More Hilarious Liberal Media Cope As They Spin How the SCOTUS Ballot Decision Was Really '5-4'

We reported on some of the liberal media meltdown reactions in response to the Supreme Court's decision in the Trump Colorado ballot case.

It was a 9-0 decision that a state cannot ban a presidential candidate from the ballot. That sent a strong statement to the country that they were going to act according to the Constitution and that was quite heartening to see.

Keith Olbermann Has a Must-See Meltdown for the Ages Over Trump Ballot Decision

But the hilarious liberal media cope was so wild that they're even trying to spin how this is really a "5-4" decision because they don't want to accept that it was unanimous. They couldn't accept how badly the effort to keep Trump off the ballot went down to defeat. They spoke about the Court "interfering" in the election with the decision but somehow trying to keep political opponents off the ballot isn't "interfering" to them.

Here's a Newsbusters compilation of the wonderful meltdowns, that also includes folks on MSNBC going all in on the "5-4" spin.

In corporate media land, they're pretending the SCOTUS ruling today was actually 5-4. Imagine being so distraught about a court decision that you try rewrite history minutes after it happened, live on TV.pic.twitter.com/eTj5zUCTVJ
— Bill D'Agostino (@Banned_Bill) March 4, 2024

On Inside Politics, CNN’s in-house parody of a Supreme Court analyst Joan Biscupic exclaimed: “It’s five to four! This is a 5-4 ruling on part of it, in terms of, will there ever be any way that Donald Trump could be kept off any ballot in the future.”
Meanwhile on MSNBC, Muller investigation prosecutor Andrew Weissmann brought the same spin: “On a variety of issues, this is actually a 5-4 decision.”

No, kids, it wasn't a "5-4 decision." It was 9-0 on the judgment, a complete rebuke of states trying to ban a presidential candidate from the ballot.

Now they're trying to spin the fact that there were concurring opinions that the Court didn't need to reach the question of it being solely (or not) within the power of Congress to enforce. But that doesn't change the nature of the ruling being unanimous in the outcome.

Indeed, let's look at what the liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson said here in their concurring opinion and why they agreed with the judgment that states shouldn't be able to ban presidential candidates.

Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett specifically rebutted this kind of spin with what she said, perhaps anticipating it would be coming.

Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home."

Indeed -- that's the message.

Yet the liberal media doesn't seem to want to accept that unanimity because they are so invested in division and rejecting anything that might benefit Trump. They don't want to accept that there are principles here that united all the justices.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald expressed concern for their health.

Sometimes there are moments in politics when you have to put humanitarian concerns first, and watching this, I'm honestly worried for the emotional well-being of cable TV liberals, devastated not just by the fact that Trump can run, but that the SCOTUS ruling was unanimous. https://t.co/sG18CrFm47
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 4, 2024