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

Screenshot/Youtube

Chuck Todd interviewed Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer this morning and turned to the recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court that ruled that she had violated the Michigan Constitution in her extended pandemic orders. Todd did not challenge Whitmer stating falsely that the opinion was a “partisan” decision. It was not. The “Democrat justices” agreed that Whitmer violated the Constitution. They only disagreed on the remedy.  However, that untruth was quickly lost in what was a flagrantly untrue statement by Todd himself. He told NBC viewers that the justices did not cite any law to support their decision against Whitmer. Todd stated as fact that the Court did not “cite any Michigan law, they didn’t cite any law in deciding that you didn’t have this power.” The roughly 50 page opinion contains over 60 cases discussed in support of the decision. It does not seem to matter anymore at Meet The Press or NBC.  NBC is not alone. I previously noted how the Washington Post also has failed to correct openly false accounts of cases.  Not only is there no apparent inclination to be accurate but even less expectation to do so.

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.  Justice Stephen J. Markman authored the majority opinion and wrote:

“We conclude that the Governor lacked the authority to declare a ‘state of emergency’ or a ‘state of disaster’ under the EMA after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we conclude that the EPGA is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government– including its plenary police powers– and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely.

As a consequence, the EPGA cannot continue to provide a basis for the Governor to exercise emergency powers.”

The dissenting opinion authored by Chief Justice Bridget McCormack (with Justices McCormack, Richard Bernstein and Megan Cavanagh joining) drew a curious line. The dissenters agreed with the majority that Whitmer violated the Constitution and did not have the authority to extend the emergency orders but would uphold the EPGA because to facially invalidate the EPGA is unnecessary because there are other judicial remedies.”

This case came before the Court after a federal district court certified questions of state law to be addressed on the constitutionality of Whitmer’s actions.

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.

I realize that Todd may have lost interest in reading the actual opinion, but the first citation can be found on page 3 at the start of the analysis. The citation is to Gundy v United States, 588 US ___, ___; 139 S Ct 2116, 2145; 204 L Ed 2d 522 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting).

Here are over 60 such cases that Todd insisted were not cited (some which were cited repeatedly):

Gundy v United States, 588 US ___, ___; 139 S Ct 2116, 2145; 204 L Ed 2d 522 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting)

In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 404; 852 NW2d 524 (2014)

Taylor v Gate Pharm, 468 Mich 1, 6; 658 NW2d 127 (2003)

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)

Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v Trump, 883 F3d 233, 293 (CA 4, 2018) (Gregory, C.J., concurring)

Trump v Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 585 US ___; 138 S Ct 2710 (2018)

Michigan v US 26 Environmental Protection Agency, 341 US App DC 306, 323; 213 F3d 663 (2000)

Schechter Poultry Corp v United States, 295 US 495, 539; 55 S Ct 837; 79 L Ed 1570 (1935)

United States v Robel, 389 US 258, 275; 88 S Ct 419; 19 L Ed 2d 508 (1967) (Brennan, J., concurring in the result)

United States v Touby, 909 F2d 759, 767 (CA 3, 1990)

United States v Emerson, 846 F2d 541, 545 (CA 9, 1988)

Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO v Connally, 337 F Supp 737, 754 (D DC, 1971)

Marran v Baird, 635 A2d 1174, 1181 (RI, 1994)

Connor v Herrick, 349 Mich 201, 217; 84 NW2d 427 (1957)

Bolden v Grand Rapids Operating Corp, 239 Mich 318, 321; 214 NW 241 (1927)

Walsh v River Rouge, 385 Mich 623, 639; 189 NW2d 318 (1971)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v Sawyer, 343 US 579, 652-653; 72 S Ct 863; 96 L Ed 1153 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring)

Mich Farm Bureau v Bureau of Workmen’s Compensation, 408 Mich 141; 289 NW2d 699 (1980)

American Radio Relay League, Inc v Fed Communications Comm, 199 US App DC 293, 297; 617 F2d 875 (1980)

Touby v United States, 500 US 160; 111 S Ct 1752; 114 L Ed 2d 219 (1991),

Opinion of the Justices, 315 Mass 761; 52 NE2d 974 (1944)

