From the June 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Loading the player ...
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of health care reform, the Drudge Report is smearing Chief Justice John Roberts over the possibility that he might use epilepsy medication and suggesting that it affected his judgment.
Drudge linked to a Real Clear Politics post that contains a clip of right-wing radio host Michael Savage claiming that "if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive disassociation in what he is saying."
Drudge also linked to a 2007 New York Times report that discussed Roberts' medical options. The article described the side effects of epilepsy drugs, but it has never been reported that Roberts actually takes such medication.
After hosting claims that the EPA acted "lawless[ly]" by regulating greenhouse gas emissions, Fox News' flagship "straight news" program Special Report has ignored an important court ruling that undermines Fox's narrative.
After erstwhile team player Chief Justice John Roberts led the Supreme Court in upholding the Affordable Care Act, Fox News has spent the day trying to convince themselves, if not the rest of us, that this is excellent news for Republicans and Mitt Romney -- to the point of arguing that President Obama's "cynical" political team would have preferred the law be struck down entirely so the whole issue would just "go away."
A little while ago, Megyn Kelly sat down to talk with Chris Stirewalt, Fox News digital politics editor, about the electoral implications of the Supreme Court ruling. Stirewalt argued -- in all seriousness -- that President Obama's re-election team in Chicago were pulling for a full repeal.
STIREWALT: I can sum it up this way: at the White House, it's a good day. The president's probably very happy that he was vindicated by the Supreme Court. But out in Chicago, at the president's campaign headquarters, this can not have been the happiest news. I'm sure, from a cynical political perspective, they much rather would have had this issue go away and the Supreme Court take it down so the president could go rally the troops. Instead, it's Romney's troops who are rallied.
This is a real stretch, and here's Nate Silver of the New York Times explaining why:
It is not as though, if the law had been struck down, Republicans would have stopped talking about the folly of the legislation. Members of the public, in mostly opposing the law, had not been objecting to its technical details, some of which they actually supported when quizzed about the specific aspects of the health care overhaul.
Instead, it was to the impression that it represented an overreach on behalf of Mr. Obama -- at a time when there is profound skepticism about the direction of government and the efficacy of its policy -- that left him vulnerable.
When the dust settles, it seems implausible that Mr. Obama would be have been better off politically had his signature reform been nullified by the court. Then Mr. Obama's perceived overreach would have had the stench of being unconstitutional.
Stirewalt's analysis is, thus far, the absurd apex of Fox News' health care coverage today. It was preceded by a parade of GOP officials chest-thumping about how they're so angry and energized now, fond reminiscence of the heady days of 2010 when shaky-cam videos of barely coherent tea partiers screaming at Democrats were all the rage, and endless repetitions of the word "tax" (in accordance with Republican messaging).
Both CNN and Fox, in a race to get the story on-air first, inaccurately reported that the individual mandate had been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
In fact, the court affirmed the constitutionality of the individual mandate, under congress' authority to tax.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, right-wing media figures claimed Chief Justice Roberts' decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act shows that he's liberal. But Roberts' recognizing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act doesn't change his record as presiding over the most conservative and corporate-friendly court in recent history.
Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia provided fresh evidence that he and Fox News are employing the same set of dubious right-wing talking points.
In his dissent arguing in favor of Arizona's anti-immigration statute, Scalia attacked the Obama administration's decision to allow certain young immigrants to remain in the country. Scalia accused the Obama administration of not wanting to "enforce the immigration laws as written" and leaving "the States borders unprotected against immigrants" who are here without authorization. Scalia also claimed that Arizonans "feel themselves under siege" by undocumented immigrants who place Arizonans "life in jeopardy."
Scalia's language mirrors the false claims used by Fox News to attack the Obama administration's immigration record. For instance, Fox Business host Lou Dobbs claimed that "this administration has chosen unilaterally not to enforce" immigration laws. Fox News regular guest Jay Sekulow said that Arizona is "under siege," and Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. asserted that there was a "crime wave" in Arizona.
The Scalia-Fox attacks are not borne out by the facts. The Obama administration is enforcing immigration law: Deportations are up under President Obama, and deportation of criminal immigrants is 30 percent higher. Furthermore, far from being "under siege," Arizona crime rates have been dropping.
