Baier started by asking why the House hadn't taken up the unanimously-passed Senate bill on security for Supreme Court justices, which Coons cosponsored. The House was looking to incorporate protections for SCOTUS staff and their families, Coons said.
And then, he put that bill into the larger picture of January 6th and "politically motivated violence in our country," and said the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde were a "call to action."
Baier waved that off, saying they were "going to get to both of those other things in a minute," and then he asked whether those protesting at a judge's house should be arrested. Coons talked about having to "strike the right balance" between freedom of speech and ensuring judges and justices are safe. And he added
I do think we need to take stronger action to make sure that our federal judiciary is safe because that's part of making sure our democracy is safe, which really is the core issue of the January 6th hearings, is how do we make sure that the fundamentals of our democracy, the safety and security of Congress, the peaceful transfer of power, and I would also at the safety and security of our federal judiciary is ensured. We should act.
Refusing to change the subject, Baier asked if the AG should arrest the protesters, and said no matter how the Court rules on Roe, it's going to be contentious. Coons said if the opinion matches the draft, it "would be a remarkable act of judicial activism, conservative judicial activism" and there'd be "understandable anger across the nation."
And he continued, "we need to make sure that all appropriate actions are being taken to ensure the safety of members of our federal judiciary, including Supreme Court justices." Here's how it went after that.
Baier: Okay, so don't arrest the protesters based on the title, I got it. That's what you're saying. The president this --
Coons: Bret, let's be clear. I didn't say don't arrest protesters. I'm simply saying that all appropriate action should be taken to ensure the safety of the Supreme Court justices. And I'm not going to say this protester or that protester ought to be arrested. I just think that that's a judgment call to be made by law enforcement, not by a senator on a Sunday show.
Yeah, but...
Baier said no one's been arrested, and President Biden hasn't mentioned "this specific threat" about Kavanaugh, although "The White House press secretary said a couple of things in a gaggle to reporters that the president condemns violence of any kind. But should the president have said something publicly about this?"
Coons reminded Baier that Biden has "repeatedly spoken out against politically motivated violence in our country, the risk of politically motivated violence," and
I certainly have denounced this latest threat against Justice Kavanaugh. But it's important that we remember there are threats of political violence of many kinds and types. Folks who are watching this morning who didn't watch the January 6th hearing should take a few moments and review what Congresswoman Liz Cheney, an unimpeachable conservative from Wyoming, had to say in her opening statement. I think there are risks of political violence we should all be speaking out against and acting to ensure we control, manage, and reduce.
Baier again threatened to change the subject, saying, "we're going to talk about January 6th in just a moment."
But don't you think Democrats and the media would possibly, Senator, be making more about a threat like this, a specific threat, if it was happening to liberal justices?
Oh, my goodness, he's a dog with a bone, isn't he? And Coons? Cool as a cucumber, still.
Well, Bret, you have in front of you the Democratic senator who cosponsored with Senator Cornyn a bill that would provide greater security --
Baier interrupts with "I'm just saying publicly, Senator," and Coons continues
-- for the families of justices. I don't know how more publicly I can say that I think threats of violence against Supreme Court justices, their families, their clerks are reprehensible, unacceptable, and we should take action to secure the federal judiciary.
Again, Baier threatens to change the subject, saying "All right. Last thing before we get to January 6. A lot has been made this week about words, how much they matter, how much stirring the pot, giving the green light to violence in any way, shape, or form is unacceptable."
Baier then plays a video of my idiotic Senator, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, shrieking threats on the steps of the Supreme Court in 2020, and asked if "those words" qualified as reprehensible and unacceptable.
I'm disappointed in Coons for excusing Schumer's behavior; he said my senator was angry about the Court potentially reversing a "fundamental constitutional right" and "what he did not say was let's go attack them." He contrasted that with January 6th, and repeated Rep. Liz Cheney's comments about Trump summoning, stirring up, and lighting the fuse that led to the storming of the Capitol.
And the results were clear and I think catastrophic... Frankly, as one of the members of the Senate who had to be escorted out along with the vice president by Capitol police just feet ahead of an angry mob, I do think that we are at risk of a season of political violence in this country, and all of us should reduce the temper and level of our rhetoric.
Baier followed up with
Including Senator Schumer, who has said the justices "released a whirlwind and you will pay the price." You don't see any problem with that kind of language on the Supreme Court?
I almost burst out laughing at that point, it was so absurd. But Coons maintained his composure.
That's not what I said. What I just said, Bret, was I think all of us need to reduce the level of our rhetoric -- and be mindful of the fact that stirring up potential violence is not a good or constructive thing to be doing at this moment in our country by any political leader.
And here's where Baier finally turned to the January 6th hearing, after the three previous references to it. Now, we're going to get somewhere, I thought to myself. Silly me.
Baier quoted a New York Times article on the hearing, which, he said, "praised it for its sober approach" - and he noted the Times also said
It is clear that the hearings, coming five months before midterm elections in which Democrats are bracing for big losses, carry high political stakes.
And he asked Coons, "are there concerns of politicization here in your mind, Senator?" And, that was the only question about January 6th. Nothing else about the Committee, the hearing, the evidence they presented, the things to come... nothing. Not a damn thing. And, no follow-up question after Coons responded.
The last two questions? Is Biden running for a second term, which is about as critical right now as a hangnail on an artificial hand, and how can Biden's upcoming trip to Saudi Arabia "not look like a blatant effort just to try to get gas prices down?"
Honestly? This could be one of the worst FNS classroom visits I've ever seen - and there've been some bad ones, for sure.
See you around campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!