Home Bldg & Loan Ass’n v Blaisdell, 290 US 398, 425; 54 S Ct 231; 78 L Ed 413 (1934)

Panama Refining Co v Ryan, 293 US 388; 55 S Ct 241; 79 L Ed 446 (1935)

Schechter Poultry Corp, 295 US 495

In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2011 PA 38, 490 Mich 295, 345; 806 NW2d 683 (2011)

Eastwood Park Amusement Co v East Detroit Mayor, 325 Mich 60, 72; 38 NW2d 77 (1949)

Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 176; 2 L Ed 60 (1803)

United States v Nixon, 418 US 683; 94 S Ct 3090; 41 L Ed 2d 1039 (1974)

Clinton v Jones, 520 US 681; 117 S Ct 1636; 137 L Ed 2d 945 (1997)

Immigration & Naturalization Serv v Chadha, 462 US 919, 955 n 19; 103 S Ct 2764; 77 L Ed 2d 317 (1983)

Trump v Hawaii, 585 US ___; 138 S Ct 2392; 201 L Ed 2d 775 (2018)

Train v City of New York, 420 US 35; 95 S Ct 839; 43 L Ed 2d 1 (1975)

People v Tanner, 496 Mich 199, 221; 853 NW2d 653 (2014)

New York Central Securities Corp v United States, 287 US 12; 53 S Ct 45; 77 L Ed 138 (1932)

Fed Radio Comm v Nelson Bros Bond & Mortgage Co, 289 US 266; 53 S Ct 627; 77 L Ed 1166 (1933)

Yakus v United States, 321 US 414; 64 S Ct 660; 88 L Ed 834 (1944)

Clinton v City of New York, 524 US 417, 482; 118 S Ct 2091; 141 L Ed 2d 393 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissenting)

So, as for Todd’s factual statement that the Michigan Supreme Court majority did not cite to any case, the justices averaged a couple case citations per page in its 50 page opinion.* This does not count repeated citations to regulations and sources as diverse as the writings of John Locke.

For academics who have called for an end to objectivity in journalism, Meet the Press.

Here is the decision: In re Certified Questions

*this is the average since one pages have multiple citations and some do not.

 

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

  1. Let me see if I have this right–Turley is complaining about “flagrant lies” by a media outlet. Well, he certainly must be referring to Fox News–right, because that is their daily fare? No, wait. Another of his assignments is to use his credentials to criticize mainstream media, and if he can throw in some jabs at a Democrat government, so much the better. Do they pay you a bonus for this, Turley? You’ve lost all credibility, Turley.

  2. FAKE NEWS STRIKES AGAIN

    Turley said: “Todd did not challenge Whitmer stating falsely that the opinion was a “partisan” decision. It was not. The “Democrat justices” agreed that Whitmer violated the Constitution. They only disagreed on the remedy. However, that untruth was quickly lost in what was a flagrantly untrue statement by Todd himself. He told NBC viewers that the justices did not cite any law to support their decision against Whitmer. Todd stated as fact that the Court did not “cite any Michigan law, they didn’t cite any law in deciding that you didn’t have this power.” The roughly 50 page opinion contains over 60 cases discussed in support of the decision.”

    NBC EMPLOYES HIM. SAD, EVEN NBC IS LYING PRESS NOW TOO

  3. And they wonder why Meet The Press ratings keep going down. People get tired of half truths which are just as bad as lies. Chuck Todd thinks people don’t check these things out but boy is he wrong. That’s why he gets caught telling half truths.

  4. I use to watch Meet the Press with Chuck Todd. That was, until Trump became President. His disgusting biases and blatant prejudices became evident. The real clincher was when he’d interview Pelosi and he soft-balled her with his questioning and almost reverent attitude when sitting opposite her. Then, with anyone who had any relationship to Trump he’d give them the 3rd degree; the only thing missing was the bright light in their face. He is not (and I repeat, NOT) an honest journalist. And all of the other “journalists he gets there on the round-table aren’t much different than he is. The program is just NOT worth watching.

