Maddow On 'Today': ObamaCare Decision Will Be 'Referendum' On 'Conservatively Politicized' Supreme Court
Appearing on Tuesday's NBC Today, left-wing MSNBC host Rachel Maddow spun the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare as being a judgment of how partisan the high court has become: "...this may as much be a referendum on the Supreme Court and whether or not the Roberts court is so conservatively politicized that it will make a decision to hurt the President, rather than sticking closely to precedent here."
Maddow touted a recent Bloomberg poll, "that 75% of people think that the Supreme Court will decide based on their political beliefs, not on the law." She conveniently left out the results of the latest CBS News/New York Times poll that showed only 36% of Americans approve of ObamaCare, while 47% disapprove. A recent Rasmussen poll showed 56% favoring repeal of the law.
Rather than challenge Maddow's assertions, Lauer wondered: "...if they uphold this – this law, what's the effect on the President come re-election time in November?" Surprisingly, Maddow yawned at that result: "I don't actually think it will have that much of an effect if it is upheld....if what the Republicans call ObamaCare, is upheld, then the President has still reformed health care and Republicans still hate it and we're back to where we are now." The CBS/New York Times poll found only 56% of Democrats approved of the law.
Lauer also asked Maddow about an open mic gaffe President Obama made while meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, speaking about having more "flexibility" to deal with Russia on arms control after his "last election." Lauer pressed: "Why shouldn't people think this is a disingenuous stand on foreign policy?...it adds to the cynicism that people have. They say our leaders should take a stand on principle, not political vulnerability."
Maddow predictably downplayed the obvious stumble for the President: "So it's a little bit of a window into realpolitik and the way these guys really talk to each other. I don't think we learned anything new. But it's kind of interesting to see two leaders, you know, speaking unguardedly."
Here is a portion of the March 27 exchange:
7:11AM ET
(...)
LAUER: Let's move over to what's happening at the Supreme Court today. Second day of oral arguments over the President's health care reform law. If it is struck down by the Supreme Court, talk to me about how that affects November. And then take it the other way, if it's upheld by the Supreme Court.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Supreme Test; How Will Health Care Debate Impact The Election?]
MADDOW: The most interesting thing that I have seen about this in terms of how it's going to affect the public, is that Bloomberg did some polling on it and Bloomberg's poll found that 75% of people think that the Supreme Court will decide based on their political beliefs, not on the law. So, this – this may as much be a referendum on the Supreme Court and whether or not the Roberts court is so conservatively politicized that it will make a decision to hurt the President, rather than sticking closely to precedent here.
LAUER: If they don't, though, if they uphold this – this law, what's the effect on the President come re-election time in November?
MADDOW: I don't actually think it will have that much of an effect if it is upheld. I mean, I realize that the partisans who have – the people who have made this about partisan politics think that it will be the end-all-be-all for the election. But, if what the Republicans call ObamaCare, is upheld, then the President has still reformed health care and Republicans still hate it and we're back to where we are now.
LAUER: This open mic issue, okay? It happened yesterday. The President speaking to the Russian president, said, "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved but it's important for him, Putin, to give me space." "Yeah, I understand," replied the Russian president, "I understand your message about space." And then President Obama said, "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."
MADDOW: Yeah.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Open Mic; What Does Candid Comment Say About Obama?]
LAUER: Why shouldn't people think this is a disingenuous stand on foreign policy?
MADDOW: Well, what they're talking about is missile defense. And what he's saying is, "We're probably not going to make any further agreements or have any better – we're not going to make much progress in terms of talking about missile defense while I am in an election year."
LAUER: But it adds to the cynicism that people have. They say our leaders should take a stand on principle, not political vulnerability.
MADDOW: But the issue with arms control and the Russians is that the agreements that the President has been making with the Russians, the Senate will not follow. The Congress will not follow. And so, if you want to be realistic about it, the Congress and the Senate, in particular, is not going to follow him in an election year. So it's a little bit of a window into realpolitik and the way these guys really talk to each other. I don't think we learned anything new. But it's kind of interesting to see two leaders, you know, speaking unguardedly.
