Cocky Journalists Declared ObamaCare Would Be Upheld, Maybe by a 8-1 Vote
Although no one knows how the Supreme Court will rule, Thursday, on ObamaCare, journalists over the past few months have dismissed and derided the concept that the President's signature legislation could be declared unconstitutional. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin predicted an eight-to-one vote upholding the law. Former New York Times Court reporter Linda Greenhouse said that Americans who think the law is unconstitutional are "wrong."
Appearing on the March 23 Situation Room, Toobin hyped, "I actually think that Chief Justice Roberts and perhaps even Justice Scalia and Justice Alito might join Justice Kennedy in upholding the law." He added, "In striking this law down, it would really be a big change in constitutional law, and I'm not sure this court is ready to do it."
On March 19, Toobin appeared on Starting Point and rejected the anti-ObamaCare argument as "weak":
ANCHOR SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: So the bottom line is, is making people buy health insurance a legitimate use of the power of Congress?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Correct, and the challengers in these laws have said, ‘No, this is not something Congress can do.’ What I wrote in The New Yorker this week, what I think is that basically that is a really weak argument, in that the United States Congress has been regulating health care for years, has been involved in this market for years, and this is a perfectly ordinary use of Congress’s power.
(Once he heard oral arguments, Toobin reversed himself. The journalist declared the Obama position a "train wreck" and suggested it would be shot down.)
In a March 21, 2012 blog posting, ex-New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse wouldn't even entertain the idea that the law could be rejected:
LINDA GREENHOUSE: About half the public apparently believes that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is unconstitutional.... I’m here to tell you: that belief is simply wrong. The constitutional challenge to the law’s requirement for people to buy health insurance — specifically, the argument that the mandate exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause — is rhetorically powerful but analytically so weak that it dissolves on close inspection. There’s just no there there.”
After the oral arguments went poorly for the White House, the tone turned ugly:
Smug justice. I admit I lost my temper on Wednesday. The arguments in the Care Act cases may be funny to Justice Antonin Scalia, the bully that he is, but they aren’t funny to the single father who will avoid bankruptcy because of the law, or to the millions of others who will benefit from the Medicaid expansion or from the provision that allows young people to stay longer on their parents’ health care plans.
— Andrew Cohen, “chief analyst and legal editor for CBS Radio News,” in #7 of “13 Final Thoughts About the Health Care Arguments” posted March 30 at TheAtlantic.com.
Appearing on the Daily Rundown, March 30th, NPR's Nina Totenberg complained, "[But] because of the Bush appointments, which were very, very, very conservative, the Court has become so much more conservative."
If the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of Obamacare, Thursday, will these journalists admit they weren't quite the constitutional experts they claimed to be?
For quotes about how the Supreme Court might rule, see the April 2 and April 16 editions of Notable Quotables.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
If everyone voted with the Constitution
Submitted by amlaml on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 10:56pm.
It would be 9-0 against Obamacare. However, since a majority of the court has shown they are willing to dismiss the Constitution at times, it remains to be seen. However, I personally would be shocked to see the law stand in its entirety.
You're fairly new here, aml
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:37am.
Back in early 2009, we started a Health Care Forum topic....and had almost 600 posts on it, including our opinions on whether or not (and why) it would be upheld in court. Alas, it was erased in the great NB reset.
As BK said, it will be fascinating to see if we get the media parroting administration talking points to spin this. Using the same words. That would be my guess.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
No
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 11:03pm.
No. They'll simply rail about the Court being unbearably conservative, rogue, and out of touch with reality. They'll also quote the dissenting opinion ad nauseum.
What'll be really interesting is to see how many journalists and pundits use exactly he same verbiage to describe the decision. Surely the response was crafted weeks ago and has been disseminated to friendly (to the White House) journalists; all of whom will be steadfastly on message until the Sunday shows.
Nope.
Submitted by IndianaCarl on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 11:22pm.
I think it'll be just as shocking for them as it will be for "Are you serious" Pelosi. Maybe later in the day they'll have an intelligent response, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that for the first half hour or so they'll REALLY be showing their true colors.
It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to note that this is bad law. What would make it interesting would be if Obama decides to simply state "By executive order this is now law" after it gets found to be unconstitutional. Sort of like he's told Arizona to sod off and is ignoring immigration law.
God Bless the U.S.A. and the troops that defend her and her Constitution.
De Press
Submitted by JeddMcHead on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 6:38am.
You got that right!
Toobin is the most radical
Submitted by James3 on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 11:21pm.
Legal analyst on T.V.....he is always making the most outrageous predictions about court outcomes, and more often than not he's wrong. These ''legal analysts'' are just like weathermen. They can be wrong often and still keep their jobs. Either way Obama loses, imho. If the law is struck down, he'll look like he failed. If it goes through, it will give Romney another issue to attack Obama on. He will promise to repeal it, and since only 30% approve of the bill, that's a win for Romney.
Let's not forget
Submitted by amlaml on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 11:25pm.
