CNN gets it wrong

shiney · 06-28-2012, 10:36 AM

So, ObamaCare, as it will forever be known thanks to a failed attempt at messaging - is deemed constitutional as a whole. Some tricky legal maneuvering regarding the validity of the individual mandate, and some intrigue in that Roberts swung opposite of his traditional leanings in support of the law.

But the real story? CNN was so hyped up to be the first to report the story that they got it perfectly and completely wrong.

Idiots.

So, nice work Obama administration, and really nice work, CNN.

Pip Boy · 06-28-2012, 02:37 PM

All the pictures of rejoicing protestors glad to hear about the mandate go down kind of make them look like jackasses now that the mandate didn't go down.

Karrrrrrrrrrrresche · 06-28-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

All the pictures of rejoicing protestors glad to hear about the mandate go down kind of make them look like jackasses now that the mandate didn't go down.

It kind of seemed like they looked like jackasses the whole time to me.

Bells · 06-28-2012, 03:40 PM

Meanwhile........

Solid Snake · 06-28-2012, 03:50 PM

Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but what's fascinating for me personally is exactly what has happened to Chief Justice John Roberts in recent days that have swung him so far astray from his political leanings in the last two major Supreme Court decisions.

Hell, Roberts swung further left than Kennedy, and everyone assumed that Kennedy was Obama's only hope of upholding the bill.

And I mean, as much as I hate to say it, Fox News almost has a point, at least regarding the Obama Administration's staunch refusal to characterize the Health Care system as a 'tax' (because the word 'tax' has severe consequences in regards to voter popularity), and Roberts and the majority here ruling that the law can and should be upheld as the legal equivalent of a 'tax.'
Utterly fascinating. I never would have predicted this outcome. I thought there was a chance the law would be upheld, but I thought Kennedy, and certainly not Roberts, would be its savior.

So did someone find Roberts' 'humanity' button and reprogram him? Is this an indication that Roberts is going to pull a Souter, betray his perceived Republican principles and gradually join the Dems in future decisions? Or is this just some strange aberration? There's ways you could construe Roberts' recent turns within the paradigm of his own ideological platform -- it just requires a fair deal of stretching.
Since Roberts has always been considered a 'big government' kind of Republican, it's feasible that he just wants to retain as much Executive and Congressional powers as possible so that the right-wing can eventually get away with their own social engineering experiments under the same rubric.

...But still, man. Everyone's scratching their heads over this one.

POS Industries · 06-28-2012, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

So did someone find Roberts' 'humanity' button and reprogram him? Is this an indication that Roberts is going to pull a Souter, betray his perceived Republican principles and gradually join the Dems in future decisions? Or is this just some strange aberration? There's ways you could construe Roberts' recent turns within the paradigm of his own ideological platform -- it just requires a fair deal of stretching.
Since Roberts has always been considered a 'big government' kind of Republican, it's feasible that he just wants to retain as much Executive and Congressional powers as possible so that the right-wing can eventually get away with their own social engineering experiments under the same rubric.

...But still, man. Everyone's scratching their heads over this one.

Basically, he does not support the law from and ideological standpoint and made that clear. However, he seems to understand that just because he doesn't like a law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, which in this case it wasn't.

Solid Snake · 06-28-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Basically, he does not support the law from and ideological standpoint and made that clear. However, he seems to understand that just because he doesn't like a law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, which in this case it wasn't.

When Souter started slowly drifting left, he started off that way, too; clearly articulating ideological objections yet nonetheless landing on the correct side increasingly often.

...I'm not sayin' this is definitely where Roberts is going; he could just be pulling a Hughes (which is still commendable, yet less an indication of a consistent swing leftward.)
But we can hope.

Cloud Strife · 06-30-2012, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

When Souter started slowly drifting left, he started off that way, too; clearly articulating ideological objections yet nonetheless landing on the correct side increasingly often.

Bolding for emphasis. While I don't know his historical decisions, I can say that it's dangerous to say 'correct side' when it comes to politics. But then, what do I know, I'm a semi-concerned libertarian (though nowhere near as involved in politics as Archbio was/is).

On topic, however, I'll agree; this is a great day, and I'm scratching my head over Roberts as well.

Jagos · 06-30-2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

When Souter started slowly drifting left, he started off that way, too; clearly articulating ideological objections yet nonetheless landing on the correct side increasingly often.

...I'm not sayin' this is definitely where Roberts is going; he could just be pulling a Hughes (which is still commendable, yet less an indication of a consistent swing leftward.)
But we can hope.

Roberts is very authoritarian. If you notice, the entire idea behind Obamacare/Romneycare were all conservative ideas. The mandate was thought up by the Heritage Foundation and it's been toted in six Republican states. The problem arises that Roberts has essentially taken away some of the power of Congress with this ruling and energized the right wing to utilize every trick in the book to overturn Obamacare.

