Judge schools Fox and Friends on why Trump's birthright citizenship plans are so ignorant


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/11/01/judge-schools-fox-and-friends.html


#2

This clip makes for a great explainer video

I don’t know. The morons who host and watch Fox and Friends might need an animated Schoolhouse Rock short for it to really sink in.


#3

I love when we argue over which parts of the Constitution are important and which ones aren’t.


#4

I have a love-hate thing for Napolitano. He’s a libertarian weirdo, but he’s consistent and doesn’t seem to be willing to just say anything in order to keep up his right wing credentials.

I remember seeing him explain to a baffled Fox host why a judge cannot increase or revoke bail just because a defendant insulted him in open court and you could tell the host was disappointed that the old judge didn’t side with him.


#5

The 2nd!!!111!!111 Only the 2nd!!!111111!!!1

/S


#6

How is he a “Weirdo”?


#7

Watching these three talking rutabagas try and process the explanation Napolitano gives them about why there is no plausible constitutional way that Trump could do this is like watching dogs trying to figure out how the microwave works.

Also, when Andrew fucking Napolitano is the voice of reason in any conversation, we’ve got to ask ourselves some serious questions about whether the overton window can be reset.


#8

No, the first is VERY important, we must let white males say anything they want. Anyone else, not so much. Since only white males wrote and signed the Constitution, that is what they actually meant. /s


#9


#10

Sadly, that probably is what they meant.


#11

SNL needs to bring back Bobby Moynihan et al for some more Fox & Friends skits.

This name, Fox & Friends. It sounds like the title for a children’s show.


#12

I am not going to “like” this, because it is probably true. See Scalia’s argument that women and gays do not have constitutional protections for this exact reason, and that makes me very scared.


#13

But the point is not to actually do it (since I have to believe - please- that there are some functioning adults with law degrees still in the administration).

The point is to rile up the rubes and get them to vote R next week.

And when it doesn’t happen to lie about it and say “activist judges” and democrats thwarted the clear plans and intent of the *president and the people who voted for him


#14

:open_mouth:

(Discourse needs more than a heart as a reaction button.)


#15

You mean it isn’t a children’s show?


#16

What I want to know is how that Axios reporter got it in their mind to ask the President about this? Supposedly, the whitehouse had not made any indication that this was a policy change they were considering… Unless…

I don’t know the solution, but it seems like so many reporters end up carrying water for Trump… Why set him up to float this proposal in the first place? For the “big scoop”?


#17

At least by airing on that network, and that show, it means Trump is likely to have seen it. But damn. It’s 2.5 minutes long. That might be too long.


#18

QED  


#19

I didn’t call him a weirdo, I called him a libertarian weirdo. So I repeated myself.

Edit:

@agies

shadowself


#20

Does he “school” them though? He seemed pretty onboard based on his demeanor, it mostly seemed like he was trying to explain how difficult it would be to change the constitution and he spins Trump’s dumbass proposal as “He was merely trying to start a discussion”. Sure he was.

Also he mentions how Obama hated the 2nd amendment, which is a dead giveaway this guy is a die-hard republican. Obama was not against the 2nd amendment, he wanted to pass legislation to improve gun laws and gun control.