ABC’s Sawyer Spikes Federal Judge’s Ruling Against ObamaCare
ABC, CBS and NBC on Monday night devoted more than half of their evening newscasts to the turmoil in Egypt, but while CBS and NBC squeezed in brief mentions of how a federal judge agreed with 26 states that the entire ObamaCare law is unconstitutional, ABC’s World News didn’t utter a syllable about the major setback for the Obama administration. Anchor Diane Sawyer, however, made room for a full story on an impending snowstorm and four minutes for a new series, “Families on the Brink: What to Do About Mom and Dad?”
While CBS anchor Harry Smith provided a short summary of the development, the CBS Evening News allocated four times more time to new USDA dietary guidelines which call for less consumption of salt. Smith tried to downplay the significance of the ruling:
In the legal battle over President Obama's health care reform law, the score is now two to two. A federal judge in Florida is the latest to weigh in, ruling today the law is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance whether they want to or not. A judge in Virginia issued a similar ruling in December, but two other courts have upheld the insurance mandate. It seems quite certain this issue will have to be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Over on the NBC Nightly News, with Brian Williams in Egypt, Ann Curry delivered some domestic headlines, including a short item on the judge’s decision:
A federal judge in Florida ruled today that President Obama's health care reform law is unconstitutional. The judge sided with 26 states which had sued to overturn the law, arguing the federal government cannot force people to buy health insurance. Late this afternoon, the Obama administration said it will appeal the decision.
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
→ No salt
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:14am.
In Harry Smith's world, if we can just eliminate salt, people will never need healthcare until such time as a death panel finds it necessary to reevaluate their worth to Liberal Society.
There! No mystery!
Remember this
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:18am.
Remember this the next time Katie Couric asks someone whether they're "informed" by the media they consume. Airheads like Couric consider people informed if they adopt the airhead perspective.
We'll remember, KC
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:29am.
But the liberal voters maintain that completely authentic pie-faced incredulity, having never been informed, having never chosen an honest news source.
So, Katie,
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:34am.
what was the last thing you read?
"My teleprompter. See? I'm as smart as the President."
Yeesh.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Would you have Katie neglect her boy toy?
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:00pm.
Hey, Katie has to work full time to keep her boy toy interested, thus a trip to Palm Beach, while the government in Egypt is overturned, is essential. After all, with a 17 year age difference, Katie is running scared he'll find someone more age appropriate!
Hockey Kid.....I'm glad you asked. Perky Katie's most recent
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:10pm.
read was Stieg Larsson’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, while her shirtless boyfriend, entrepreneur Brooks Perlin, strolled on the beach.
Katie's in love, and when Katie's in love the crisis in Egypt is NO BIG DEAL! Just because CBS is paying her $15 million a year to read a teleprompter doesn't mean that her love life should take a backseat to Egypt.
This ruling indicates there still may be a slim hope...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:37am.
...for the near-term future of this country.
Maybe.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave,
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:53am.
The true hope for Liberty rests in the rejection of being ruled over by robed kings.
Judges are not the sole or ultimate source of authority. We The People ourselves are regarding our consent.
Currently, we have three branches of government acting in concert to subvert the Constitution at every turn. Members within will only stand down when We The People stand up.
Yes Ashrak and according to Sen. Chuck Schumer
Submitted by SharonMcP on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 6:09pm.
those 3 branches of government are the House, the Senate and the President.
Kill it
Submitted by Q on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:37am.
why bother with any more social programs?
it's obvious social security and medicare are plagued with fraud and waste, unemployment is extended repeatedly as losers sit at home content to not work eating from the government dole.....
each man for himself! i think i read that in the constitution.
Shut up, Zippers
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:40am.
.
→ Q
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:47am.
Come on Q. You're capable of a much lower level of stupidity than this.
i'll take that as
Submitted by Q on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:34am.
you still like some social programs, but only those that apply to yourself?
Wrong, Q
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:45am.
I'm for social programs, of a limited tenure, for the truly destitute, from the local municipality.
Four more years until retirement, and still I would be willing to give up Social Security if it meant my children and their children wouldn't be saddled with the debt our government has chosen to put upon us.
Q, you are lying about me. You have posted according to your stereotypical beliefs.
Can I assume you have done nothing to ensure your own comfort after retirement? NO. I don't know enough about you to assume you are that ignorant.
But the case is building.
no
Submitted by Q on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:33pm.
i have a good job, work hard, pay my bills on time, and invest in my future.
i don't count on anyone to help me along the way, so as my piddly social security statements arrive in the mail, i laugh at the reality i could live off such a small amount.
→ So what, Q
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:42pm.
You are the one who made ignorant claims about me. All I did was ask if it was fair for me to do the same of you.
