MSNBC’s Chuck Todd apparently hates doing his homework.
The Meet the Press host on Sunday gave a softball interview to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who is feuding with the Michigan Supreme Court after it ruled she violated the state’s Constitution with her extended executive orders on the coronavirus pandemic.
That Todd is sympathetic to Whitmer’s cause is not surprising. The surprising part is that Todd claims the court “didn’t cite any law” when it ruled against her. This is not even close to being true.
Whitmer went first Sunday, saying, “This partisan decision out of our Supreme Court makes it more precarious than ever, a situation that’s already very dangerous.”
“I know that — can you — they didn’t really cite any Michigan law,” said Todd. “They didn’t cite any law in deciding why you suddenly didn’t have this power.”
There is so much wrong between these remarks by Whitmer and Todd.
First, as noted by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, there is a bipartisan consensus on the Michigan Supreme Court that Whitmer’s extended orders indeed violated the state’s Constitution. Both the Democratic and Republican justices agree. It is not “partisan.”
Second, and this is the bigger thing, Todd has no idea what he is talking about when he says the court “didn’t cite any law” in its ruling against Whitmer. One would expect this level of ignorance from an anonymous Twitter troll, not the host of what is supposed to be a prestigious news program.
“The Supreme Court found that Whitmer lacked authority under two laws — the Emergency Management Act from 1976 and the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act from 1945,” Turley notes.
Writing for the majority opinion, Justice Stephen J. Markman explicitly states:
The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling came after a “federal district court certified questions of state law to be addressed on the constitutionality of Whitmer’s actions,” Turley explains. “Obviously, the Michigan Supreme Court wrote at length on the ‘law’ contained in Michigan regulations and the Michigan Constitution. The other law is found in case law.”
The first case citation (Gundy v United States, 588 US ___, ___; 139 S Ct 2116, 2145; 204 L Ed 2d 522 [2019] [Gorsuch, J., dissenting]) is found on page 3 of the court’s decision.
In fact, the ruling cites more than 60 state and national cases, some multiple times, all in support of its argument against the governor’s extended executive orders. The case citations include:
– Bd of Trustees of Univ of Alabama v Garrett, 531 US 356, 363; 121 S Ct 955; 148 L Ed 2d 866 (2001)
– Kentucky v Graham, 473 US 159, 166; 105 S Ct 3099; 87 L Ed 2d 114 (1985)
– Lapides v Bd of Regents of the Univ Sys of Georgia, 535 US 613, 618; 122 S Ct 1640; 152 L Ed 2d 806 (2002)
– Cunningham v Neagle, 135 US 1; 10 S Ct 658; 34 L Ed 55 (1890)
– Mich House of Representatives v Governor, May 21, 2020 (Docket No. 20-000079-MZ); slip op at 23-24
– Immigration & Naturalization Serv v Chadha, 462 US 919; 103 S Ct 2764; 77 L Ed 2d 317 (1983),
-Blank v Dep’t of Corrections, 462 Mich 103, 113; 611 NW2d 530 (2000) (opinion by KELLY, J.)
– Immigration & Naturalization Serv v Chadha, 462 US 919, 955 n 19; 103 S Ct 2764; 77 L Ed 2d 317 (1983)
– Dist of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570, 578; 128 S Ct 2783; 171 L Ed 2d 637 (2008)
– In re MCI Telecom Complaint, 460 Mich 396, 414; 596 NW2d 164 (1999)
– Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 284 n 10; 696 NW2d 646 (2005)
– Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 467; 613 NW2d 307 (2000)
– People ex rel Hill v Lansing Bd of Ed, 224 Mich 388, 391; 195 NW 95 (1923)
– Grebner v State, 480 Mich 939, 940 (2007)
– Clinton v City of New York, 524 US 417, 482; 118 S Ct 2091; 141 L Ed 2d 393 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissenting)
– 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford Co, 476 Mich 131, 141; 719 NW2d 553 (2006)
– Mistretta v United States, 488 US 361, 419; 109 S Ct 647; 102 L Ed 2d 714 (1989) (Scalia, J., 23 dissenting).
– Marshall Field & Co v Clark, 143 US 649, 693-694; 12 S Ct 495; 36 L Ed 294 (1892)
– Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich v Milliken, 422 Mich 1, 51; 367 NW2d 1 (1985)
– Dep’t of Natural Resources v Seaman, 396 Mich 299, 308-309; 240 NW2d 206 (1976)
– Osius v St Clair Shores, 344 Mich 693, 698; 75 NW2d 25 (1956)
– Gundy v United States, 588 US ___, ___; 139 S Ct 2116, 2123; 204 L Ed 2d 522 (2019) (opinion by Kagan, J.)
– Dep’t of Transp v Ass’n of American Railroads, 575 US 43, 77; 135 S Ct 1225; 191 L Ed 2d 153 (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring)
– Whitman v American Trucking Associations, Inc, 531 US 457, 475; 121 S Ct 903; 149 L Ed 2d 1 (2001)
– Synar v United States, 626 F Supp 1374, 1386 (D DC, 1986)
There is more where this comes from, but you get the point. Todd is obviously out of his depth on this one.
Back at Meet the Press, where the host apparently declined to do even the basic requirements of his job, Todd invited the governor to explain how she plans to circumvent the Michigan Supreme Court.
“Do you have — is this something that you want to send to the U.S. Supreme Court, or are you just going to try to work around it using other legal channels?” he asked.
Whitmer responded, “Well, I’m going to continue doing my job. So, I’ve got other powers that we are using. We have epidemic powers that my director of Health and Human Services have.”
What, exactly, does Todd do to prepare for his show? Because it certainly does not seem to be research.