"Economists" like Paul Krugman who can continue to be wrong and spout outrageous theories and beliefs and still have a job at the New York Slimes,
Krugman
Submitted by Pouncekitty on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 1:34am.
Krugman and the NY Times will be the laughing stock of historians. 50 years from now they will look back on these deeply delusional hacks and place them alongside the Salem Witch judges.
If this stupid law passes:
Submitted by blazermaniac on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 11:21pm.
If this stupid law passes, it will be a big "BYE-BYE" to Demorats in the November election. The American people aren't going to put up with this sham, that has been what the past three & a half years have been!
Redundance
Submitted by SaguaroJack on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 12:03am.
"Cocky" and "condescending" just about don't need mentioning in the context of liberal journalists. Nor smug, conceited, patronizing, arrogant. Nor ignorant, snide, uninformed, uncurious, biased, snarky, flatulent, holier-than-thou, snotty, on and on and on and ON.
These stupid punks just don't get it. If da reblooshin come dat dey keep praying for, they will be the first to go under.
I think Sotomayor may vote
Submitted by InMyMindsAyn on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 12:40am.
I think Sotomayor may vote against it. 6-3 vote against the individual mandate.
6-3 would not upraise me
Submitted by KornKing on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 9:33am.
Neither would 7-2
One more argument that'll come
Submitted by journoprof on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 12:52am.
If it's a 5-4 ruling to toss Obamacare, you can bet the lamestream media will also resurrect (a.k.a. whine about) arguments that Justice Thomas should have recused himself because of conflict of interest. Of course they'll ignore Kagan's even more obvious conflict of interest...no...nothing to see here.
The liberal media is wrong
Submitted by Pouncekitty on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 1:31am.
The liberal media is wrong 100% of the time, yet kool-aid drinking Obama robots turn to them for the "news" every day. No wonder they're all basically lobotomized.
Don't lose any sleep, girls --- Thursday is your day of reckoning. You will be FORCED to wake up and smell the coffee --- or is that tea?
Given John Roberts' cave on the Arizona ruling...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 1:46am.
...anything is possible.
We'll know tommorow if this SCOTUS is really conservative.
After Kelo, I think not.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Thanks for puncturing my
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 6:46am.
Thanks for puncturing my little balloon of hope, Dave!
While I won't predict which way this will go, what has given me hope is that arguments in favor of it by the administration have not been of the legal kind. They have ranged from it would be a train wreck for Medicare to simply "it's the right thing to do."
I don't know where Medicare is mentioned in the constitution, nor do I recall anything that says that Congress shall "do the right thing."
But you're right; after Kelo, who knows?
Headline: The mandate has been found unconstitutional....
Submitted by jdripper on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 2:36am.
How do I know? Elena Kagan and the other witches have been leaking like a sieve to the liberal press almost since day one. Silence means the mandate is dead. The rest of the law maybe with it. It is odd what Obama has been saying in his speeches. Does he know more then he should?
Jack
While I don't like the
Submitted by Shreve on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 3:51am.
While I don't like the mandate, adequate healthcare shouldn't be reserved for the rich. Something needs to cover the poor.
Adequate healthcare is not ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 4:25am.
"reserved" for the rich - that is a ridiculous comment.
And the blanket statement "Something needs to cover the poor", even if directed ONLY at medical coverage while leaving out entitlement programs such as Section 8 housing and EBT cards, is even more inane.
No one is denied emergency care in this country; but liberal fools are going to "adequate" the U.S. right out of existence.
Fookin' morons.
MD
If you're not worried about
Submitted by Shreve on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 6:47am.
If you're not worried about possibly losing everything when you have one medical emergency, I'd say you're rich.
Good grief,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 7:30am.
To imply the poor cant get health care is a crock. Fact is, it's part of what raises the cost so high for the rest of us.
?
Submitted by rhondacoleridge on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:14am.
Somehow, I don't think that the first thought on people's minds when they have a medical emergency is that they are going to lose everything. The fact is that those cases where people "lose" everything are very rare. It's usually through their own mistakes that they get into that position (i.e. mortgaging their home, etc. to pay the bills). There are many avenues to find ways to get payment for treatment. It is ridiculous that this lie is perpetuated. States have programs, counties have programs, cities have programs, charity hospitals are in place....there are ways to get adequate treatment.
I remember when this healthcare hullabaloo started and the media profiled some woman in Cleveland, OH who had cancer. She (and Obama and the press) were moaning that Cleveland Clinic was going to take her house. The very next day, Cleveland Clinic came out and said that they don't do those kinds of things and that was never on their radar. They always work with their patients and social services to find options for these kinds of cases.
How many healthcare workers and executives do you know? From personal experience from having been the executive director of a chapter of the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE), providing adequate treatment to ALL is at the top of their priority list.
I know several healthcare
Submitted by Shreve on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:30am.
I know several healthcare workers, my mom and sister, for example. And I don't doubt their and their bosses are for adequate treatment.
Just I know a couple people who were already stretched thin money wise who got ill and had trouble paying for their care.
Even with the insurance my mom gets through her work, it's just barely able to keep her diabetes and my dad's heart condition treatment taken care of.
So What??
Submitted by Joe W. on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:41am.
When I lost my wife to cancer a little over two years ago, we lost everything, pal. And I do mean everything. My job, my house and everything in it....gone...My insurance had run out, and my 401k was used up...all my resources were gone. So what? Was that YOUR responsibility?? Nope. It was mine. Period. My daughter scooped up what was left of me and helped to shelter me until such time as I could pull myself together and rebuild my life, which the opportunities in my country have made possible. I did so without the government bailing me out at your expense or anyone elses. The province of charity belongs to churches and the private largesse of the individual, and NOT with the Federal Government. Take your whining and bleeding heart liberal tripe elsewhere, pal. People need to be accountable for their own situations in life. Not leech off of another's assets when that person is unwilling to part with those assets.
So you dont live in
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:43am.
Louisiana? Because if'n you did you would surly be aware of the States Charity clinics.
Born and raised in NW
Submitted by Shreve on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:55am.
Born and raised in NW Louisiana. Natchitoches, to be exact. I know the clinics exist, but never used one.
Double post.
Submitted by Shreve on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:56am.
.
The vote should be 5-3. Kagan
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 7:22am.
The vote should be 5-3. Kagan should never have been allowed to make a descion on this. She help formulate the defense. From what I saw and heard she didn't do a good job but did she did her best to prod the Soilictor General to stick to the script tjhey had written.
As for those that say it is constitutional it takes about 20 mintues to read the constitution. Read it. don't give a damn what some leftist law professor at Havard says it is unconstituional.
"Fair Share"
Submitted by billb on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 7:25am.
Two 22 year olds. One college grad with no job gets to live at home and enjoy his parent's health insurance benefits at NO COST. The other a high school grad working for a living, no parents to go home to, pays rent, taxes, etc. is MANDATED to buy health insurance.
The President, who claims to
Submitted by Duude on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 7:38am.
The President, who claims to be a constitutional expert, didn't really understand the commerce clause so why should journalists? Actually, some high school seniors had a better handle on it than those parties. This proves a Harvard law degree isn't worth the paper its written on.
Toobin has been wrong on each
Submitted by CitizenKK on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:05am.
Toobin has been wrong on each and every prediction since 2001....also Soledad O'Brien is another liberal hack...maybe she can do another Black or Hispanic in America expose....ha ha ha ha ha ha...no wonder CNN ratings are in the tank....it's boooooooooring.
18th Amendment
Submitted by misterjdbig on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:40am.
If it took an amendment to stop everyone from buying a product [18th], then doesn't it make sense it requires one to FORCE us to buy one?
2 Lawyers vs. A Senior Citizen and a hockey mom.
I think the big argument was
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 8:54am.
Whether to strike down the whole law, or just find one or more of the provisions unconstitutional. I think the easy and constitutional way is to strike the whole law because of all the various problems with it and let Congress determine how to fix it.
The argument of the law being a good thing or helpping people or which political party is in favor of it or even what the popular polls say about it are all irrelvant. What is at stake is whether the Constitution in it's enumerated powers that the States delegated to the Federal government allows Congress to do what it wants to do.
I think that any person who is capable of reading the Constitution will conclude that Congress has NO AUTHORITY to force citizens to buy a particular product or class of products. They may have the authority to mandate that a certain product, if sold accros state lines, offer certain minimum features or have the same basic characteristics. However, Health Insurance is specifically NOT sold accross State lines and is by Federal law NOT inter-State commerce. So Congress does not have the ability to mandate anything about it at all.
I think that those two issues are going to be the heart of the matter. The individual mandate and whether health insurance is even inter-State commerce at all.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
What's really sad is that
Submitted by RR GOP on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 7:54pm.
What's really sad is that most of these justices already had their minds made up one way or another. I guess the alternative is to have our Constitution trashed simply because a legal team screwed up in presenting an otherwise valid argument.
Something's way wrong with our system. They've been telling us for years that it's not perfect, but it's still the best. I've really been wondering about that over the last few years. I can accept imperfection, but I don't get how these lawyers turn everything I've been brought up to believe is backwards, wrong, un-Constitutional, and so on.
Basically what they're telling us is that this Constitution thing is cute, it's nice, but doesn't really mean anything anymore because it's so damn old and we have to move FORWARD with PROGRESSIVE ideologies because they're far better than these guys 200 years ago could have ever dreamed up. They're also telling us that they're wiser than we are, and that we are incapable of understanding our rights and what the limitations of our government should be.
No, I don't agree with absolutely everything that comes down the Conservative Pike, either, I have no desire to live in a theocracy of any kind, but these Socialists really take the cake.
"Under Capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism it's just the opposite."
"All that Communism needs to make it successful is for someone to feed and clothe it."