Increasingly Shrill Liberal Journalists Attack 'Legitimacy' of Supreme Court Ahead of ObamaCare Ruling
As the ObamaCare decision looms large on the horizon, the Left is doing their best to defame the Supreme Court in anticipation of a defeat of the president's signature legislative accomplishment.
In the past two days, liberal journalists Michael Tomasky and James Fallows have published histrionic tirades at their respective publications, the Daily Beast/Newsweek and The Atlantic.
Fallows cries that the “Roberts majority” is ruining the court’s legitimacy by somehow violating unwritten "norms" of its behavior:
Norms have given the Supreme Court its unquestioned legitimacy. The Roberts majority is barreling ahead without regard for the norms, and it is taking the court’s legitimacy with it.
Tomasky published an article in which he quoted the following from his pal Fallows as “factually true.”
First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.
Then the beneficiary of that decision appoint the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
Yes, you read correctly. Liberal journalists are descending into loopy conspiracy theories about the Court now.
Of course, in their rush to paint the Supreme Court as a right-wing cabal controlled by shadowy millionaires, both Tomasky and Fallows do absolutely nothing to actually address the salient constitutional issues at play in the ObamaCare case, HHS v. Florida.
It should be a major embarrassment to Newsweek and The Atlantic that instead of attempting thoughtful liberal cases for upholding the ObamaCare mandate, it's plunged into the abyss with overheated, conspiratorial rhetoric like Tomasky's and Fallows's.
- John Bates's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Well, it might have been a "major embarrassment", but
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 5:00pm.
the people at these "publications" are dumber than rocks.
But, Fallows did stumble on a nugget of truth, only it applies to Baracka's appointments, not Bush's. "Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them". That's a perfect description of the "Wise Latina" and the softball player.
Democrats think the court is
Submitted by forest on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 5:08pm.
Democrats think the court is illegitimate?
OK, we'll go ahead and disregard Roe v. Wade then.
Please....
Submitted by amlaml on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 5:20pm.
The court NOW is illegitimate. The court made the decision the Democrats agreed with in Roe v. Wade, so it was perfectly legitimate BACK THEN. Of course, if the Supreme Court did the unthinkable and ruled Obamacare constitutional, watch how fast they backpedal on these accusations and praise the court.
The decision has not even
Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 5:09pm.
The decision has not even come out yet.
But I wonder if Kagan isn't telling Obama what's going on.
First Obama comes out and excoriates SCOTUS for extremism and a decision hadn't even been made on obamacare. What if it goes his way? He will look like an idiot. Well more than usual anyway. He must have known something.
Then he comes out against IllEGAL immigrant deportation shortly before SCOTUS decide to uphold most "controversial" part of Arizona law.
Anyone else noticing this?
Kagan is definitely leaking info...
Submitted by seen the light on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 7:37pm.
no doubt about it!
It appears the Press is taking a lot for granted...
Submitted by James3 on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 5:17pm.
Or someone leaked the outcome. Either way, they seem to be braced for ''Obamacare'' (God I hate even calling it that) to be struck down. One can only hope.
I have to go with calling it "ObamaCare", because ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 8:54pm.
I am afraid that the irony inherent in referring to it as "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" will harden my arteries.
MD
You've got to wonder....
Submitted by Spoker on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 5:28pm.
You've got to wonder what is going through the presses collective minds as they slam the Supreme Court legitimacy on deciding OBarryCare while at the same time counting on them to protect their rights to be so openly critical of that same body. Children exhibit much better judgment during out or safe disputes during sand lot ball games.
Related
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 7:21pm.
It is time to put government employees on notice. If you obey an unlawful order of President Obama's, you will be held accountable for your actions. You will be charged, arrested, tried and convicted for violating your oath of office. Just like the Nazi military was held accountable at the Nuremberg Trials, you will not be able to claim you were just following orders.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Got it. For about the tenth time ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 8:56pm.
now.
If it starts looking like spam, chances are ---.
MD
MD, maybe it gets paid by the post?
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 06/25/2012 - 9:03pm.
.
Great Article! I can't
Submitted by Patriot4America on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 12:53am.
Great Article! I can't believe that so many people hate our system of government and the Constitution.
Must know something
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 3:16pm.
It is almost inconceivable to me that information about the decision hasn't been leaked to the WH and then from there to their sycophants in the press. Why else would so-called journalists set themselves up to look like total idiots by bashing a court decision that hasn't even been released yet?
If the decision goes the administration's way all these attackers of the court will have to do some serious back-pedaling so as to be able to then praise the justices for their "wise, learned" reasoning in upholding the law.
Doesn't make sense.
SCOTUS not "legitimate"?
Submitted by stratosaurus on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 5:39pm.
Does that mean that the decision on Monday regarding Arizona' state law should be considered invalid, too?
Can't have it both ways, libturds -- two decisions in a week, and they're both the law of the land. What d'ya do, what d'ya DO? We'll accept your support of the AZ law's almost-total-negation, and you accept our support that Odildocare goes in the toilet. Sounds fair to me......
Now, go crank up Chrissie, Rachel, Wolf, Beharridan, and the rest of the loonie-fringe "journalists", put them all on TV, and we'll pop the champagne when their heads explode. Fun for the whole family!