I hate MSM. Truly loathe them all. Sadly they drive the narrative of how America sees things and America seems to drink from it like it's the Absolute Truth. I was curious to see what two different media outlets would say about the ACA situation currently before the SC. I chose Newsmax and CNN. Fox, though popular among conservatives, is no longer a conservative channel so I had to find one that is, hence Newsmax. I also looked up what the role of the Supreme Court is supposed to be as opposed to what people think it is. Interesting observations. Something to talk about other than the election SNAFU.

Story on Newsmax


'The law became more vulnerable when Barrett replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was one of two justices to back every aspect of the law in 2012. Ginsburg’s death on Sept. 18 meant the court no longer had all five justices who voted to uphold the individual mandate in 2012.

Republicans are banking on the Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett and two other Trump appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.'


You have to love how the media words things. Everyone was so freaked out about Barrett coming in and ending the ACA when Roberts has voted twice (2012 and 2015) to uphold core parts of the law and now Kavanaugh and Roberts are inclined to uphold the bulk of the Act. Everyone thought Roberts would be in lock-step with the conservatives on every issue but he hasn't been and there's nothing to say Barrett will be either. 

'Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh both suggested they aren’t prepared to strike down Obamacare entirely even if Republican challengers succeed in invalidating the individual mandate, which requires people to acquire insurance.


“I tend to agree with you this a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents, meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh told a lawyer defending the law on behalf of the House of Representatives.'

Here is a different perspective from CNN I like that Roberts says it's not the Courts job to drive someone else's policy agenda and he's 1000% correct. It's not their job to legislate from the bench (though some have) or write laws being as the Court's role is judicial. 

'Chief Justice John Roberts twice saved Obamacare, and he appears ready to uphold it again. But Roberts is growing weary of it all.


His message to the many parties represented at the court on Tuesday was essentially: Just stop. Stop asking the justices to do the work of Congress. Stop pulling the court into the partisan fracas. And perhaps especially, stop forcing this chief justice to return to the days when, as Roberts said Tuesday, "we spent all that time talking about broccoli."'


The Barrett appointment also has moved the court beyond a 5-4 divide to a new 6-3 conservative-liberal dominance. Roberts, who had been at the ideological center and regularly controlled cases with his fifth vote and regard for institutional interests, is likely to find it harder to steer a steady course.

But his role as chief justice still gives him a commanding presence and, as demonstrated in his questions to lawyers during the two-hour teleconference hearing, he continues to seek ways to minimize differences and -- for now at least -- avoid blockbuster rulings.

The cautious, strategic Roberts does not want the court to drive someone else's policy agenda, for example, by killing Obamacare when Trump and congressional Republicans failed. Referring to members of Congress, Roberts said at one point on Tuesday: "I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job."'

This the job of the SC. It is judicial, not legislative. It's certainly not to be used to drive agendas.

'The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). 

The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.'

---

I hate MSM. Truly loathe them all. Sadly they drive the narrative of how America sees things and America seems to drink from it like it's the Absolute Truth. I was curious to see what two different media outlets would say about the ACA situation currently before the SC. I chose Newsmax and CNN. Fox, though popular among conservatives, is no longer a conservative channel so I had to find one that is, hence Newsmax. I also looked up what the role of the Supreme Court is supposed to be as opposed to what people think it is. Interesting observations. Something to talk about other than the election SNAFU.

Story on Newsmax


'The law became more vulnerable when Barrett replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was one of two justices to back every aspect of the law in 2012. Ginsburg’s death on Sept. 18 meant the court no longer had all five justices who voted to uphold the individual mandate in 2012.

Republicans are banking on the Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett and two other Trump appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.'


You have to love how the media words things. Everyone was so freaked out about Barrett coming in and ending the ACA when Roberts has voted twice (2012 and 2015) to uphold core parts of the law and now Kavanaugh and Roberts are inclined to uphold the bulk of the Act. Everyone thought Roberts would be in lock-step with the conservatives on every issue but he hasn't been and there's nothing to say Barrett will be either. 

'Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh both suggested they aren’t prepared to strike down Obamacare entirely even if Republican challengers succeed in invalidating the individual mandate, which requires people to acquire insurance.


“I tend to agree with you this a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents, meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh told a lawyer defending the law on behalf of the House of Representatives.'

Here is a different perspective from CNN I like that Roberts says it's not the Courts job to drive someone else's policy agenda and he's 1000% correct. It's not their job to legislate from the bench (though some have) or write laws being as the Court's role is judicial. 

'Chief Justice John Roberts twice saved Obamacare, and he appears ready to uphold it again. But Roberts is growing weary of it all.


His message to the many parties represented at the court on Tuesday was essentially: Just stop. Stop asking the justices to do the work of Congress. Stop pulling the court into the partisan fracas. And perhaps especially, stop forcing this chief justice to return to the days when, as Roberts said Tuesday, "we spent all that time talking about broccoli."'


The Barrett appointment also has moved the court beyond a 5-4 divide to a new 6-3 conservative-liberal dominance. Roberts, who had been at the ideological center and regularly controlled cases with his fifth vote and regard for institutional interests, is likely to find it harder to steer a steady course.

But his role as chief justice still gives him a commanding presence and, as demonstrated in his questions to lawyers during the two-hour teleconference hearing, he continues to seek ways to minimize differences and -- for now at least -- avoid blockbuster rulings.

The cautious, strategic Roberts does not want the court to drive someone else's policy agenda, for example, by killing Obamacare when Trump and congressional Republicans failed. Referring to members of Congress, Roberts said at one point on Tuesday: "I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job."'

This the job of the SC. It is judicial, not legislative. It's certainly not to be used to drive agendas.

'The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). 

The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.'

I agree with what you're saying. What baffles me is why it got this far?  A judge in the 5th circuit ruled that the whole law should be struck down.  Now it has to be appealed to the SC so the law can stay on the books.  But what was the judge thinking?  Why did 18 states sign on to such farcically specious reasoning?  Some of our judges and elected officials are so entrenched into partisan warfare that they forget all reason.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I hate MSM. Truly loathe them all. Sadly they drive the narrative of how America sees things and America seems to drink from it like it's the Absolute Truth. I was curious to see what two different media outlets would say about the ACA situation currently before the SC. I chose Newsmax and CNN. Fox, though popular among conservatives, is no longer a conservative channel so I had to find one that is, hence Newsmax.

Say What ?  1st of all Fox is MSM (look up the definition).  2nd of all, their prime time lineup of Tucker Calrson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity are far right so I'm not certain how you state Fox is not conservative.  Throw Fox and Friends, the Five, and other far right shows into the mix and you probably have ~ 22 of the 24 hours extremely conservative.

I think what is happening is the fact that you oppose the far left (which is getting the most media attention) so you are becoming more conservative which sways your opinion of Fox as being fair and balanced.

---

She didn't say Fox wasn't part of the MSM. She said it wasn't conservative enough for comparison. Fox's opinion shows lean right, certainly, but their news program and editorials through the Trump election have been against Trump.

---

FOX News doesn't broadcast news much anymore (much like CNN).  The bulk of their shows are OP-ED (again much like CNN).

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

FOX News doesn't broadcast news much anymore (much like CNN).  The bulk of their shows are OP-ED (again much like CNN).

Brett Baier is about it.

---

FOX News doesn't broadcast news much anymore (much like CNN).  The bulk of their shows are OP-ED (again much like CNN).

Brett Baier is about it.

Jillian Mele is HAWT, I don’t care how Fox leans.  ?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

She didn't say Fox wasn't part of the MSM. She said it wasn't conservative enough for comparison. Fox's opinion shows lean right, certainly, but their news program and editorials through the Trump election have been against Trump.

Exactly.

---

Brett Baier is about it.

Jillian Mele is HAWT, I don’t care how Fox leans.  ?

You don't watch for her commentary. Lol...

---