(...)
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
The Court will cease to be
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 12:09pm.
The Court will cease to be "politicized" when there is a clear liberal majority.
\sarc off
These idiots spout their nonsense, and the Obama campaign (wait a minute, I thought there was NO Obama campaign until the Republicans have a nominee!!) is flogging 2012 "hoodies" with nary a comment from so-called political pundits.
I can't take any more....I need a break from this crap.
<sound of duct tape ripping off roll>
Exactly
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 12:14pm.
The MSM never mentions the politicization of the liberal justices. How else can they count on 4 votes from them while challenging the other 5 to be non-political. It's as if they accept that the liberal justices are there for the express purpose of judging politically.
Maddow is also completely wrong (Surprised?) when she says the conservative justices would vote "against precedent." There is no precedent for this case. Never before has the SCOTUS taken a case in which citizens would have to pay a fine for NOT participating in commerce.
And they're off...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 12:06pm.
I mentionned in an earlier thread that if (when?) the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, the left-wing media will paint a narative that the decision was politically motivated by radicalized judicial activists from the conservative side of the bench.
Just you wait and see....
Of course Kagan and Sotomayer have no conflicts of interests whatsoever, right? /sarc
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Kagan SHOULD have recused herself
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 12:22pm.
But of course, she didn't.
Don't you just love Rach's assertion that if the conservatives on The Court strike down this unconstitutional sham of a law, it will be done to strike a personal and political blow against Obama? Say what?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Just because Obama takes everything personally...
Submitted by UltraC on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 1:40pm.
... doesn't mean the Supreme Court justices do. Remember Obama's slam against the Court for the Citizens United decision? Alito's response when Obama chose to use the SOTU podium to attack the court's decision? He very calmly mouthed/spoke the words "not true." Of course, the media played Alito's unheard response as contributing to the hostile polarization of politics, or something like that.
Of course, no one in these friendly news venues will ask Maddow to justify that assertion.
If I criticize the president for his skin, specifically its lack of density, does that make me a racist?
Well, it is his SKIN you're talking about
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:33pm.
Ergo Sum.....RACIST!
Great point, too....about Obama insulting the Supremes whilst they were a captive audience.
Joe Wilson had it right. He lies. All the freakin' time.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
The pretender-in-chief has a
Submitted by rockyracoon on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:21pm.
The pretender-in-chief has a very THIN skin, no doubt about that.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Kagan, indeed
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:41pm.
should have recused. I still can't for the life of me figure out how she got away with being involved in this case. The emails proved she was "thooper-exthited" about the healthcare law. How can ANYONE in their right mind believe she will be impartial in this case?
There's only one way, NOLA
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:54pm.
If she strikes it down as unconstitutional.
If not, she's the liberal idealogue and hack we've always known she was/is.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
NOLA, Blonde
Submitted by rockyracoon on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:23pm.
Couldn't agree more wit da both of youse.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
"that 75% of people think
Submitted by GregE on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 12:13pm.
"that 75% of people think that the Supreme Court will decide based on their political beliefs, not on the law."
Those 75% are correct. If the Constitution is followed, the decision will be 9-0 against the mandate. The problem lies in that we have to question if the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution, which is CLEARLY a limited-government document, or disregard it.
This mandate crap is such that it should have never passed Congress, and when even mentioned in Congress, should have been laughed at as some sort of joke. But, unfortunately common sense and the Constitution are not upheld, though every single Congressman and Senator takes the oath to do so and many have never read it or care to read it or care what's in it.
Yep
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 12:29pm.
I'm sure that the poll reflects what most people who follow the Supreme Court decisions even casually know to be true: All the liberal justices will vote to uphold Obamacare, while at least 3 conservative justices vote against, and 1-2 become the "swing votes" that could go either way.
The Dems are COUNTING on the 4 liberal justices to be political in their process. It's what they WANT the Supreme Court to do, as long as decisions are in their favor.
For SCOTUS, the term is "Strict Constructionist"
Submitted by ctyankee on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:18pm.