A Zarkin' Frood · 06-28-2012, 05:04 PM

Fuck you fucking fuck shit piss crap kill piss.

What the hell is so terrible about paying a little for your own well-being? Germany is only a pseudo socialist country but guess what's in our fucking constitution. Healthcare.

I mean, yeah, I'm glad it didn't get shot down. By some jerkasses.

It's just the kind of thing I don't get. Why would you oppose something like this? Or is this some weird way to make the poor die out because they can't afford their health related bills? I think the last thing a government and it's people should want are, well, dead people. Or severely sick/crippled/whatever people who need all kinds of care beyond normal health care.

I have no idea how health care will work in the US but in Germany (roughly) half of the health care is paid by the employer (or the the government in case of unemployment) of the insured the rest by the insured themselves. Seems okay in my book. Oh wait, that's what's actually happening, right? And since the U.S. are largely a corporate state a lot of people who hate life or love their money a little too much complain. Well damn.

06-28-2012, 10:36 AM	#1
shiney Derrrrrrrrrrrrrp. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The land of fartz and buttz Posts: 8,266	CNN gets it wrong So, ObamaCare, as it will forever be known thanks to a failed attempt at messaging - is deemed constitutional as a whole. Some tricky legal maneuvering regarding the validity of the individual mandate, and some intrigue in that Roberts swung opposite of his traditional leanings in support of the law. But the real story? CNN was so hyped up to be the first to report the story that they got it perfectly and completely wrong. Idiots. So, nice work Obama administration, and really nice work, CNN. __________________ boop

06-28-2012, 02:37 PM	#2
Pip Boy Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: A right and proper Nerd Cave Posts: 2,460	All the pictures of rejoicing protestors glad to hear about the mandate go down kind of make them look like jackasses now that the mandate didn't go down. Last edited by Pip Boy; 06-28-2012 at 10:12 PM.

06-28-2012, 03:40 PM	#4
Bells That's so PC of you Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: In a Server-sided Dimension where time is meaningless Posts: 10,490	Meanwhile........ __________________ *BELLS STORE : Clothes! You wear* them! Free US Shipping Subscription System? WTF?! Zazzle Black!**

06-28-2012, 03:50 PM	#5
Solid Snake Erotic Esquire Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 5,563	Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but what's fascinating for me personally is exactly what has happened to Chief Justice John Roberts in recent days that have swung him so far astray from his political leanings in the last two major Supreme Court decisions. Hell, Roberts swung further left than Kennedy, and everyone assumed that Kennedy was Obama's only hope of upholding the bill. And I mean, as much as I hate to say it, Fox News almost has a point, at least regarding the Obama Administration's staunch refusal to characterize the Health Care system as a 'tax' (because the word 'tax' has severe consequences in regards to voter popularity), and Roberts and the majority here ruling that the law can and should be upheld as the legal equivalent of a 'tax.' Utterly fascinating. I never would have predicted this outcome. I thought there was a chance the law would be upheld, but I thought Kennedy, and certainly not Roberts, would be its savior. So did someone find Roberts' 'humanity' button and reprogram him? Is this an indication that Roberts is going to pull a Souter, betray his perceived Republican principles and gradually join the Dems in future decisions? Or is this just some strange aberration? There's ways you could construe Roberts' recent turns within the paradigm of his own ideological platform -- it just requires a fair deal of stretching. Since Roberts has always been considered a 'big government' kind of Republican, it's feasible that he just wants to retain as much Executive and Congressional powers as possible so that the right-wing can eventually get away with their own social engineering experiments under the same rubric. ...But still, man. Everyone's scratching their heads over this one. __________________ *WARNING:* Snek's all up in this thread. Be prepared to read massive walls of text.

06-28-2012, 05:04 PM	#10
A Zarkin' Frood formerly known as Prince. Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Right here, with you >:) Posts: 2,395	Fuck you fucking fuck shit piss crap kill piss. What the hell is so terrible about paying a little for your own well-being? Germany is only a pseudo socialist country but guess what's in our fucking constitution. Healthcare. I mean, yeah, I'm glad it didn't get shot down. By some jerkasses. It's just the kind of thing I don't get. Why would you oppose something like this? Or is this some weird way to make the poor die out because they can't afford their health related bills? I think the last thing a government and it's people should want are, well, dead people. Or severely sick/crippled/whatever people who need all kinds of care beyond normal health care. I have no idea how health care will work in the US but in Germany (roughly) half of the health care is paid by the employer (or the the government in case of unemployment) of the insured the rest by the insured themselves. Seems okay in my book. Oh wait, that's what's actually happening, right? And since the U.S. are largely a corporate state a lot of people who hate life or love their money a little too much complain. Well damn. __________________ >:( C-: