Chuck Todd: The Michigan Supreme Court Did Not “Cite Any Law” In Ruling Whitmer’s Actions Unconstitu

Law professor Jon Turley points out the deceptive claims of Chuck Todd of NBC

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/10/...hitmers-actions-unconstitutional/#more-164677

Todd made false statements about the reasoning of the Michigan Supreme Court in the recent decision regarding Governor Whitmer's usurpation of power.

Numerous posters follow Todd's lead in rationalizations about the illegality of various state actions during Covid. Is this a form of cognitive dissonance?

 

I don’t believe the mandates imposed meet constitutional muster, but then again I find Americans to not be the brightest humans anyways. I am watching them circle their nation into an abyss of irrelevance on the world scene.

 

When you are above the law, you're above the law. The left IS 150% above the law. There will be no repercussions for this, we just have to suck it up. All you lefties should be seriously ashamed though!

 

Chuck is just a tool. He's a particularly smarmy one at that. Of course he's on the side of executive monarchy. This is what folks like Todd have pined for. For decades. The establishment of the authoritarian deposit they believe in.

 

Here is the (actual title) of your linked article:

Chuck Todd: The Michigan Supreme Court Did Not “Cite Any Law” In Ruling Whitmer’s Actions Unconstitutional

I see no mention of the term "lies".

In any event, no one (in Michigan) has seen any practical effects of the decision.
(Regardless of what laws were (or weren't) cited).

 

That's because you have to actually get passed the headline...which I know can be hard....and read and understand the text....
1) The Gov said the ruling was partisan, as the body of the article highlights, the "Democrat Justices" were in the majority as well....lie 1
2) The it goes on to say "However, that untruth was quickly lost in what was a flagrantly untrue statement by Todd himself. " - when something is an untrue or untruth...it's a lie. The MSDNC host claimed for it's low informed viewer that the Court cited no laws in support of it's ruling...which is completely untrue.....and total lie..."The roughly 50 page opinion contains over 60 cases discussed in support of the decision." - apparently there was over 60 cases...case law, in support of the ruling. and furthermore found two statues she violated.... — the Emergency Management Act from 1976 and the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act from 1945. J

 

Did you mean "past the headline"?

Anyway, I am very aware of all aspects (and implications) of the of the MI Supreme Court Ruling.

 

I did thanks.....glad I was able to get your past the headline....so why do you think Chucky and the Dem Gov lied to their viewers?

 

It doesn't matter what I think about Chuck Todd or NBC.

And, besides, anybody who doesn't like Todd or NBC can just change the channel.

 

Sure it matters to me....I am curious why you think they would lie to their viewers?

 

Giggles.
Today's the day you decide to withold your opinion for once?

 

If you're looking for a straight answer, there are several reasons why Upchuck Todd would lie to his audience for the umpteenth time:

1) He thinks his audience consists of unintelligent, credulous. low information sheeple

2) He thinks his audience thinks what he tells them to think

3) Channeling his colleague Mika Brzezinski, he thinks it's his job to tell his audience what to think

4) All of the Above

 

He knows.
He's preaching to the Springer segment of society.

 

I was trying to be nice, and you're being far too kind...

 

Beautiful, awesome rationalization!

 

The curious amongst us will now be armed with the knowledge that Chuck is just like the rest of the talking heads in the mainstream media, a mendacious and arrogant fool advancing an agenda.

 

Since when were NBC and its ilk interested in courts citing or relying on law in their rulings????

 

Certainly no time lately. You would have to go back to the time of Murrow and Cronkite maybe.

 

Whitmer's actions were authoritarian by anybody's definition. The founders wanted to avoid authoritarianism and the constitution clearly defines how laws should be created. But then you believe Americans are stupid so none of that would have any meaning to you.

 

I am sure you don’t mind authoritarianism when they tell you to wear pants

 

Government has never told me to wear pants. Thanks for the silly retort.

 

Try walking around your town without them. Report back

 

Thanks for yet another silly retort. I understand that you don't understand what authoritarianism in government is. I'll let you research it.

 

Masks and pants aren’t no different. Complainers are snowflake whiny ass babies

 

Did I say anything about masks? I don't think so. You are projecting your bias on to me. Thanks but I prefer my biases.