While I didn't learn a lot in my High School US History class, I do remember that. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be partisan, i.e. Republican or Democrat. The labels "Liberal", "Conservative" or "Swing Vote" are misused by the MSM.
The correct term for a Supreme Court Justice that holds to the Letter of the US Constitution is "strict constructionist". The "Liberal" justices have a much looser interpretation of the Intent of the Constitution.
Do you remember a series called "Picket Fences"? Don't let the title fool you, the show had a left-wing political agenda. At the end of the show, the actor who played a lawyer would give a Civics lesson on the Supreme Court. He listed the names of the justices at that time. He would dismiss some as "Reagan Appointees" but he never mentioned who appointed the Liberal justices, whom he agreed with.
The Court
Submitted by John21 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 12:31pm.
The liberals must be in doubt if they are already starting their propaganda campaign before the arguments have even been heard.
The propaganda queen and her cohorts will get serious after the case is presented, none know a thing about constitutional law but they will find likeminded pundits that for the most part know less than them to declare it are beyond doubt. It is easy to find a lawyer with dreams of grandeur and a very large ego to agree to any point.
The simple truth is they have a very weak argument and it is dispersed over a large area trying desperately to find something that will meet their requirements. The arguments to date and the suggested arguments are losers without any real merit and very little logic or basis. They liberals will not blame their weak cause or their poor choice of counsel but attempt to blame the court for seeing thru the propaganda and basing a decision on the law.
They're definitely scared
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:29pm.
But I think a lot of them knew when this law was passed that (a) it was badly conceived and written, (b) the states and/or individuals would sue the Federal government, and (c) it would eventually be argued before the Supreme Court, where it was likely to lose.
Randy Madcow... Pro-ObysmalCare Because....
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 12:37pm.
(S)he wants to get transgender surgery, and s(he) wants us to pay. Why not?
Look, let's be big about this people.
I offered San-duhhhhhh Fluke 12 condoms for ever verifiable heterosexual act she can have.
The least we can do is chip in a few dollars to help this genius out.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
did miss flukie wash her hair yet
Submitted by I hate marxists on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:19pm.
She really is a beast
So what happens when.....
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 12:58pm.
It looks like Kennedy might be the swing vote and that he's going to be swinging to the right side(if he really cared about the Constitution, that shouldn't have been an issue, and that goes for all of them).
Let's say it gets overturned, God willing.
What do you suppose the bogus potus will do? He's already said he won't work with Congress, he's already shown that he will disregard any court telling him to do something that he doesn't want to hear, like the illegal oil drilling moraturium, and on and on. Will he "dictate" that ObeymeCare goes through anyway? Or will he do the right thing and obey the SCOTUS' ruling?
My money is on him trying to make it happen anyway. I hope I'm wrong.
-Jon
In immaturity he may have a
Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 1:14pm.
In immaturity he may have a press conference and insult the supreme justices who voted against it. (he will do that anyway).
He might try suggesting Massachusetts law be overturned because that's where he got his inspiration.
But if he can't take something through the front door he will take it through the back, and if he can't take it through back door he will go through the basement, if the door is locked there he will break a window to smuggle something in. It's the Obama / Communist way: 'The ends justify the means'
But this thing is FAR from over! All we can do is pray and keep informing others about it's unconstitutionality.
Hey Biden, Supreme Court Defeat Will Be a "Big F-ing Deal...."
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 1:11pm.
I know I am jumping the shark, but I smell blood on this.
Barry Blunder is going to get his ass handed to him.
I am still incensed over him dissing McCain when they jammed this monstrosity into law with the comment...
"Elections have consequences, John... I won"
Better go buy yourself a tube of K-Y Barry.
It's payback time.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
I was incensed by that
Submitted by Seashell on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 1:25pm.
I was incensed by that statement: "Elections have consequences, John... I won".
I knew then that he would have a failed Presidency because with that attitude he would never garner any republican support for anything he tried to do. It just showed that he had no political moxie at all.
Seashell
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:29pm.
Don't you wish the GOP would put a commercial together asking if Obama really is the great "healer" or the one to bring DC together, followed by clips like that, BO insulting the Supremes at his SOTU, etc? I would love it if the GOP took the focus off of our guy and back onto the failure that is obama.
Will they? Nope. Gutless wonders.
Also notice that he refers to
Submitted by Schofield Kid on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:29pm.
Also notice that he refers to him as John instead of Sen. McCain. I'm sure he would insist on being called "Mr. President" outside his inside circle of Chicago thugs.
If you recall,
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 1:29pm.
...at the time, I called it the "Health Care Submit".
Another sham show, but the sham President.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Hey Blonde, Do You Think That Barry & Moosechelle
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 1:53pm.
Even like each other?
I don't. I think she laughs at him behind his back. I have heard numerous reports of their fueding which is allegedly not a big secret to the Secret Service. Would love to get some inside scoop, so I can have more things to laugh at him for.
I get the sense that she's a raving opportunist, who only sees Barry Blunder as a meal ticket. She knows he's got psychological and emotional scars from being abandoned by his never-home Daddy, and his Mommy had so little use for him, that Barry went to live with Gammy.
Do you think they will steal the White House china and silverware like the Clintons did when they got ran out of town.
Maybe Barry will stuff his pants with with knives and injure his noodle.
That could be a teaching moment.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
Motormouth
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:07pm.
Their marriage has often reminded me of the Clinton's. He got, I forget the term for a woman a gay man uses to pretend he's straight, with some Chicago connections. She saw a guy who was moving up in politics, and I doubt she had a whole lot of other offers.
They seem to play so affectionate in public that I doubt they are in private. Like Bill & Hill, they act when the cameras are rolling.
I'd love the inside scoop too, it would probably make the fights on Jersey Shore look tame.
Rad: it's 'beard'.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:13pm.
And in Mooch's case, she actually has one.
Beard
Submitted by rhondacoleridge on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:15pm.
If Nancy Pelosi has one more facelift, she'll have a beard as well.
A Woman a Gay Man Hides Behind
Submitted by rhondacoleridge on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:14pm.
Is called a "beard."
Thanks all!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:21pm.
I'm just a sheltered Catholic girl who knew there was a term, but darn it in my world it just doesn't come up.
And yes, Mooche has a beard, but that isn't her biggest problem, her butt is.
Here's another for you Rad
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:00pm.
Obama, being a little light in the loafers to the point that MOO may be a beard, is said to be "down low".
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
He'll come out someday-
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:31pm.
As the first black gay in the closet president. He's determined to be in the history books.
Rad ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:17pm.
glad that the definition of 'beard' was 'bared'.
A beard for Obama is as good as 'bread', as well.
As in 'money'.
It is valuable as a way to shield Obammie-jammer from any revealing lowdown on the downlow, as it were.
Now if we could just "debar" his POTUS time like the Bar Association did his license to practice law.
MD
MD
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:26pm.
I took some migraine meds awhile ago, so I can't make heads or tails of your post. I'll read it again tomorrow.
How on earth do people do drugs and make it through the day?
Rad 1979, Remember Clinton's Famous "Two For 1...?
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:47pm.
I can still remember that slack-jawwed hillbilly Clinton crowing
"Hey, with Me and Hillary, you get two for the price of one!!.."
And my reply was "We didn't elect HER!!!!!"
These two clowns aren't any better
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
Motormouth
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 4:29pm.
I do remember. Just because Bill promised her a "co-presidency" in return for ignoring his Tom catting around, didn't mean the rest of us wanted her in there. And of course she fell flat on her face with the health care she tried to promote. I still despise that woman, but not as much as I despise either of the Obama's.
I always though we got one for one
Submitted by needle on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:38pm.
Bill is the one we -- at least some of us -- elected; but what we really got was Hillary.
I don't count the cardboard cutout who gave SOTUS's.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
This chick
Submitted by fivestring_assassin on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:02pm.
is just a mouth piece for the Obama Administration
Recall that she and a large group of left wing media types attended a December 2011 meeting at the Obama White House whose sole purpose was to frame talking points for the re-election of Obama...this is part of that narrative...make excuses for laws that are unconstitutional
I think that Maddow just wanted to finally use the words
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 1:54pm.