Nevertheless, Fox News responded to the Supreme Court decision by hyping Scalia's arguments. Johnson declared that "everybody's gotta read Scalia's dissent" on the Arizona case.
National Review Online blogger Ed Whelan is trying to aid the unprecedented obstruction tactics Senate Republicans are using to block President Obama's nominees.
On June 20, 2012, American Bar Association president William T. Robinson III sent a letter to Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urging that the Senate hold confirmation votes on three judicial nominees who had strong bipartisan support but were being blocked despite the merits of their nominations. Whelan, a blogger with significant influence in the media and Capitol Hill, responded to the letter by saying: "A Senate staffer in the know tells me that the ABA never sent a similar letter on behalf of George W. Bush's nominees."
But it would have been impossible for the ABA to send a "similar letter" on behalf of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, because Bush's judicial nominees were not subject to the type of obstruction experienced by the Obama nominees in question.
As the ABA noted in its letter, Obama nominees William Kayatta, Jr., Robert Bacharach, and Richard Taranto "are consensus nominees who have received overwhelming approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee." In addition, Kayatta and Bacharach have "the staunch support of" the Republican senators from their home states. And Taranto, who is nominated to a court with nationwide jurisdiction, has the "endorsement of noted conservative legal scholars."
Nevertheless, Senate Republicans have announced that they are blocking all three of these nominees along with every single one of Obama's judicial nominees until after the presidential election, regardless of whether they would be good judges.
Rush Limbaugh continued to amplify the politicized Republican investigation into the Fast and Furious scandal and the contempt hearings against Attorney General Eric Holder by trying to downplay the 2007 scandal over the firings of several Bush-appointed U.S. attorneys and minimize the role then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales played.
He claimed the reason congressional Democrats "were after" Gonzales "and other Hispanics the Bush administration sought to elevate" at the time was because "Hispanics do not get elevated in a Republican Party. It just doesn't happen." He added: "Democrats say they can't allow that to be seen."
Limbaugh went on to muddy the waters even further by saying that "they ganged up on Gonzales and he had to go, and it was over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. And don't forget Clinton had canned all 93 within the first week or two of his inauguration in 1993."
Limbaugh effectively downplayed the U.S. attorney firings to trump up Holder's supposed failings in the Fast and Furious case. Limbaugh claimed that "Holder has done far more -- he's ... done more egregious things here than Gonzales did." He then repeated the conservative myth that the Obama Department of Justice failed to prosecute the New Black Panthers.
In fact, there was much more to the story than just the "firing of eight U.S. attorneys."
From the April 8 edition of MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes:
Loading the player ...
From the April 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player ...
From the April 5 edition of Fox Business' Lout Dobbs Tonight:
Loading the player ...
After President Obama called out conservatives for professing to oppose activist judges while simultaneously rooting for the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act, the conservative media have spent days straining to argue that it would be perfectly legitimate for the Court to rule the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. Today, Fox News' Jon Scott and his guest Curt Levey tried yet again, suggesting that if the Court strikes down the law, it would be acting in accordance with "fairly recent" precedent.
But Scott and Levey are wrong: It has been more than 75 years since the Supreme Court struck down federal economic legislation on the grounds that Congress did not have the power to pass that legislation under the Commerce Clause.
Scott asked: "Hasn't the Supreme Court already in fairly recent history overturned rulings of Congress that it found to be unconstitutional?"
Levey, the executive director of the Committee for Justice, responded: "Yes it did, and under the Commerce Clause it did so. In '95, the Gun Free School Zones Act and then in about the year 2000, part of the Violence Against Women Act."
The Affordable Care Act indisputably regulates economic activity. The individual mandate at the heart of the Supreme Court case requires people to obtain health insurance. Overall, the law regulates how health care and insurance are provided and paid for. And, while the Supreme Court regularly struck down federal regulation of economic activity in the mid-1930s as an improper exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power, it has not done so since.
From the April 4 edition of Fox Business' Lou Dobbs Tonight:
Loading the player ...