Meet ‘The Press’? Chuck Todd’s Flagrant Lies In Gretchen Whitmer ‘Interview’

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

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.

Democratic 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 cases to support their decision against Whitmer. The roughly 50 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.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

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.

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):

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

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

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

4. Bd of Trustees of Univ of Alabama v Garrett, 531 US 356, 363; 121 S Ct 955; 148 L Ed 2d 866 (2001)

5. Kentucky v Graham, 473 US 159, 166; 105 S Ct 3099; 87 L Ed 2d 114 (1985)

6. 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)

7. Cunningham v Neagle, 135 US 1; 10 S Ct 658; 34 L Ed 55 (1890)

8. Mich House of Representatives v Governor, May 21, 2020 (Docket No. 20-000079-MZ); slip op at 23-24

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

10. Blank v Dep’t of Corrections, 462 Mich 103, 113; 611 NW2d 530 (2000) (opinion by KELLY, J.)

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

12. Dist of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570, 578; 128 S Ct 2783; 171 L Ed 2d 637 (2008)

13. In re MCI Telecom Complaint, 460 Mich 396, 414; 596 NW2d 164 (1999)

14. Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 284 n 10; 696 NW2d 646 (2005)

15. Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 467; 613 NW2d 307 (2000)

16. People ex rel Hill v Lansing Bd of Ed, 224 Mich 388, 391; 195 NW 95 (1923)

17. Grebner v State, 480 Mich 939, 940 (2007)

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

19. 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford Co, 476 Mich 131, 141; 719 NW2d 553 (2006)

20. Mistretta v United States, 488 US 361, 419; 109 S Ct 647; 102 L Ed 2d 714 (1989) (Scalia, J., 23 dissenting).

21. Marshall Field & Co v Clark, 143 US 649, 693-694; 12 S Ct 495; 36 L Ed 294 (1892)

22. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich v Milliken, 422 Mich 1, 51; 367 NW2d 1 (1985)

23. Dep’t of Natural Resources v Seaman, 396 Mich 299, 308-309; 240 NW2d 206 (1976)

24. Osius v St Clair Shores, 344 Mich 693, 698; 75 NW2d 25 (1956)

25. Gundy v United States, 588 US ___, ___; 139 S Ct 2116, 2123; 204 L Ed 2d 522 (2019) (opinion by Kagan, J.)

26. 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)

27. Whitman v American Trucking Associations, Inc, 531 US 457, 475; 121 S Ct 903; 149 L Ed 2d 1 (2001)

28. Synar v United States, 626 F Supp 1374, 1386 (D DC, 1986)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

48. Schechter Poultry Corp, 295 US 495

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

61. 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