"President" and "precedent" in the same sentence;)
The whole purpose of the Supreme Court...
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:03pm.
Is to make precedent, not follow it. If there was a clear precedent for the issues at hand, the lower courts would have followed it and we wouldn't have conflicting decisions.
But then again Maddow knows this and is simply acting as an activist to spout an ideological talking point.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Yoo Hoo Rachel here's something to chew on
Submitted by I hate marxists on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:12pm.
The supreme court main function is to make sure that any new laws are compliant with the constitution set by our founding fathers. I know this could be a chore for you since you and other left idiots cannot understand the true nature of the constitution but try reading it and if you have a hard time trying to understand it perhaps you can subscribe to Hillsdale college and one of the students there can give you an education unlike the phony education you received before you tried being a journalist.
I have a innovative idea
Submitted by I hate marxists on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:14pm.
Why don't cable stations like TBS and TNT Oxygen and bravo buy MSNBC and CNN and put it in their prime time slots then the kids will really have some junk entertainment
Argument for Obama Care based on Constitution
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:16pm.
I have yet to read a liberal's argument for Obama Care, that is actually based on the Constitution. These liberals seem to think that the SCOTUS has the last "democratic" vote in a purely "democratic" country. There is no law. The only thing that matters is "democracy rules".
Give us your stuff.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
they are using the commerce clause
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:53pm.
as justification. Also, for precedent they are using a law from 1867 regarding taxation (which isn't a constitional justification, just legal precedent). They are also using the "necessary and proper" clause. IOW, they are grasping at straws.
Here An Advocate, There An Advocate
Submitted by rammingspeed on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:37pm.
Maddow carefully selects things (carefully ignoring other things) that will allow her to shape the story any way she wants. It's called advocacy journalism, which she and her fellows on the left are very good at. And proud of. Openly.
3 Branches
Submitted by feisty on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 2:51pm.
We have separation of powers, right?
Is the SC expected to vote so that it protects what our Fearless Leader wants?
I thought it was an independent branch of government -- the weakest of the three branches.
There is no precident. There are no grounds. There is nothing in the Constitution to support socialized health care.
Uncle Thomas
Submitted by Diesel on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:22pm.
Say it Madcow!!! You know you want to sooo bad, it's like (you know what) in your face!
"Justice Uncle Thomas"
Don't worry Madcow, one of your commie colleagues of color in the State run media WILL say it for you before this case is over!
Remember the State of the Union speech?
Submitted by ChrisNH on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:31pm.
You know, the one where he haughtily bludgeoned them?
What we have here, Nancy Pelosi, is revenge against him and they'll be taking you out, too.
MAD
Submitted by jackl92 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 3:36pm.
If I looked like Madcow I would be mad too.
jackl92
Her mouth is frozen in an eternal sneer....
Submitted by Slyrr on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:02pm.
What is it with this foul woman? She perpetually looks like she's either sneering, or smirking, or a combination of both. It conveys the impression of superiority, smugness, insolence and arrogance.
Oh wait - she's a liberal democrat.
They're ALL like that in the media.
Talk about a rush to judgement!
Submitted by needle on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 5:43pm.
Apparently as far as Maddow is concerned, the Supreme Court decision will have essentially nothing to do with the US Constitution itself.
With this “judgement” coming from this latter day female Solomon several months before any proper Supreme Court decision, Maddow unwittingly projects the “depths” of her regard for the constitutionality of anything.
What a surprise.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
"...hurt the president..." ??
Submitted by minky on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 6:15pm.
The Madcow has the BALLS to accuse the so-called "conservative" justices of making judicial decisions in order to "hurt the president"? So now the Madcow is being a co-narcissist of Obama's? An absolutely, stunningly incompetent analysis of the situation.
Repeal!
Submitted by blazermaniac on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 11:18pm.
How about repealing Rachel Madcow?
Rachel, Rosy and Al Gore.
Submitted by sngnsgt on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:18am.
Rachel, Rosy and Al Gore. Three useless goofballs. Who cares what any of these people think?