Joy Reid Celebrates ‘Three Amigos’ Liberal SCOTUS Judges Throwing ‘Shade, Shade, and More Shade’ in Concurring Trump Opinion

The Supreme Court overturning a Colorado decision to boot Donald Trump from their state ballot may have been unanimous, but it spells internal chaos going forward, MSNBC’s Joy Reid predicted on Monday.

Reid railed against the court’s decision, accusing them of “playing the game as if they are on team MAGA” by handing the former president a “victory” in the Colorado case. The state’s Supreme Court booted Trump from their ballot, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who participated in a rebellion or insurrection from holding public office.

The Supreme Court ruled that the state does not have the authority to enforce Section 3 regarding a federal office.

Reid celebrated what she referred to as the “three amigos” on the Supreme Court, meaning the three liberal Justices who wrote a concurring opinion that was still critical of the scope of the court’s ruling: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In their concurring opinion, the three judges accused the conservative majority on the court of expanding their decision to “define the limits of federal enforcement” in Section 3, which they argued goes beyond the scope of the original question presented. Reid celebrated the judges referring to Trump as an “oath-breaking insurrectionist” multiple times, though she also noted the Supreme Court did not make any determination on his being an insurrectionist in their ruling.

Reid said:

The unanimity of the decision was more of a kind of. There were two concurring opinions that deviated in significant ways from the overall opinion. In one of the concurrences from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, they refer to Trump as an oath-breaking insurrectionist not once, not twice, but four times in six pages. And they question the propriety of the court’s conservatives seeming to dictate how the 14th Amendment should be interpreted.

Reid also responded to an opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in which she said the court’s job is to turn the “national temperature” down, not up. According to Reid, the “national temperature” shouldn’t even be on the Supreme Court’s mind.

“Perhaps someone should inform Justice Barrett that trying to lower the national temperature shouldn’t be the court’s concern. Their only concern should be interpreting the law according to the Constitution,” she said.

A laughing read later noted while speaking with NYU School of Law professor Melissa Murray, who previously worked for Sotomayor, that all she read in the concurring opinion was “shade, shade, and more shade.” Murray referred to it as “big D energy” or “big dissent energy.”

A laughing Reid declared at one point that the concurring opinion that technically still handed Trump a victory in the case was the “gauntlet” being thrown down by the liberal Justices.

“They dropped one more giant anvil on their right-wing colleagues, writing that it appeared the majority is trying to insulate Donald Trump from future controversy, adding that the ruling shuts the door on other means of federal enforcement of Section 3,” she said. “In SCOTUS language, that is like playing the dozens and talking about your mama. Consider the gauntlet thrown!”

Watch above via MSNBC.