Shannon Bream, although originally a lawyer by profession, has been in TV news since 2001, and has covered all kinds of stories for CBS, NBC, and Fox. She has been at Fox since 2007, becoming host of Fox News @ Night in 2017.
She’s no novice, in other words. And she has covered stories on the streets of Washington, D.C. on numerous occasions, many from her legal beat at the Supreme Court. So it is genuinely noteworthy that she and her crew had to shut down their coverage at the site of an anti-nominee protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Monday night, because the situation was so volatile that they didn’t feel safe.
Literally had to bail on our live show from #SCOTUS. Moving the show back to the safety of the studio. See y’all at 11p @FoxNews https://t.co/ChIOQdBBTU
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) July 10, 2018
Trending: BREAKING: U.S. Federal Reserve system down; banks unable to make e-transfers; *UPDATE*
As Daniel Chaitin observes at Washington Examiner, Bream didn’t bring up these particular sentiments in her evening broadcast from the studio, where she retreated after leaving the Supreme Court steps. She did acknowledge them, however, in an interview with Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE):
Later in the program, during an interview with Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., who noted they were supposed to talk on the steps of the Supreme Court, Bream said, “It got a little too rowdy out there at the court tonight.”
Bream had posted a brief video clip of the protest earlier, before the nomination was announced.
Getting a little noisy at #SCOTUS as we await POTUS’ pick. pic.twitter.com/WdECpHJTgH
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) July 10, 2018
Which confirms that the determination to oppose any Trump nominee with frantic anger and noise is a prior plan, preceding the actual clarification of the candidate’s identity.
Video of the noise after the nomination.
Repeat after us. #OurCourtsOurLives #saveSCOTUS #SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/0U4VCz85xE
— Young People For (@YP4) July 10, 2018
A full hour and a half of shrieking.
As a reminder, the hysteria here is about the prospect that a Supreme Court judge will make decisions that uphold the Constitution.