It was you who made the false claim. But it wasn't at all surprising.
the way i see it
Submitted by Q on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:47pm.
you referred to me as stupid in your first post.
but no i didn't make a false claim, as you might notice i finished said sentence with a question mark.
insulting questions
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:54pm.
being capable of stupidity is not necessarily being stupid - you could be doing the debating equivilant of the rope-a-dope.
One of my favorites is, "How stupid are you?". Insulting and still a question.
well
Submitted by Q on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:58pm.
i did just watch the fighter so i'm in boxing mode
But you are!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:54pm.
"each man for himself! i think i read that in the constitution." -- Q
Do you honestly believe (or even think) you read that in the Constitution? Or are you stupid?
Which is it?
does anyone?
Submitted by Q on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 2:01pm.
does anyone think that's in the constitution?
some flippant statements shouldn't require explanations.
"I work hard." You're a riot, Zippers
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:45pm.
.
I agree Q
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:42am.
Let's do that. Humans managed to live for thousands of years without Medicare, and I'd like to think we still could. All of my friends my age already know we will never be repaid for what we've paid in anyway. It puzzles me how anyone could look at failures like Social Security and actually compare it in a positive way to anything else.
just ask
Submitted by Q on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:44am.
seems to me that, aside from reckless liberal mentality, the only people supporting these programs are those benefiting from such.
don't want to speak ill of social security as you're getting close to those collection years.
Add it up
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:37pm.
I've had $125,000 taken out of my paycheck, so far, for social security. My employers have also payed $125,000 on my behalf.
That's $250,000 so far. Over 40 years. And counting.
I want it back. All of it. Plus the investment gains I could have enjoyed if I had kept and invested that money. Conservatively, that's another quarter million. For a total of $1/2 million.
THEN -- and only then -- will I accept a cutoff. I will not accept the prevailing mantra coming from this white house and its MSM parrots that I, as a baby boomer, am selfish and will cause the system to go broke. Give me what I paid in, plus a little bit of interest, and I'm done. Let's make that the case for everyone, in fact. You don't get more than you put in.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
agreed
Submitted by Q on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:40pm.
the system was created to break, because it's a pyramid scheme.
pay in this amount, and you'll get this much more back! we'll take care of you in your old age, just don't worry how.
ThisnThat
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:44pm.
Some of us will never have the luxury of demanding all of it back. Q is right about this point. Republicans don't care about Social Security as long as the buck stops with the generation after them.
I'm paying in as much as you. Every bit. But my demands for all of it back will be vapors in the wind.
Oh, you'll be paid back, alright...
Submitted by Plumb Bob on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 4:17pm.
You'll be paid back every penny -- in dollars that are worth a tiny fraction of the ones you paid in. And the politicians doing it will express pure horror and disbelief if any recipient suggests that they've been created.
Liar
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:17pm.
"each man for himself! i think i read that in the constitution."
You've never read the Constitution.
Federal judge decisions against Bush..........
Submitted by merly1 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:40am.
lead the evening news, with breathless reporting.......remember--a MAJOR REBUKE for the Bush administration, etc etd;I was truly stunned that ABC didnt feature this bigtime last night, and as you say--not at all! It is pitch perfect example of media bias..................
FISA
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:06pm.
The wire tapping issue led the news even when only "unknown" sources claiming the courts were going to rule against the administration. Also, on the "torture" the viewing audience was tortured with breaking news of a decision that would destroy the "Bush legacy".
agreed
Submitted by merly1 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:46pm.
it is stunning to see the coverage then vs now.........yet, it is why new media is putting old media out of business.
Translation: "Okay, we're
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:39am.
Translation: "Okay, we're caught. It's unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance. We forgot the severability clause. So, if we ignore the story, maybe it will go away, like the TEA Party and the majority of Americans who are conservative/right leaning. OK everyone, just close your eyes real tight, like Soros said, and we'll be fine."
Only they didn't forget the severablity clause
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:03pm.
It was purposefully omitted so that all of the porkiness, which of course, bought the votes, like the Cornhusker CutOut, and of course Landrieu's Louisana Purchase, couldn't be removed.
IOW, the greedy democrats were hoist upon their own petards.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
ABC did the special
Submitted by gwalt on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:40am.
Wasn't it Charlie Gibson and ABC gave Obama a full hour info-mercial last year? Obviously a wasted investment.
"A lot of briefing for a 2 hr. special with Dan Rather. Saw the show & wonder why we bothered". Ronald Reagan
JUST BE QUIET...................................
Submitted by Herbster on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:56am.
Just be quiet and eat your spinach!
Just remember how biased ABC
Submitted by winston smith on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:09am.
