Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 21, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Benghazi Fiasco
  • Gosnell Trial
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Kyle Drennen's blog
  • NBC's Gregory Scolds GOP for Comparing Obama to Nixon
  • CBS Highlights Ex-IRS Staffer Who Declares There Were No Politics at Cincinnati Office
  • Monday's Amnesia: CNN Covers Powerball Jackpot Winner as Much as IRS, AP, Benghazi Scandals
  • The Obama Scandal the Big Three Networks Aren't Telling You About
  • WashPost 'Express' Tabloid Cover Laments: How Can Obama 'Break from the Storm' of Scandals?
  • It Gets Worse: WashPost Reports Obama DOJ Also Spied on James Rosen of Fox News
  • Crowley to Obama Advisor: 'Why Didn't the President Just Say, Yeah, Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack?'
  • CBS's Sharyl Attkisson Says Team Obama 'Perfected' Delaying Info Release And Has 'Quit Talking to Me Altogether'

Networks Ignore Calls For Kagan's Recusal as Supreme Court Takes on ObamaCare Case

By Kyle Drennen | November 15, 2011 | 17:18

A  A
Kyle Drennen's picture

While NBC, ABC, and CBS all reported on the Supreme Court's decision Monday to rule on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, none of the coverage made any mention of calls for liberal Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the case due to her advocacy for the legislation as Obama's solicitor general.

Of the three networks, only ABC's World News even noted public opposition to the legislation, as White House correspondent Jake Tapper explained: "The health care law is tremendously unpopular with a new high of 51 percent of Americans viewing it unfavorably and new low of 34 percent approving of it."

On NBC's Nightly News, justice correspondent Pete Williams simply portrayed the law as unpopular with those on the right: "Tea Party protesters took to the streets to condemn it. And every Republican candidate for president is against it." On CBS's Evening News, legal correspondent Jan Crawford reported: "[Obama] had to force the Affordable Care Act through a reluctant Congress. In the end, the law passed without a single Republican vote."

Both NBC and CBS held out hope that the high court would uphold ObamaCare. Williams announced: "As for how this ideologically divided court might rule, legal experts say it might not be the usual 5-4 split. Some of the court's conservatives have been willing to uphold broad uses of federal power in the lives of individual citizens." Crawford similarly observed: "Now even though this court leans conservative, that does not necessarily mean it will rule against the administration. In the lower courts, some conservative judges have voted to uphold the law."

CBS's coverage was particularly slanted, as Evening News anchor Scott Pelley opened the broadcast by fretting: "Will the plug be pulled on health care reform?" He later teased: "The Supreme Court will decide whether health reform lives or dies." Crawford declared: "The administration says the law's individual mandate provision is critical to its success. Health reform measures, like insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, won't work unless all Americans pay into the system."      

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Here is a full transcript of the November 14 NBC Nightly News coverage:

7:00PM ET TEASE:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: In the balance. Can the government force you to buy health insurance? Tonight the Supreme Court has agreed to take on what some say is the biggest case in ten years and it affects all of us.

7:01PM ET SEGMENT:

WILLIAMS: It is a very basic question and it goes right to the heart of the big fight we just went through over health care. Can Americans be forced to buy health insurance? Did Congress have the power to pass such a thing? The Supreme Court announced today they're going to decide this. This is what the Supreme Court does. They decide what's allowable under the Constitution and just taking on this case makes it the biggest in years, with sweeping impact for all Americans potentially. It's where we begin tonight with our justice correspondent Pete Williams. Pete, good evening.

PETE WILLIAMS: Brian, a dramatic day here because the court agreed to wade into the legal battle over this far-reaching law. And it raises a question the court has never confronted before. Does Congress have the power to require virtually everyone to buy something? It's a huge change in federal law and a landmark in the Obama presidency.

BARACK OBAMA: Health care should no longer be a privilege in this country.

WILLIAMS: But it touched off shouting matches at congressional town halls.

CROWD: No government health care!

WILLIAMS: Tea Party protesters took to the streets to condemn it.

CROWD: Kill the bill! Kill the bill!

WILLIAMS: And every Republican candidate for president is against it.

MITT ROMNEY: ObamaCare is wrong. I'll repeal it. I'll get it done.

[APPLAUSE]

WILLIAMS: Opponents, including 26 states, say Congress went too far by requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance. The Constitution, they say, allows Congress to regulate the insurance market but not to order citizens to get into it in the first place.

