Courtesy of Salon:
Santorum told Maddow that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority with its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, saying that the Court “is not the superior branch of government.” He added that Congress could pass a law banning same-sex marriage.
Maddow informed him that it couldn’t, but he insisted that “it’s clear from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s constitutional. And that’s part of the dynamic called checks and balances.”
“You’re fundamentally wrong on civics,” Maddow replied. “If there’s a question as to the constitutionality of a law, it gets adjudicated. And the second syllable of that word means it gets decided in the judiciary — the Supreme Court decides whether or not a law is constitutional.”
He continued to insist that Congress could pass a law, so Maddow asked him bluntly, “do you believe Congress could just pass a national ban on same-sex marriage and would it become law?”
“Of course,” he replied. “The Congress could pass anything it wants to pass. The Supreme Court could strike it down again.”
“You want them to pass a moot bill that would just be struck down?” she asked.
“It wouldn’t be moot,” Santorum explained, because the composition of the Court could have changed since it made the current same-sex marriage ruling, or justices could have misgivings about having “misread the tea leaves that are going on in America right now.”
After that exchange Santorum also admitted that he would like to see a "whole new group of justices." And that if he were President and could choose them he was confident he would get an entirely new decision on gay marriage.
Of course this is incredibly insulting to Rachel Maddow, who is an out gay woman, and she then followed up by asking Santorum if he thinks people are gay by choice.
Santorum turned himself inside out trying not to answer that question and ultimately did not give a definitive answer despite comments he has made in the past. Instead he brought up the possibility of people choosing to abort their babies if they could be identified as gay through genetic testing.
I think Rachel did a great job, and in my fantasies she would get the opportunity to interview EVERY Republican candidate on her show.
In fact I would like to give Rick Santorum huge props for having the
balls to go on her show, and I hope he uses that fact to shame his
fellow presidential hopefuls into following suit.
I swear I would pay big money to see her go toe to toe with Rick Perry, Lindsey Graham, Scott Walker, and don't even tease me about the possibility of a Donald Trump.
Honestly, right-wing evangelical Republicans spend WAY more time thinking about gay sex than I do, and I love thinking about all kinds of sex. Sigh.
ReplyDeleteRick Santorum is just not ready for prime time. Rachel did get him to admit that the man-on-dog stuff was stupid. Well, a distraction. He may have been a top-tier candidate four years ago,but he has not gotten better with time. It seems that like many other former politicians, all he wants to do is appear on TV shows, write books and run for office.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous4:49 PM
DeleteAnd his "Wife" was married to a dr. who did abortions!! This guy talks way too fast...and of course blames shit on the "other guy" the other "justice" bla, bla bla" .
Not that I would vote for this con mofo but anyone who wants to over turn shit that has been done by SCOTUS with the exception of Citizens untied...is bogus.
Why are these clowns even given "air time"? But the same could be said for bitch "palin"!The whole abortion planned parenthood did not get traction until she opened her yap? Imagine if a Liberal Hollywood like HBO took on Boyswillbeboys? Bwhaaaa! and with the added interested and LEGAL FOIA trial that is going on and completely ignored by msm?!
Why are these clowns even given "air time"?
Delete-------------
So we can get them on the record and document their stupidity.
Rachel better watch out. If she shows these creeps for what they really are, MSNBC will probably can HER and give Chuckie yet another hour to kiss the GOP rears.
ReplyDeleteInstead of asking RS when he decided to be straight, let's ask him when he decided to be a dick. I despise this man but I don't loose any sleep over whether or not he'll ever get to choose a Supreme Court Justice.
ReplyDeleteGo away Santorum. There's a reason the good people of Pennsylvania fired you and that you failed miserably in the 2012 primaries.
ReplyDeleteI felt so bad for Rachel, a plain slap in the face from 'the frothy one' no chance he'll be appointing any judges.
ReplyDeleteI didn't feel bad for Rachel, as Santorum pointed out at the beginning, she was literally rubbing her hands.
DeleteLet's not forget that Dr Maddow's PhD is in political science, so she must truly love politics and debating.
And Rachel was in charge of where the interview went.
Rachel Maddow's PhD gets mentioned here whenever her name comes up. She's clearly a very intelligent woman. But I find referring to her as "Dr Maddow" very pompous. It's something Donald Trump would do if he had ever written a dissertation. She has more brains in her toenail clippings than Santorum et al, but I doubt she personally feels the need to call attention to her academic achievements.
