflict of interest” on par with Georgia D.A. Fani Willis having an “affair” with the prosecutor she assigned to go after Trump; despite Mrs. Thomas not being a party or defendant in any election-related case (Click “expand”):
Something that's really troubling me though. Look, we have spent days and the last few weeks watching Fani Willis be on a witness stand and going through the fact that she was having an affair with a guy she hired to prosecute this case. It's a conflict of interest case.
It bothers me tremendously that we have now had this case where Clarence Thomas has sat there and we have another case, the immunity case where Clarence Thomas apparently plans to sit there. Despite the fact that, in my view, and I think in a lot of Americans' view, he has a conflict of interest. Because if Fani Willis sleeping with that guy you think was a conflict of interest, what do you think of Clarence Thomas being married to a woman who was actually trying to overturn the elections?
And that is something that continues to be unaddressed and I must say this: both Clarence and Ginni Thomas have denied any wrongdoing. [Makes a mocking face]
Navarro’s fellow faux-conservative, Alyssa Farah Griffin said the ruling might have been “the right decision” but was “not a welcomed one.” She argued that “the takeaway from today is this: the only place to beat Donald Trump is at the ballot box.”
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
ABC’s The View
March 4, 2024
11:02:06 a.m. EasternWHOOPI GOLDBERG: The Supreme Court has just ruled unanimously that Colorado courts cannot keep you-know-who off the state's ballot for engaging in insurrection finding that a state cannot make a call that could have a national impact on a federal election. Of course, unless it's about a woman's right to choose, but let's not get into that.
What do you all think of this? I mean, is anybody surprised by this decision?
SUNNY HOSTIN: No, and I actually think it was the right decision to make because it would have, you know, if Colorado had been allowed to do that, we’d have this chaotic sort of process where you’d have 50 states and some are choosing to put him on the ballot and some are choosing not to put him on the ballot. So, that's why this decision was unanimous in judgment, but if you read the dissent by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan and also Jackson, they are saying the Supreme Court went too far here because they answered a question that wasn't before them.
The only question that was before this court was, can a state do this? Instead, what they did was they insulated all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.
And it is a tenant of the Supreme Court law – I'm a Supreme Court-admitted – bar-admitted attorney. It says, “What it does today, the court should have left undone.” And we always learn that in law school. The Supreme Court should just answer the question before it and I have far too much -- I had far too much hope that the court would be united in this and not overstep in favor of Donald Trump. And I think what we saw was a court where justices that behaved in a partisan manner and that disappoints me.
(…)
11:05:38 a.m. Eastern
ANA NAVARRO: Something that's really troubling me though. Look, we have spent days and the last few weeks watching Fani Willis be on a witness stand and going through the fact that she was having an affair with a guy she hired to prosecute this case. It's a conflict of interest case.
It bothers me tremendously that we have now had this case where Clarence Thomas has sat there and we have another case, the immunity case where Clarence Thomas apparently plans to sit there. Despite the fact that, in my view, and I think in a lot of Americans' view, he has a conflict of interest. Because if Fani Willis sleeping with that guy you think was a conflict of interest, what do you think of Clarence Thomas being married to a woman who was actually trying to overturn the elections?
And that is something that continues to be unaddressed and I must say this: both Clarence and Ginni Thomas have denied any wrongdoing. [Makes a mocking face]
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Listen, I think it was the right decision, not a welcomed one. It sometimes can be the right thing precedently, but also maybe you worry about for the country. But the justices were always going to look at this for what this could mean 10-20 years down the road. And to Ana’s point, there was also a Missouri secretary of state – a Republican secretary of state who threatened to keep Biden off the ballot under the same decision. So, it does open a bit of a slippery slope. But I think the takeaway from today is this: the only place to beat Donald Trump is at the ballot box.
(…)
11:15:14 a.m. Eastern
GOLDBERG: I'm a really -- I was a really big fan of the Supreme Court because I always felt that they were, whether I liked their decisions or not, that they -- they were the exception of – um –
SARA HAINES: Clarence Thomas?
GOLDBERG: No. No. Oh my goodness. It doesn't even matter, but it doesn't matter because for a second we all said, “Well, why are they all voting and making it okay for Bush to become president?” We got very annoyed with that.
HOSTIN: The Bush v. Gore. This is the first time the Supreme Court really dabbled in politics like that.
GOLDBERG: Like that, yeah. And so this -- this thing where he is now once again been given a rubber to put on and walk through the poo -- Yes. Yes. You heard me.
(…)
11:16:33 a.m. Eastern
NAVARRO: We also have to realize that the Supreme Court you grew up with, we grew up with largely, is a very different Supreme Court.
GOLDBERG: Oh, honey.
NAVARRO: This is a supreme court --
GOLDBERG: This is more like the Supreme Court I grew up with.
NAVARRO: Well, this is very partisan. Supreme Court justices used to get confirmed by 90-something votes.
GOLDBERG: Yeah. Well, it was all men voting for other men.
NAVARRO: Now they get confirmed on a straight party line.
HAINES: It used to be bipartisan, yeah.
GOLDBERG: Well, sometimes it was, but, you know, when it was all men voting for all men, we ended up with the grand wizard, you know, we ended up with all kinds of people on the bench.
HOSTIN: We did.
(…)