JAY SEKULOW [ATTORNEY]: If we allow Congress to have the authority here, where does it stop? What is the position where the Congress oversteps its bounds if they can, in fact, do this constitutionally?

WILLIAMS: If Congress can do this, some lower court judges have said, it could require everyone to buy broccoli to stay healthy. But supporters of the law say what it really regulates isn't the insurance market. It's the market for health care, something they argue everyone eventually participates in.

DOUG GANSLER [MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL]: Every American citizen is part of the health care system. It may not be today. It may not be next week. It may not be next month. But we're all mortal and we all have to – we all need to see a doctor at some point.

WILLIAMS: What the law governs, supporters say, is how health care is paid for, something they say Congress clearly has the power to regulate. As for how this ideologically divided court might rule, legal experts say it might not be the usual 5-4 split. Some of the court's conservatives have been willing to uphold broad uses of federal power in the lives of individual citizens.

TOM GOLDSTEIN [SUPREME COURT EXPERT]: It would shock me if any of the more liberal members of the Supreme Court voted to strike the statute down. But I would not be at all surprised to see two, maybe even three more conservative votes to uphold it.

WILLIAMS: The court will hear this case in late March. Two days of courtroom arguments spread over five and a half hours, that's a modern record, and then we'd expect the decision sometime in late June, in the middle of the presidential campaign, Brian.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Pete Williams at the court building in D.C. for us tonight. Pete, thanks.

Here is a full transcript of the ABC World News coverage:

6:37PM ET

DIANE SAWYER: We also got word today, by the way, that the Supreme Court will weigh in on a lightning rod issue, whether the President's health care law is constitutional. A question that has spawned heated debates on both sides. A Supreme Court ruling being heralded as the most important since Bush versus Gore in 2000. Not to mention, the decision will come during the heat of the presidential race. Here's ABC's Jake Tapper.

JAKE TAPPER: It has been a tumultuous journey for the President's health care law, from the passions of opponents in the August 2009 congressional town hall.

MAN: That they're going to ration health care.-

WOMAN: None of you have done a darn thing!

TAPPER: -to unanimous Republican opposition in Congress-

JOHN BOEHNER: We're going to do everything we can to make sure that Obamacare ever, never, ever is fully implemented.

TAPPER: -and now to the serene but momentous U.S. Supreme Court, which will host a staggering five and a half hours of oral arguments in March and in June the court will either uphold or strike down a key part of the law, just five months before the presidential election. At issue, a provision of the law known as individual mandate which requires every uninsured American to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

BARACK OBAMA: You can't be a free rider on everybody else. You can't not have health insurance and then go to the emergency room and each of us now have to pay the premiums for you.

TAPPER: Lawyers representing 26 states say the federal government has no right to tell people what to buy. The health care law is tremendously unpopular with a new high of 51 percent of Americans viewing it unfavorably and new low of 34 percent approving of it. And Diane as for the political ramifications of this with the decision possibly coming down in the middle of the presidential election campaign season, White House officials say they're confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of the law but they argue with some positive spin if they do strike it down, it could give Democrats a rallying cry for the November elections, giving Democrats something to fight for. That's their optimistic view of a possible defeat. Diane?

Here is a full transcript of the CBS Evening News coverage:

6:30PM ET TEASE:

SCOTT PELLEY: Will the plug be pulled on health care reform? Jan Crawford reports the Supreme Court has decided whether to take the case.

6:41PM ET TEASE:

PELLEY: The Supreme Court will decide whether health reform lives or dies.

6:44PM ET SEGMENT:

PELLEY: President Obama's health care law is headed to the Supreme Court. The justices agreed today to hear a constitutional challenge. The case is so complex the court has scheduled arguments for more than five hours, longer than ever before. Jan Crawford has the story.

JAN CRAWFORD: It's considered President Obama's signature achievement.

BARACK OBAMA: We are done.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

CRAWFORD: He had to force the Affordable Care Act through a reluctant Congress. In the end, the law passed without a single Republican vote.

JOHN MCCAIN: You can put lipstick on a pig, Mr. President, but this is still a pig.

CRAWFORD: Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the landmark legislation is unconstitutional or whether Congress went too far when it required that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Florida and 25 other states joined forces and sued the federal government to block the law. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed and struck it down. In a statement today, the White House said, "We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree." Representing the states, Attorney Paul Clement says Congress overstepped its power by making people buy insurance.

PAUL CLEMENT: It is the first time that Congress has ever tried to force somebody to buy a product that they didn't want and that is not a proper regulation of commerce, so it is unconstitutional.