Just remember how biased ABC (All Barak Channel as Michelle Malkin referred to them) behaved a few years ago during their 2 hour "info-mercial" unabashedly supporting Obamacare. ABC would not even allow for paid rebuttals from opposition groups during the broadcast. It was also discovered that Linda Douglas, Obama's communication director for health care reform previously worked for ABC television -- no conflict of interest there, huh? So, for ABC to ignore any negative news about Obamacare, I say is par for the course. And yet they're all still befuddled as to why Americans are switching to FOX News in droves.
Whoever sits there and
Submitted by forest on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:24am.
Whoever sits there and watches these broadcasts in their entirety needs a raise.
FOX News
Submitted by NVRAT on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:25am.
FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS. Heck thought I would befuddle a Libatard. I know stupid HEY!
ABC
Submitted by driguana on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:36am.
It's amazing that if you watch these "news" channels you get no news. Poor America. Let's try NPR....ooops, no news there either. Let me check the New York times.....dang, nothing there either. Let me dial 0, maybe the operator can help.....ooops, she doesn't speak English.
Call to prayer, echoing down a street near you 5 times a day
Submitted by wedapeople on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:36am.
"ABC’s World News didn’t utter a syllable about the major setback for the Obama administration. "
Likely because ABC had Christiane Amanpour's bird up, live from the region. This is precisely why ABC Hired her away from CNN. She has street cred here in America... Er uhhhh... There in Muslimica.
This is why the MSM is dead!
Submitted by Armymom on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:52am.
This is why the MSM is dead! Only losers watch them anymore.
Relevant?
Submitted by iveseenitall on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:05pm.
Diane who?
NEVER,NEVERtrust a "liberal" (progressive)
Obama Care vs Car Insurance
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:16pm.
Is anybody else tired of the way everyone in the media does the comparison between "the government" requiring people to buy car insurance vs. Obama Care requiring people to buy health insurance? The interview usually goes like this:
Q. Tell us why it's OK that "the government" requires that someone buy car insurance and it's not OK that "the government" requires that someone buy health insurance?
A. Well, it's OK for "the government" to make you buy car insurance, because first, it's optional if you buy a car, and second, you are buying the insurance to protect the other guy, not yourself! When it comes to health insurance, "the government" is making you buy it just because you are born!
I can't stand this argument. It's based solely on logic, and has nothing to do with the law. The flaw with this argument is the people making it never distinguish just who "the government" is. The Federal government has no authority to require people to buy automobile insurance. State governments, on the other hand, have much broader authority to require their citizens to do all sorts of things, as long as it doesn't violate federal rights granted under the Constitution. State governments, (as in Massachusettes), can require their citizens to purchase health insurance.
The correct way to argue the question is:
A. Well, it is OK for "the government" to require that someone buy health insurance, or automobile insurance for that matter, as long as this requirement is on a state by state level, and is legal under that state's laws. The Federal Government has no authority under the Constitution to make anyone buy anything.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
i was floored the first time
Submitted by TruthMonger on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:29pm.
i was floored the first time i was told i must purchase car insurance for i had thought i was liviing in America
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
States vs America
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:07pm.
Car insurance is regulated by the states. The state you live in determines whether or not you have to buy car insurance. States have much more latitude to regulate what you do then the federal government.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Can the state require me to
Submitted by Hunter12 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:48pm.
Can the state require me to buy car insurance if I don't own a car? It would greatly reduce the pool costs. Think about it. A person who will never file a claim forced to buy a product that they don't need. All that money collected could be applied to people who want to drive but can't afford the insurance. Your reckless (wreckfull?) drivers and DUI-ers could get reductions and remain behind the wheel. Reducing the pool cost is the main driver behind forcing everyone to buy health insurance. Your young people, with a historical disposition not to require health care, will be tapped to provide care for the smokers and drinkers and chronically obese. The expenditures that they typically put off to allow extra money to pursue a mate or put a roof over their head will now be going into covering the healthcare costs for others. I think it is truly noble of those young liberals who knew what they were signing up for, to support Obama's candidacy and presidency. For the rest of them, there's 2012. Here's your wake up call.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
State Regulations
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:09pm.
If the state you lived in wanted everyone to buy automobile insurance, that would be up to the laws of that particular state.
You are falling back to the "logic" argument, which is flawed. Does the federal government prohibit a state from requiring someone to buy automobile insurance?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Hunter12
Submitted by Airforce_5_O on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:44pm.
Here in NC if you have a an active NC Driver's License you must at least care LIability Insurance. I also carry Uninsured driver because of the amount of uninsured illegals we have drtiving around here. The States do have a lot more latatude than the federal government and that is the way the Framers of the Constitution wanted it. Let the people govern themselves at the state and local levels and keep the Federal Government as small as possible.
It is time for the people to get control.
This law makes sense to me.
Submitted by Hunter12 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 2:38pm.
This law makes sense to me. You're carrying a license because you may want to drive and the state is requiring a commitment for that potential. If you only have the license because the state doesn't offer an accepted alternate form of identification, then the auto insurance requirement is unfair.