    1. It’s a shame we can’t get people like Turley to run for office, but the way the fake MSM and Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer tell lies about candidates they don’t like, why would he.

      1. Even though Mr. Turley is a Democrat, I would support him for SCOTUS (regardless if President is Republican or Democrat)…

        Though, frankly, I DOUBT Mr. Turley is RADICAL enough to be nominated by a Democrat!

          1. Thanks for that clip, Olly.

            Do you know if Turley has endorsed either Trump or Biden in 2020? He speaks highly of Biden and one can even argue he is coaching the Biden campaign, if the Biden campaign will listen.

            1. Jonathan,
              I’m not aware of JT endorsing a candidate. He tends to speak favorably of those who commit to public service and if he does speak negatively, it’s usually regarding their character. His greatest strength is in presenting facts and evidence and then citing what the law states. He then leaves it to his readers to debate (deliberate) the merits of the case. The fact he now works as a legal analyst for FoxNews and declares himself to be Independent, does hint where he leans. I’d be interested to know why you believe he’s coaching the Biden campaign.

              1. Olly:

                Thanks. Maybe he will disclose ahead of time, maybe we will learn which way he voted at some point afterward. He didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, according to his impeachment testimony.

                I don’t see any evidence he is coaching the Biden campaign directly, but if the Biden campaign had listened to his analyses and taken at least half of the implied advice, I think Biden would be in a stronger position now.

                Biden would already have come out in support of gradual court expansion, without term limits, for example. Perhaps with measures toward gender and ethnicity balance – a real affirmative action debate.

                1. Jonathan, Biden may very well be aiming his ambiguity on packing the courts at the GOP Senators. As their losing the Senate becomes more and more likely, do they want to throw caution to the wind and pack Amy in and thus encourage a numeric packing by the Democrats in 2021? Think about it.

                  1. Joe:

                    “Biden may very well be aiming his ambiguity on packing the courts at the GOP Senators.”

                    Agreed that is part of his calculations. He may also be aiming his ambiguity at SCOTUS itself. But I think the gender and ethnic balance of a rationally expanded (not packed) court was the Dem’s stronger argument heading into the ACB confirmation hearings. And I suspect Feinstein (D-CA) understands as much.

                    https://jonathanturley.org/2020/10/15/the-barrett-rule-how-democratic-members-are-creating-a-new-and-dangerous-standard-for-confirmations/comment-page-4/#comment-2014040

                    https://jonathanturley.org/2020/10/17/franklins-rule-how-the-barrett-hearing-left-the-democrats-holding-an-empty-sack/comment-page-1/#comment-2014524

                2. Thanks Jonathan. I know in the past, JT has favored increasing the number of justices on the court, but I highly doubt he would advise or is advising court packing to do it. I’m also not aware if JT has had an opinion regarding the gender and ethnic diversity on the court. Given where the Left has steered the LGBTQ…etc. debate, any one of the current justices on the court and any future nominees can declare themselves to be whatever gender and ethnicity they want to “balance” the court.

                  1. Olly:

                    “Given where the Left has steered the LGBTQ…etc. debate, any one of the current justices on the court and any future nominees can declare themselves to be whatever gender and ethnicity they want to “balance” the court.”

                    LOL. Agreed it can look that way. But I do think there is a substantive debate to be had here, based in part on SDO’s opinion for the majority in Grutter v. Bollinger:

                    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/how-sandra-day-oconnor-saved-affirmative-action/584215/

                    “O’Connor was herself the beneficiary of affirmative action. Once, during the Court’s weekly private conference, when Justice Antonin Scalia was declaiming against racial and gender preference, O’Connor drily remarked, “Why Nino, how do you think I got my job?” “

                    1. Olly writes: “I don’t see why racial or gender diversity is necessary for the court.”

                      There are surely Justices on SCOTUS who agree with you, Olly, and much of that we call precedent, or “super precedent,” was established by an entirely Caucasian male bench. I don’t recall any Senator asking ACB her view on this question during the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

                      https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/barrett-refuses-to-say-that-roe-v-wade-is-super-precedent

  5. Trump At Michigan Rally..

    Let’s Crowd Chant “Lock Her Up” Regarding Whitmer

    Lara Trump, a senior adviser to President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, on Sunday defended her father-in-law’s suggestion that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer should be imprisoned alongside his other political rivals.

