NYT SCOTUS Reporter Greenhouse Still Insists Obama-Care Opponents Don't Have 'Much of an Argument'
New York Times former Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse appeared on the CBS morning show Saturday to defend Barack Obama's unprecedented attack on the "unelected" Supreme Court and hold to her much-mocked belief, first presented in her March 21 column for nytimes.com, that ObamaCare opponents are "simply wrong" and their argument "analytically so weak that it dissolves on close inspection." A week later, that "weak" argument emerged triumphant during Supreme Court arguments, demolishing the White House's rationale for ObamaCare.
First, Greenhouse put the best spin on Obama's attack on the Supreme Court:
Glor: What did you make of the President's comments?
Greenhouse: Well, you know, I think this, the sound bite that emerged from them and then the meltdown that the federal judge down on the Fifth Circuit exhibited -- it's a little exaggerated. What the president was saying, as I understand it from reading the full text, he's saying, look, Republicans have been running against, quote, 'An activist Supreme Court' for a generation now, and I'm asking this Supreme Court not to be activists and not to reach out and strike down a democratically enacted statue."
....
Glor: So how much are they paying attention to what the President is saying, then, and what -- and what the papers are saying?
Greenhouse: Well, I certainly think they're aware of it. You know, when that federal judge demanded that the Justice Department come back in a day with an explanation of of whether the, doesn't the President agree that the court has the power of judicial review. That was really an amazing and highly politicized overreaction. So I think it indicates that within the federal judiciary, as well as the political system, everybody's hanging on every word.
Glor: And one would think maybe not the last comment like that as we, as we close in on this decision in June. Linda, I have to ask you, you covered twenty-nine sessions. Where do you think the Court is going to come down on this?
Greenhouse: Personally, I think I agree with many constitutional scholars who think actually, that the statute is going to be upheld, because there really isn't much of an argument on the other side. And even if there are justices who don't like the law, who would not have voted for the law if they were members of Congress, you know, they have to write an opinion, votes on the Supreme Court come with reasons and there's really, it's hard to articulate why this Supreme Court, given the precedence that exists, that support the power of Congress over interstate commerce, how the Court would explain striking down this statute.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Looks like she's put on her
Submitted by Lakewood Ed on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:09pm.
Looks like she's put on her kamikaze headband and is flying this story line down to the bloody end.
Bingo!!
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:25pm.
To paraphrase her quotes: "Emperor Obama's new clothes look splendid!"
I think I saw her in "How the
Submitted by FishFace222 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 5:02pm.
I think I saw her in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"--but not sure...
She's doubling down on stupid.
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:24pm.
The real question is how could any justice, who is supposed to be deciding laws against the powers that the Constitution grants, can even think of upholding a statute that demands that all persons in the jurisdiction of the United States purchase a particular product from a particular industry?
This would leave absolutely no possibility that "commerce" was a concsious decision of an individual. It would not grant Congress the power to "regulate" inter-State commerce as the Constitution grants it, it would give them the power to absolutely force everyone and anyone to engage in specific commerce at the sole discretion of Congress. There would be absolutely NOTHING that Congress could not complel the population to do based on this new and unholy power that even Kings of old did not have.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
So I'm guessing
Submitted by buttercup815 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 4:06pm.
That mandating car insurance is somehow unconstitutional?
That's on the state level and
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 4:12pm.
That's on the state level and is a condition for traveling on public highways. You can avoid driving by hiring taxis, hitchhiking, taking public transport, riding a bike, or walking. You can't avoid paying the ObamaCare fine because the condition that you have to meet for not paying it is to cease existing.
Driving is not a right first
Submitted by golfer88 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 4:18pm.
Driving is not a right first off, it is a privilege that one must qualify for in the form of a license and the ability to pay for damage caused by YOUR driving... Second, as a human in the U.S. I am not forced to buy car insurance if I don't drive. But under Obamacare, just for the sake of breathing, I must purchase insurance. HUGE difference...
Still beating that dead horse
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 4:18pm.
Still beating that dead horse are we? It's basically the only argument the liberals can muster against the fact that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.
Pretty pathetic.
♫ Trollin', trollin', trollin' on da rivah ♫
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 4:25pm.
Take a hike, Zippers.
Incredible
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 4:27pm.
Where does the federal government, or the United States Constitution, mandate that you or anyone purchase car insurance? I'm guessing that your a product of a public school system within the last twenty years or so, and they neglected to teach you about federal vs state government.
And the answer to your question is; Yes, mandating the purchase of car insurance is unconstitutional, on the federal level.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
It's even simpler than that
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 4:48pm.
Using the car insurance argument from the Dems and Left, imagine if the government required you to buy car insurance even though (a) you don't have a driver's license, and (b) you don't own a car. Should you elect not to purchase car insurance, you must pay a fine.
Their argument is that (1) you may buy a car in the future, or (2) you're bound to ride as a passenger in others' cars, cabs, and buses -- and eventually you may ride in an ambulance or a hearse -- and those operators must buy insurance, so you must buy the insurance or pay a penalty in order to help bring down the cost of insurance for everyone else.
Framed in those terms, I don't think many would support the government's argument.
I don't think car insurance
Submitted by FishFace222 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 5:09pm.
I don't think car insurance is a requirement in either Washington or Wisconsin. You need to have a surety bond (or some other type of bond), personal insurance or personal funds set aside in case of an accident.
My health care is fine
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:07pm.
I dont need you or Obama, fixing it for me,,,
Leave me the #%&%@ alone!
I had not intention of fixing anything!
Submitted by buttercup815 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 12:00pm.
I was just curious what the reaction would be to such a pointless comment. It was quite funny! You do know the meaning of "trolling" don't you?
Environmental Hazard
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:25pm.
Looks like Greenhouse has consumed something that doesn't agree with her. The expulsions coming from her orifices are, by liberal definition, hazardous to the environment.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Environmental hazard.......
Submitted by Herbster on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 4:59pm.
Gotta' get her off the corn and back on oats!
Denial is a river in Egypt,
Submitted by LinTaylor on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:27pm.
Denial is a river in Egypt, but apparently it manages to run through the offices of the NYT as well.
Egad, what a face... One of
Submitted by Slyrr on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:36pm.
Egad, what a face... One of Rush's undeniable truths of life: 'Feminism was created to give ugly women access to mainstream society.'
I think she
Submitted by dr-go on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 7:58pm.
dates Rachel Maddow.
Good grief!
Submitted by texastommy on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:42pm.
I ususally don't comment on people's looks, but damn! She's quite a specimen.
If one looks up the word
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:48pm.
Fugly, in the dictionary, there's no definition, just Greenhouse's picture.
Greenhouse gases
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:47pm.
She continues to emit useless waste.
You sir.....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:49pm.
.......are extremely witty!
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
As unlikely as it may seem...
Submitted by KyWriter on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:49pm.
...this woman is even more stupid than she looks.
I'm convinced,
Submitted by fscarn on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:54pm.
LG: "I am stupid beyond belief, and I am going to prove it come hell or high water."
it's hard to articulate...
Submitted by CJohnson on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 3:55pm.
A reporter who admittedly cannot grasp the opponents arguments.
Your can't fix stupid, or bias.
Submitted by needle on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:24pm.
Isn’t it nice to know that even if Greenhouse is completely wrong come this summer, the NYT SCOTUS “expert” is about as secure in her job as Teddy Kennedy was in his.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Greenhouse Gas
Submitted by mmilesll on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 4:02pm.
This woman really is a dumb as she looks.
Says the lawyer wannabe.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 4:49pm.
She is doing a horrible job pushing the leftist mantra that SCOTUS somehow does not understand the law or is bound by her feeble, ignorant scribblings. The screeching harpy can shout all she wants, but her expensive Yale lawyer wannabe degree is as worthless as she is.
So what can one expect?
Submitted by needle on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 9:31pm.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be all about justice without bias.
That concept seems completely lost on this partisan reporter; but, hey, it’s also lost on the it’s-all-about-the-liberal-agenda NYT.
I didn't know about the expensive Yale lawyer wannabe degree. Gosh, an elitist, from an elitist school on the elitist NYT. What an elitist surprise.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Greenhouse is such an appropriate name...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 6:09pm.
...for someone who has all the personality of a potted plant, and even less intellect.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
And the appearance of a
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 11:36pm.
And the appearance of a weed.....................and, regardless of her unfortunate name, or her even more unfortunate physical appearance, having read a number of statements and opinions that have come out of this spinster's mouth and brain, I'd have to say that the most unfortunate characteristic that she possesses is her unmitigated stupidity, and ability to keep it alive!!!
I would LOVE to be in the NYT building...
Submitted by ChrisNH on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 6:29pm.
I would LOVE to be in the NYT building as soon as the Supreme Court bludgeons Obama and his beloved ObamaCare pet project. Actually, the better place to be is across the street, looking up at open windows and the rooftop.
I am betting it will not make a particle of difference
Submitted by needle on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:26pm.
It will cause not the slightest ripple. See my comment above.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Is it me or does Greenhouse
Submitted by Soldat44 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 6:37pm.
Is it me or does Greenhouse look like she could be the ugly, older half-sister of Harry Potter?
I don't care how much Elanor
Submitted by forest on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 6:36pm.
I don't care how much Elanor Roosevelt likes Commerce Clause precedents that have continually stretched the power of Congress. At some point the overreach goes to far and this is it.
One thing I never hear from these people is what they think would be going too far. What can't Congress do under the Commerce Clause?
I agree
Submitted by JLin on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:39am.
Talk about squeezing blood from a turnip. They will use it to nationalize everything. Government has to be cut down to size. They think we work for them!
First order of business: BB Amendment capped at 15% of GDP. No more. Take the corruption incentive away and you will get less of it. The government is now spending one of every four dollars the country produces.
Every single time NB posts a picture of this beauty, I think
Submitted by no tingly legs on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 7:56pm.
back to what another NBer wrote:
She could eat apples through a picket fence.
It never fails to crack me up. However, I would really appreciate it if NB would not post any pics of either her or Bill Maher. Especially around mealtime.
Donkyface AND Mrs. Ed?????
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 11:35pm.
Donkyface AND Mrs. Ed?????
Greenhouse Gas attack
Submitted by djwolf12 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:01pm.
Seriously, I think this hack Journalist should be taxed TRIPLE with the amount of gas she pollutes this country with.
Greenhouse
Submitted by batcat on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:55pm.
She looks like she was raised in a greenhouse, with the same IQ as the other plants. With those buckteeth I bet she can eat an apple through a picket fence.
Why?
Submitted by CM on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 9:03pm.
Why are they turning to Harry Potter for analysis on the Supreme Court?
Wearing Leon Trotsky glasses doesn't make her any smarter.
Submitted by JLin on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:34am.
That seems to be the only thing she has going for her. Good grief. Is she the sister of the Nutty Professor?