As far as your illegall problem goes, I have a solution that could be implemented at any level of government. It involves a TV crew, an officer of the court, a bank of telephones, and an auctioneer. Using existing federal laws for forfieture of business for violation of immigration laws, you take a TV crew into the local business employing the illegals, seize the business, set up the phone bank and have the autioneer sell the business to the highest bidder, and BTW send the owner to federal prison. Just have to do it once. Buy stock in the local bus lines before you implement the action. In this current economy, the BS about jobs that Americans won't do royally pains me. It isn't a matter of someone won't do the job, it's how much more profit can I make if I hire people who I don't have to pay a union or fair-market wage, don't deduct social security, and don't pay for unemployment of medical. Greed drives a lot of the employment decision for illegals and the business owner gets away with it because they take part of their profits and oil up the political skids to keep things moving. Look at the people in your area you know are employing illegals. They're all heavily involved in politics, in both parties. I can't take credit for this idea. I overheard it in a bar about a year ago. Keep waiting to see it happen. Let an owner decide if a little less profit is preferrable to avoiding prison and keeping their business. The burden of illegals in this country, sucking up the welfare benefits and a free education, while funding the third largest industry in Mexico, behind oil and drugs, but ahead of tourism, is one of the factors driving up our healthcare costs.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
The worst bill in the histroy
Submitted by Edhenry on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:19pm.
The worst bill in the histroy of the US. Ruled unconstitutional by the 3rd branch (4th if you are a Senator from NY). Historic battle, effects all Americans, goes to the foundation of our republic, with the supremes waiting to rule on the constitution. Jobs hang in the balance
What's to report?
Unconstitutional?? Doesn't matter!!
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:19pm.
I guess Rep. Conyers was wrong when he said it was covered in the good and welfare clause, and a couple of [unnamed] others.
But now, we don't need to worry about the Constitution!!
Rep. John Lewis has discovered authorization, (even if his 14th amendment argument is struck down), in the Declaration of Independence's "pursuit of happiness" language!!
Good Lord. I'm gonna say it....if these guys were white, they'd be laughed out of town.
But what do you expect from people who think the three branches of government are the House, the Senate, and the President??
→ MB
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:31pm.
Maybe a trip to Guam is in order.
Detroit produced
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:48pm.
John Conyers, and his bride. Is it any wonder that city is a cesspool? And, he was the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Great googly moogly, I know the libs are dense, but how dense is a group that would give a position like that to an ignoramus?
Now, the maroon wants hearings on "gun safety"? This too, ties in with the idea being floated by libs that Owebowma will make some kind of statement/thoughts/ideas on "gun control".
As I sit at my window
Submitted by Hunter12 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 3:04pm.
As I sit at my window watching the ice and snow from the latest passing round of AGW and perusing the weather maps, all the white and pink scrolling by on the radar maps is making me think of Good and Plenty. Maybe, when you consider Conyer's career, that's the clause he's thinking of. He's always made sure life was good and there was plenty for him and his.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
It's an Egypt Thing
Submitted by mrt721 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:29pm.
The failure of the msm to cover the Judge's ruling, or to downplay it if covered at all, is exactly like the Egypt story.
It's all about de-nial.
sic721...
Submitted by iveseenitall on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:59pm.
Hear,Hear! It's the "liberal" way.Deny,deny deny reality in faver of their sick idology---no matter whom it hurts or what the consequences.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
Judicial Activism
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:44pm.
The least the MSM could do for their lemmings is to push the evolving obama excuse announced this morning -- the ruling was just judicial activism, and therefore means nothing.
The left's definition of judicial activism: Following that dismissed document, the Constitution. What a waste of time it was reading it in Congress this year [they are thinking].
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Judicial activism
Submitted by Plumb Bob on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 4:19pm.
The operative definition of judicial activism, among the left, is "anything that changes what was accomplished by progressives."
i believe the correct definition is the same for both parties
Submitted by Q on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 4:33pm.
judicial activism = any decision your party disagrees with
Obummercare
Submitted by the Boomer on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 6:03pm.
Now the dumbocrats will spin this Court decision by using their usual tactics, destroy the personal credibility of the opposition (Judge) with lies, half-truths and innuendos.
Obummer is America's greatest president! He has awakened the sleeping giant and the citizens are no longer buying that liberal crap!
The Boomer
The definition of judicial activism does not change---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 2:29am.
but it is most heavily practiced by liberal Democrat judges.
MD
Q
Submitted by jackssn on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 11:52am.
Could someone get Q off this site. He adds nothing and disrupts the conversation on any subject. Thanks in advance.
→ They keep trying
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 11:57am.
But we haven't yet figured out how many incarnations Q has been through, or how many times he's been banned.
Not gonna happen. He's sick in the head.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:10pm.
For real.