Results 1 to 3 of 3
#1 Journos Declared ObamaCare Would Be Upheld 8-106-28-2012, 04:26 AM
Cocky, Condescending Journalists Declared ObamaCare Would Be Upheld, Maybe by a 8-1 Vote
Although no one knows how the Supreme Court will rule, Thursday, on ObamaCare, journalists over the past few months have dismissed and derided the concept that the President's signature legislation could be declared unconstitutional. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin predicted an eight-to-one vote upholding the law. Former New York Times Court reporter Linda Greenhouse said that Americans who think the law is unconstitutional are "wrong."
Appearing on the March 23 Situation Room, Toobin hyped, "I actually think that Chief Justice Roberts and perhaps even Justice Scalia and Justice Alito might join Justice Kennedy in upholding the law." He added, "In striking this law down, it would really be a big change in constitutional law, and I'm not sure this court is ready to do it." >>>
(Once he heard oral arguments, Toobin reversed himself. The journalist declared the Obama position a "train wreck" and suggested it would be shot down.) >>>
Appearing on the Daily Rundown, March 30th, NPR's Nina Totenberg complained, "[But] because of the Bush appointments, which were very, very, very conservative, the Court has become so much more conservative."
If the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of Obamacare, Thursday, will these journalists admit they weren't quite the constitutional experts they claimed to be?
Had to post this... just for the record. And for the decision later this morning.
Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
06-28-2012, 05:48 AM"[But] because of the Bush appointments, which were very, very, very conservative, the Court has become so much more conservative."
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
Or maybe you can explain this ruling handed down by a 3 judge panel that included one of those scary "Conservative" justices on the D.C. court of appeals.
But in a sharply worded opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the challenge to the agency’s authority, saying the EPA’s “interpretation of the . . . Clean Air Act provisions is unambiguously correct.” It said the EPA’s rules targeting large polluters could not be challenged because of the authority granted the agency in an earlier Supreme Court ruling.
In its remarks, the three-judge panel seemed to bristle at the opponents’ argument that the EPA improperly relied on assessments of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Research Council and the U.S. Global Change Research Program to support its findings that greenhouse gases contribute to warming, posing a threat to human health.
“This argument is little more than a semantic trick,” the opinion said. “EPA did not delegate . . . any decision-making to any of those entities. EPA simply did here what it and other decision makers often must do to make a science-based judgment.
“This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question,” the court said.
06-28-2012, 10:06 AM
It's a good thing Obama didn't appoint 2 very, very, very liberal justices.Good men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because
rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Real superheroes don't wear capes. They wear dog tags.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|