CRAWFORD: But the administration says the law's individual mandate provision is critical to its success. Health reform measures, like insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, won't work unless all Americans pay into the system. Now even though this court leans conservative, that does not necessarily mean it will rule against the administration. In the lower courts, some conservative judges have voted to uphold the law. A decision is expected in June and, of course, Scott, that is right in the middle of the presidential election.

PELLEY: Thanks, Jan.

About the Author

Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Kyle Drennen on Twitter.
  • Conservatives & Republicans
  • Judiciary
  • Liberals & Democrats
  • Medical Insurance
  • Health Care
  • Elena Kagan
  • ABC
  • CBS Evening News
  • NBC Nightly News
  • World News
  • Kyle Drennen's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Let's face it...

Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:30pm.

Kagen was the latest setup in the SCOTUS for domination by the Demoncrats. There are not 3 branches in government... there are only two : DUMBOcrats and God blessed God fearing, Conservatives.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless my friend is more evil than my enemy."
  • Login to post comments

Since she is a Kentuckian...

Submitted by KyWriter on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:39pm.

...I have to beg forgiveness from everyone here for inflicting Diane Sawyer on an unsuspecting world. The other two MSM clowns are on their own.

  • Login to post comments

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has

Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:24pm.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has an interesting take on what he calls the "Recusal Red Herrings." It's an interesting read.

Money quote, after looking at the situations of both Kagan and Thomas:

.....no justice on this court will recuse themselves — and everyone knows it. The arguments taking place against Kagan and Thomas are interesting, but they only serve to shape the rhetorical battlefield for whatever decision comes down from the Supreme Court next summer. Both sides are preparing for some delegitimization ahead of the decision in order to fire up the base for the 2012 election, and for any efforts needed to repeal ObamaCare in case the court leaves it in place.

  • Login to post comments

This upcoming election is

Submitted by goon on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:04am.

This upcoming election is going to be nasty and the mud is going to fly and I expect the democrats to lie and cheat as well.

  • Login to post comments

And that would be something

Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:46pm.

And that would be something new and different????

  • Login to post comments

Kagan

Submitted by rockyracoon on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:13pm.

Should be impeached along with the "wise Latina," whatever that means, for lying to the Senate at their conformation hearings. That being said, it's a no-brainer that she should recuse herself from this decision. Of course she won't, but that another story for the statist media to ignore.

 

Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.

  • Login to post comments

Other Supremes should speak up. Remove her/Impeach!

Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:47pm.

If she does not remove herself she should be removed from the bench permanently. She will demonstrate that she is unfit to serve and not willing to be law abiding. This will not the first time and should be used to remove problematic appointees who are not willing to READ and FOLLOW what the Constitution SAYS (vs. what they want to do).

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

  • Login to post comments

Well, she wont remove herself

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:18pm.

Dimwits never leave, unless forced to

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Kagan - broadly skipped, but Thomas and

Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:19pm.

The Los Angeles Times is hot on the other side of the isle here:

  • Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case
  • The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.

At the very end of the piece staff writer James Oliphant introduces this:

  • Moreover, conservatives argue that it’s Justice Elena Kagan who has an ethical issue, not Scalia and Thomas. Kagan served as solicitor general in the Obama administration when the first legal challenges to the law were brought at the trial court level. Her critics have pushed for Kagan to recuse herself from hearing the case, saying that she was too invested in defending the law then to be impartial now. Kagan has given no indication she will do so.

"Moreover" is an odd choice in introducing this? 

Now - the entire article is written by a consistent liberal on the liberal  LAT's liberal staff - that's a given. Stil, why sneak in the opposing - perhaps balancing - piece of the available information on Justice Kagen's problems here, by blaming [crediting] the charges on "conservatives?" In the headline, byline and article laying out the newspaper's view on conflict of interest charges against conservative Justices Scalia and Thomas, there is no mention of "liberals argue," or, liberals charge," or, Democrats are saying.

As I've often argued, when the national media goes after anything, or anybody, conservative,  they  - the reporters - are the ones out there digging up the information and reporting on it. However, when the issue has to do with a Democrat -  a liberal - our national media can usually only present it through the lens of "those people are claiming - charging - saying," and it looks like if we don't at least make mention of it, that we'll be accused of bias.

The claims against Scalia and Thomas are a big news story, while the claims against Kagen are a "they say." You think that they'll actually put a reporter on it?

