On Saturday night’s American Voices, MSNBC host Alicia Menendez melted down with Slate senior editor and legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick, civil rights attorney Maya Wiley, and Rewire News Group senior editor Imani Gandy over President Trump nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Menendez wildly speculated that “the timeline” for the nomination “begs some serious questions” while Gandy whined that the Republicans are trying to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg “with a woman who stands for almost exactly the opposite of everything that Ruth Bader Ginsberg stood for.” Lithwick began the partisan hackery by trying to paint Barrett as an extremist:   Whether it's doing away with the ACA, doing away with Roe, expansive gun rights, limiting environmental protections -- public polling is way, way out of step with where she is. So I think as folks start to consider what it is that she plans to do with the court, one hopes that if there's time to at least reflect on that, those are not values I think that the majority of Americans share.  Barrett is skeptical of qualified immunity, aren’t leftists all for ending the doctrine? Maybe only extreme right-wingers now oppose qualified immunity. Menendez was at least honest about being a partisan hack by asking what strategy “we” should take to oppose Barrett’s nomination: But there are those who say don't make this about the nominee. Focus on the nomination. Focus on the timeline under which this is happening. I mean, do we need to choose which we speak about? Do we need to be talking about both? Where should the emphasis be as this nomination continues? Wiley, who is likely to run as a Democratic candidate for New York’s mayor, responded to her questions by launching into a deranged, fearmongering rant about Barrett’s views (click "expand"): We're talking about a court that is going to decide, for example, how hard it is for a woman to make a decision over her body. We're going to have a court decide whether or not people with pre-existing conditions are going to still have the protection of federal law or whether they're going to lose it. We have a Supreme Court that's going to decide whether or not hotels that are suing on the emoluments clause of the Constitution, on whether Donald Trump has been corruptly using his office in violation of the Constitution, whether they get their day in court. So the -- I think the thing that is central for the American public is to understand exactly what the stakes are. I think Joe Biden was also right when he said, look, we -- and -- I’m -- I'm going to use my own statistics, but we have literally 40 million Americans facing eviction. We have five million children who are hungry and so many people who can't find a job and he wants to take the Affordable Care Act away during a pandemic where 20 million Americans get their health care because of the Affordable Care Act. The issue for the American public is, is this the work that the Senate should be doing right now? That Donald Trump, as the sitting president, should be doing right now when we have a humanitarian crisis like none other that we've seen in this country and where what we need is to come together with solutions, not to fall into fighting about whether we're going to have a Supreme Court that meets our needs. Let the people decide.  There has never been a worse “humanitarian crisis” in U.S. history than COVID. Not slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil War, or the Spanish influenza. Menendez crazily suggested that Trump nominated Barrett to help him win the election and not you know, because there is an empty seat on the Supreme Court: I take Maya's point that she has just laid out there which is that there is a lot at stake should Amy Coney Barrett be nominated and confirmed on the other side of this. But one of the things that is at stake, Amani, is the sanctity of our elections and the timeliness, the timeline under which this is happening begs some serious questions. Gandy expressed a complete misunderstanding of the Supreme Court and the Constitution by claiming that the empty Supreme Court seat is a “legacy seat” (click "expand"): It really does and I have to say that I have grown frustrated with the reaction by Senate Democrats to this nomination. You know, we just heard Chuck Schumer say that he strongly, strongly, strongly opposes this nomination and that he hopes that as her record becomes more clear to the American people, that the American people are somehow going to pressure their Republican Senators to do something else. But I'm not sure what that something else would be because we've already seen that Republicans aren't particularly beholden to the viewpoints of the American people. I think that they are very excited about the fact that they're able to fill this sort of legacy seat on the Supreme Court with a woman who stands for almost exactly the opposite of everything that Ruth Bader Ginsberg stood for. At least she is being honest that leftists only support women who share their views being in positions of power. MSNBC is not a news network but is the propaganda arm of the Democratic party. This Democratic propaganda was sponsored by Mercedes-Benz and Chase Bank. Let them know here what you think about them sponsoring this content. Read the full September 26th transcript here: MSNBC American Voices 9/26/20 7:07:12 PM ALICIA MENENDEZ: Dahlia, I want to let you finish the thought you were trying to make before we went to Senator Schumer but then also get your reaction of to what you heard from senator Schumer there.  DAHLIA LITHWICK (SENIOR EDITOR AND LEGAL CORRESPONDENT AT SLATE): Well, in some sense I think what he said dovetails with what I was ending with which is simply that on issue after issue on which we know she is on the record -- whether it's doing away with the ACA, doing away with Roe, expansive gun rights, limiting environmental protections -- public polling is way, way out of step with where she is. So I think as folks start to consider what it is that she plans to do with the court, one hopes that if there's time to at least reflect on that, those are not values I think that the majority of Americans share.  MENENDEZ: Imani, Melissa opened by going through a list of cases and issues that could be before the court. You saw Senator Schumer there talking about Coney Barrett specifically. But there are those who say don't make this about the nominee. Focus on the nomination. Focus on the timeline under which this is happening. I mean, do we need to choose which we speak about? Do we need to be talking about both? Where should the emphasis be as this nomination continues? Imani, I'm having some trouble hearing you so while you figure that out, because I do want to hear what you have to say, Maya, I'm going to kick the same question over to you.  MAYA WILEY (CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY): Look, I -- I think -- here's the central point. We're talking about a court that is going to decide, for example, how hard it is for a woman to make a decision over her body. We're going to have a court decide whether or not people with pre-existing conditions are going to still have the protection of federal law or whether they're going to lose it. We have a Supreme Court that's going to decide whether or not hotels that are suing on the emoluments clause of the Constitution, on whether Donald Trump has been corruptly using his office in violation of the Constitution, whether they get their day in court. So the -- I think the thing that is central for the American public is to understand exactly what the stakes are. I think Joe Biden was also right when he said, look, we -- and -- I’m -- I'm going to use my own statistics, but we have literally 40 million Americans facing eviction. We have five million children who are hungry and so many people who can't find a job and he wants to take the Affordable Care Act away during a pandemic where 20 million Americans get their health care because of the Affordable Care Act. The issue for the American public is, is this the work that the Senate should be doing right now? That Donald Trump, as the sitting president, should be doing right now when we have a humanitarian crisis like none other that we've seen in this country and where what we need is to come together with solutions, not to fall into fighting about whether we're going to have a Supreme Court that meets our needs. Let the people decide.  MENENDEZ: Imani, I take Maya's point that she has just laid out there which is that there is a lot at stake should Amy Coney Barrett be nominated and confirmed on the other side of this. But one of the things that is at stake, Amani, is the sanctity of our elections and the timeliness, the timeline under which this is happening begs some serious questions.  IMANI GANDY (SENIOR EDITOR AT REWIRE NEWS GROUP): It really does and I have to say that I have grown frustrated with the reaction by Senate Democrats to this nomination. You know, we just heard Chuck Schumer say that he strongly, strongly, strongly opposes this nomination and that he hopes that as her record becomes more clear to the American people, that the American people are somehow going to pressure their Republican Senators to do something else. But I'm not sure what that something else would be because we've already seen that Republicans aren't particularly beholden to the viewpoints of the American people. I think that they are very excited about the fact that they're able to fill this sort of legacy seat on the Supreme Court with a woman who stands for almost exactly the opposite of everything that Ruth Bader Ginsberg stood for. So the idea that we're going to go forward with this nomination while people are in the process of potentially choosing a different president, that doesn't sit well with me and it shouldn't sit well with Senate Democrats and so the question becomes what more can they do besides appeal to the American people.