DeleteI totally disagree, 5:41 PM. It's a matter of respect, and people in the academic world "are" called "Dr." If she chooses not to go by that, it is her choice. Gryph has done nothing wrong.
DeleteMy brother-in-law has a PhD (plus post grad). It's often hard to judge in social occasions where I should introduce him as Dr. or not. He certainly has earned the title, but it can make some new acquaintances feel awkward.
DeleteBut in a professional setting, I always go with Dr.
I'm a PhD and I don't go by Dr.. My students call me by my first name unless they feel uncomfortable with that kind of informality. Then I go by Professor.
DeleteI can't think of a social occasions where I would want anyone to introduce me as "Dr."
I don't feel sorry for Rachel. She showed how stupid Santorum was, and how he couldn't justify any of his anti-gay rhetoric. She had him by the you-know-whats when she grilled him on that Man on Dog sex thing. He backed off, finally.
DeleteAnyone with a PhD is properly addressed in formal situations as "Doctor". Some opt out of this custom, and, of course, in informal situations, like between most grad students and their professors, we rarely use formal titles these days in our culture. (That was certainly true even when I was in grad school 25 years ago.)
DeleteGryph is just fine using her title. She obviously is okay with the title of her show NOT being The Doctor Rachel Maddow Show.
Sheesh. Lighten up, people. It's not like she quit halfway through her doctorate program and still insists on being called 'Doctor', unlike a certain 1/2 term governor we all know.
I have a D.V.M. degree and am married to a wonderful M.D. We just laugh and shake our heads at the PhD's who insist upon referring to themselves as "Dr" outside of an academic setting. In social settings we prefer to be called by our first names.
Delete"Pompous", 5:41?
DeleteI'm sure you have no problem addressing someone far less accomplished in terms of qualifications/expertise/research in their subject as "Dr" and putting that person in charge of your very life simply because they graduated in medicine even though they might have just scraped by.
I find you pompous.
It must be Friendly Friday here at IM. I don't see where 5:41 was being critical of anyone except Trump by way of illustration. Sometimes ppl here are as prickly as Sarah herself.
DeleteRachel Maddow received a PhD and therefore earned her right to be addressed as Dr. Unlike a half-term quitter who still goes by Governor.
DeleteTanya Gray:
Delete"I find referring to her as "Dr Maddow" very pompous" is an insult to the poster. Can you not comprehend plain English?
5:41 then goes on to speak for Rachel herself, in order to reinforce the insult.
Will you still be using the name Tanya Gray tomorrow, as though you were a real person?
Santorum is running for President to increase his name recognition and thus get a better price for his books and on the speaker's circuit. Santorum uses his contributors' funds to increase his own value in the marketplace.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe Santorum really has sincerely held religious beliefs. He weighs every position he takes in the political sphere for its value in revenue from the wingnuts.
But kudos to Maddow for using every opportunity to hone her skills at reducing the threat of empowering these demagogues. I would really enjoy watching her encounter with Donald Trump. It would be epic.
I respectfully disagree. I think Santorum does really believe all that shit and thinks he has the divine obligation to run for president. Then again, considering how many of those in the GOP clown car are only doing it for publicity, you could be right.
DeleteI liked the way Rachel pointed out that the lazy Republican parasite with seven kids hasn't had a job since 2008 and asked him if he thought he might actually work for a living after this presidential run thing blows up in his face again.
ReplyDeleteCome on, Sarah. I'm certain that Rachel would love to have you on her show even though it's a show about politics.
I would pay the big bucks to see that one!
DeleteVernD
If I am correct, he now has 8 kids. Maybe TLC will give him a show to replace the Duggars. Aargh!
DeleteTanya Gray, I'm sure I heard him say in the interview that he had seven children. If you know better then perhaps you should tell him to update his Wikipedia entry to eight children instead of seven.
DeleteNot knowing how many children you have isn't very presidential, is it?
I thought it was a thing of beauty, No one interviews better than Rachel and truly I think why most Republicans are scared to come onto her show are leery of her smarts. I do have to hand it to him, they had a very civil discussion. She acts very professional but with a silly sense of humor sometimes that endears one to her. I hope that MNSBC holds onto her.
ReplyDeleteI also was glad to see the civility.
DeleteAnd kudos to Santorum for showing up.
Loved the interview. Love Rachel.
ReplyDeleteI would like to think that Rick Santorum went on her show because he has class, but in fact, I think he was there because he is arrogant enough to think he could show her up.