(;~/ gary

  • Login to post comments

Can this even be an argument to be taken seriously?

Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:00pm.

"But the administration says the law's individual mandate provision is critical to its success"?  Why would that even be addressed in regards to the constitutionality of this abomination?  The SCOTUS shouldn't even be addressing the "success" of O-care, only whether we can be forced to purchase a product that many don't want or even need. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Not just that

Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 11:57pm.

Not just the mandate,(btw, liberals, mandate is the root word for MANDATORY which means you are required on pain of punishment to do it) but all those other things on there like having direct access to your bank accounts, taking some(or all) from your bank accounts, and all the things we have yet to discover in it.

And they call it a tax on you if you don't get the insurance, yeah, last time I checked, that's a punitive action.

But you're right, they shouldn't be discussing it, hell, this should be open and shut that it's unConstitutional and does not merit any so-called discussion.  Damn these activist judges anyway!

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

Jon, regarding MANDATORy things,

Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:38pm.

Medicare has notified my supplemental insurance provider that a cough syrup I take when my allergies kick in, is considered dangerous to someone in my fragile state.  And, that consequently, the medication shouldn't be available to those of us in such a fragile state. 

Except that it will be available, if I want to pay a higher co-pay.  So, it's dangerous, but no so much so, if you can pay more for it. 

Is this the Federal government, in the shape of Medicare, making sure that I don't become too much of a burden on the "system"? 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Ohio

Submitted by Fredy on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 11:18pm.

Was there anyy mention of the vote last week in Ohio? ~2/3rds of the voters there REJECTED the Obamacare mandate.

I wonder what dream world the democrats on ABC surveyed to find that only a narrow majority opposes? One thing is clear, their poll did not include Ohio.

  • Login to post comments

WOW – Why am I not surprised here?

Submitted by Clevenative on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:57am.

Not a mention of Scalia or Thomas.

From Common Cause...

“Why is it that the highest court in the land doesn't have the highest ethical standards?

That's the question we've been asking ever since Common Cause researchers discovered that Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose his wife's income for 13 years, and since reports surfaced that Thomas and fellow Justice Antonin Scalia attended secretive political gatherings hosted by the Koch Brothers” (chief funders of The Tea Party anti-healthcare propaganda).

Justice Thomas’s Wife Sets Up a Conservative Lobbying Shop

I have to give Republicans credit for something. It’s the ONE thing they are good at. Setting the narrative for the media by flooding it with their latest talking points of the day (whether fact or fiction, and often ignoring the hypocrisy).

  • Login to post comments

In your warped little mind...

Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:17am.

Is Thomas's wife not allowed to express her opinions? Is she required to sit home and not have any opinions? Are her opinions those of her husband? You can say this with certainty?

If that is so then no spouse of any government official could hold an job or be involved in any activity that could possibly be considered political.

Care to source your claims about the Koch brothers and the Tea Party?

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Rad, Clevenaive(not a mispelling) has to be right.

Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:41pm.

After all, he quoted the NYT.  And, besides, he's a goonion, so he knows that, whatever the NYT and HuffPo and Kos tell him, it's gotta be true.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • DOJ targeted more Fox News reporters than Rosen (Twitchy)
  • WashPost vs. WashPost on IRS probe (Ed Morrissey)
  • Media too prone to fall sway to Obama's referrent power (Salena Zito)
  • Five reasons to keep government out of Internet governance (Eli Dourado)
  • Is asking about what you pray for inappropriate for IRS? IRS commish not sure (Say Anything)
  • Another fed court invalidates Obama's NRLB recess appointments (Politico)
  • Former SecState Hillary Clinton's record leaves much to be desired (Kondracke)
  • Sen. Boxer is lying about impact of budget cuts on Benghazi security (WashPost)
  • Left-wing actor Cusack attacks Obama, Holder over AP scandal (Twitchy)
  • Dopey Chicago gun laws prevent museum from displaying unloaded WW2 relic (Fox News)
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
David Limbaugh's picture
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: An Honest Examination of Race
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

ObamaCare's a Real Pain in the Neck
more cartoons
  • On Leno: Kids Ask Obama the Darndest Questions
  • Morning Joe Meteorologist: Tornado Averted 'By The Grace of Whatever'
  • Bowling for Dollars....to Pay for Baby Deaths
  • Leno: It’s Gotten So Bad for Obama Fox News Changed Its Slogan to ‘See, I Told You So!’
  • Romney: ‘I’m Not a Fan of the President’
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use