Cross posted to the MRC's NewsBusters blog
Appearing as a guest Friday night during MSNBC coverage of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing, New York Times justice reporter Linda Greenhouse fretted that a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court would facilitate "voter suppression" against felons and support "phony" complaints about racial discrimination against whites and Asians in college admissions.
At 10:26 p.m. Eastern, after MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked Greenhouse what to expect if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell succeeds in confirming Ginsburg's replacement while Donald Trump is President, Greenhouse related what she viewed as "troubling" and "very worrisome" possibilities:
Well, you know, one very troubling straw in the wind, I think, was a decision that came down from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals the other day involving voting rights for former felons in Florida, and the court split 6-4, I think, and I believe all the judges -- all the appellate judges -- five of the six appellate judges in the majority were Trump appointees. And so, you know, there's a template for certainly of a lack of regard for a right to vote -- voter suppression being the name of the game today. So that's very worrisome.
Turning her attention to race-based college admissions, she added:
We had an appellate argument this week in the case involving Harvard admissions and a phony claim which was rejected by the district judge that Harvard is using racially discriminatory tactics in building a diverse class of students, and I think the ability of universities to take race at all into account in building their student body is certainly in jeopardy. It's been in jeopardy for a long time. It was Justice Kennedy, you know, who retired two years ago that kind of kept that alive, so, and, you know, you mentioned abortion -- that's obvious.
Greenhouse fretted that abortion rights are "hanging by a thread" as she concluded:
The right to abortion really is hanging by a thread, so you kind of, you know, pick your case. And, to the extent that things have only happened incrementally in recent years instead of sweeping decisions -- that's because the conservative side couldn't always quite count on five votes. If they get one to replace Justice Ginsburg, I think a lot of this will be a foregone conclusion.
MSNBC's Friday night liberal bias was sponsored by Etrade. Their contact information is linked.
10:26 p.m.
RACHEL MADDOW: If McConnell succeeds and he is able to get another justice on the court who's along the lines ideologically of Justice Kavanaugh or Justice Gorsuch, what do you think would -- what do you think we should know? ... What do you think that we should expect in terms of what important cases would go the other way -- what existing laws would be -- what existing rulings would be overturned? And what might change in America with a court that right-wing?
LINDA GREENHOUSE, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, you know, one very troubling straw in the wind, I think, was a decision that came down from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals the other day involving voting rights for former felons in Florida, and the court split 6-4, I think, and I believe all the judges -- all the appellate judges -- five of the six appellate judges in the majority were Trump appointees. And so, you know, there's a template for certainly of a lack of regard for a right to vote -- voter suppression being the name of the game today. So that's very worrisome.
We had an appellate argument this week in the case involving Harvard admissions and a phony claim which was rejected by the district judge that Harvard is using racially discriminatory tactics in building a diverse class of students, and I think the ability of universities to take race at all into account in building their student body is certainly in jeopardy. It's been in jeopardy for a long time. It was Justice Kennedy, you know, who retired two years ago that kind of kept that alive, so, and, you know, you mentioned abortion -- that's obvious.
The right to abortion really is hanging by a thread, so you kind of, you know, pick your case. And, to the extent that things have only happened incrementally in recent years instead of sweeping decisions -- that's because the conservative side couldn't always quite count on five votes. If they get one to replace Justice Ginsburg, I think a lot of this will be a foregone conclusion.