    In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Lara Trump insisted the president was merely “having fun at a Trump rally” when he criticized Whitmer, a Democrat, at a campaign event this weekend.

    “He wasn’t doing anything, I don’t think, to provoke people to threaten this woman at all,” Lara Trump said of the president’s remarks about Whitmer, who recently was the target of a foiled kidnapping plot.

    “The president was at a rally,” she added. “It’s a fun, light atmosphere. Of course he wasn’t encouraging people to threaten this woman. That’s ridiculous.”

    At the president’s rally Saturday in Muskegon, Mich., after he demanded that Whitmer loosen her state’s coronavirus-related restrictions, attendees erupted into chants of “lock her up.”

    The president did not attempt to dissuade the crowd, instead saying: “Lock them all up.”

    Lara Trump sought to justify the calls from the president and his supporters Sunday, saying that “people are very frustrated” with Whitmer in Michigan and that “you’re hearing people’s frustration play out there at the Trump rally.”

    She also said the president’s attack on Whitmer “has nothing to do with” her attempted kidnapping, and noted “it was the president’s Department of Justice that actually thwarted” the plot against the governor.

    Whitmer responded to Trump’s rally remarks in a tweet Saturday evening, writing that his rhetoric “has put me, my family, and other government officials’ lives in danger while we try to save the lives of our fellow Americans. It needs to stop.”

    The president has repeatedly assailed Whitmer’s handling of the coronavirus throughout the pandemic, even encouraging his supporters to “LIBERATE” Michigan in April.

    Edited From: “He Was Having Fun: Lara Trump Defends Presidents Attacks On Whitmer”

    Today’s Politico
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    It’s funny how the Trump campaign is frozen in 2016. Rudy Giuliani is once again pushing an email scandal. And Donald Trump presides over crowds chanting ‘Lock Her Up”. Never mind that Gretchen Whitmer has committed no crime. To the contrary she was recently the target of militia types scheming to kidnap her. But in the rightwing bubble of Donald Trump supporters must be outraged.

          1. oh wait not informant but INFORMANTS plural.

            so how many of the socalled plotters were NOT working with government?

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-michigan-plot-to-kidnap-governor-informants-were-key-11603013401

            let me ask the liberals out there, if there are any left.

            if half a gang is working on the down low with government as a “plot” is suppposedly hatched, at what point will the jury consider ENTRAPMENT and FALSE EVIDENCE?

            at what point will the jury decide, it was all cooked up by the FBI who suckered a bunch of big talkers into taking the “substantial step” that makes it over the line to “attempt?”

            I guess it will be up to the jury to decide.

            1. Kurtz– I caught that news too. Like you I more than half expected it. Though I did think only one informant. The feds appear so desperate to ‘solve’ a ‘crime’ like this they have thrown in a whole team. It will be funny if there are more informers than genuine members. If Trump wins again I hope he cleans out several floors of these people.

  6. Turley: “Todd did not challenge Whitmer stating falsely that the opinion was a “partisan” decision. It was not. The “Democrat justices” agreed that Whitmer violated the Constitution. They only disagreed on the remedy. However, that untruth was quickly lost in what was a flagrantly untrue statement by Todd himself.”

    https://www.michiganadvance.com/2020/10/17/the-michigan-supreme-court-is-in-the-spotlight-for-striking-down-whitmers-emergency-powers-the-balance-of-power-will-be-decided-nov-3/

  7. The American Founders provided freedom of the press.

    The press may lie as much as it chooses.

    Presumably, people will purchase their news on the competitive free market from honest and truthful sources – most certainly not the likes of Chuck Fraud, Facebook, Twitter and the MSM (all of whom should be in prison for denying Americans a fair election process).

    No you know why the American Founders designed a turnout of 11.6% in the 1788 election and generally restricted the vote to: Male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.

Leave a Reply