ReplyDeleteBeing interviewed by Rachel Maddow is Sarah Palin's worst nightmare.
ReplyDeleteThe one question I kept waiting for Rachel to ask Rick was when he chose to be straight.
ReplyDeleteGood question.
DeleteRachel is an awesome and fair interviewer. She never yells over her guests or allows them to yell over her. Santorum has the same glassy unintelligent look in his eyes as the Duggars (any of 'em, all of 'em).
ReplyDeleteAnd on the other hand, Chris (Mr. shout over all my guests) Matthews had his lunch handed to him by Ted Cruz in an interview last night. Cruz led him around like a dog the entire interview.
DeleteWay to go Chris.
I wanted to see Rachel ask Rick about when he and his wife brought their dead fetus home for their children to say goodbye to.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted Rachel to ask Rick why he waited for his wife to win her malpractice suit before he jumped on board the tort reform bandwagon.
There are so many other questions I would've wanted him confronted with but those two would've gotten the party going.
You mean the dead fetus after she had a late term abortion?
DeleteYes she had an induced abortion for medical reasons, certainly well within her rights and most likely a wise choice( I have also had a late term abortion for medical reasons, so I don't have an issue there at all) But then my husband and I aren't working to ban other women that same choice.
I think Rachel Maddow should replace Chuck Todd in everything he is doing! She is far, far better than he - better educated and knows how to ask the questions!!
ReplyDeleteI saw Chuck Todd on MSNBC today and immediately turned the channel. I make sure I watch Rachel's show every day - she an educator on top of everything else Plus, she is a straight shooter!
Sanders/Maddow 2016
DeleteAnonymous @ 6:56
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with any of Mr. Santorum's policy positions, but I strongly believe he and his wife and children should be able to grieve the loss of their baby in whatever way that brings them comfort. Losing a child is a tremendous loss and it impacts the entire family.
Grief is a very personal thing. If it helped them to say goodbye at home, it's not unheard of.
I agree. I know many people find it strange, but grieving a lost child is heart-rending, and whatever works for each person is their choice.
DeleteI have less/NO patience, though, with the fact that the Santorums, when they had a tragic end to a pregnancy, chose to end that pregnancy, (yes, it was an abortion), rather than the "let nature take its course" route that he wants to inflict on the rest of the country. No abortions, no way, is his mantra. Unless, of course, it is needed by HIS wife.
Jerk.
Thanks Gryphen I loved when he said he didn't say man on dog..... blamed it on the dang media..... I hope she DOES get all of them on her show.
ReplyDelete. She has an addendum tonight, a piece they did after that interview,, but unfortunately it got pre empted.... we have another mass shooting in a theater in Louisiana... The shooter killed himself ...... no firm news on injuries or fatalities yet. ...
>"In fact I would like to give Rick Santorum huge props for having the balls to go on her show"<
ReplyDeleteThat's way more generous than you should be, and it is certainly more than wonkette was yesterday morning, noting that it wasn't balls, but the pipsqueak's desperation to be heard by anybody anywhere over the 'noise' of Trump.
Kos pointed out too that when Santorum isn't making like a pull-string, talking Fisher Price toy of anti-choice and gay-insulting rhetoric, does anybody know any constructive policy ideas this piece of dirt actually has? Well, of course he was destined to get clobbered by Maddow; he was never a statesman, he's an act.
I think Santorum took a dig at Rachel. He flashed a smug look at her when he referred to 'a reporter who was not being particularly professional'. He may have intended for Rachel to take it personally. ( begins at 8:07)
ReplyDeleteI took it to be just the opposite. Elsewhere in the interview, he made it clear to her that he was there because he respected her.
DeleteFrothy mix appearing on Rachel's show was an act of desperation for ANY attention. Don't forget his "rally" in Iowa where only one person showed up.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/06/10/22365511/rick-santorum-rally-draws-one-person-and-even-she-doesnt-like-him
If he were not such an asshole, I'd feel sorry for him...
I'm with you.
DeleteI am sick and tired of hearing these republicans telling us what they think our founding fathers wanted-they are clueless about our founding fathers thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall that Rickie had a problem with the Supreme Court's ruling when they elected George W, so I image he cherry picks which decisions are constitutional.
When testing can determine if a fetus will be born gay who will then have an abortion? Will these abortion rights fanatics see abortion as a tool for their use in purifying their family and congregation?
ReplyDelete"As a matter of fact, Republicans DON'T want any votes from the icky gays, Rachel. We could get gay cooties."
ReplyDelete