Midknight Review -- new and revised: We are thinking the media is wholly biased as to ObamaCare. Here is why.

We are thinking the media is wholly biased as to ObamaCare. Here is why.

There have been four judgments regarding ObamaCare by Federal District Courts. The first two found in favor of the controversial health care bill, rammed through by the 111th congress without the benefit of a single vote from the GOP. Judge George Steeh (a Clinton appointment and a Democrat) along with Judge Norman Moon, another Democrat appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton issued decisions supporting ObamaCare. The fact that both men are Democrats was not included in any story about their decisions. The fact that Bill Clinton appointed both men was, also, excluded. We make mention of partisan issue because the Major Media has decided to report the partisan aspect of these decisions only in the case of the last two decisions. Both judges ruling against ObamaCare are Republicans.

Hypocrisy reigns supreme with regard to this story. Judge Henry Hudson, ruling against the bill, is a Bush 43 appointee. Judge Roger Vinson, with the most extension review of the constitutional circumstance, is a Reagan appointee from 1983. He decided against the bill, as well.

Compare the word count concerning these decisions **. With the first two rulings, the media had made a determination to keep the story on the down low. But, then, a judge actually ruled against them. "Down low" was no longer an option. And the media slander machine began to work its magic. With the second decision against ObamaCare (Judge Vinson), it became obvious that the Marxist Media needed to kick their slander mills into high gear, and that is what they have done. Within the week, we expect to see the word count on the Vinson ruling to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 words or more.

Midknight Review is thinking that the four rulings are not partisan but, ideological, in nature and scope. The difference between liberal judges and conservatives is their view of the Constitution and its defining role as to the size, purpose and roll of central government. We live in an American system of jurisprudence that allows for two sovereign powers, the several states and the central government. There has always been those who lean toward one "sovereignty" or the other; big government folks versus the federal system of states. Since the 1960's, the big government progressivism of the distant past has been redefined by Marxist thought. The Liberal side of the perpetual debate has morphed from an in-house progressive agenda to a one world social redistributionist form, giving honor and status to those whose philosophies have proven to be antagonistic to the American system.

I thought we would have this ideological battle over the private ownership of guns. Instead, the defining battle concerning the two conflicting ideologies has centered itself in the Obama plan for a fundamental transformation of this nation.

** Note the word count and associated attention given to the preferred rulings versus the resented decisions of Hudson and Vinson.

Washington Post
* Steeh ruling (pro-reform): A2, 607 words
* Moon ruling (pro-reform): B5, 507 words
* Hudson ruling (anti-reform): A1, 1624 words
* Vinson ruling (anti-reform): A1, 1176 words

New York Times
* Steeh ruling (pro-reform): A15, 416 words
* Moon ruling (pro-reform): A24, 335 words
* Hudson ruling (anti-reform): A1, 1320 words
* Vinson ruling (anti-reform): A1, 1192 words

Associated Press
* Steeh ruling (pro-reform): one story, 474 words
* Moon ruling (pro-reform): one story, 375 words
* Hudson ruling (anti-reform): one story, 915 words
* Vinson ruling (anti-reform): one story, 1164 words

Politico
* Steeh ruling (pro-reform): one story, 830 words
* Moon ruling (pro-reform): one story, 535 words
* Hudson ruling (anti-reform): three stories, 2734 words
* Vinson ruling (anti-reform): four stories, 3437 words

1 comment:

WilliamFebruary 1, 2011 at 10:11 PM
Let me cut to the chase. Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy. Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good, as Bill Frist (who supports the mandate) has explained through his extensive experience in the field. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. When Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that stronger actions are less supported than weaker ones.

The Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive. The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke Constitutional protection. In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat.

Several Republicans including Orin Hatch, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, and John McCain were for the mandate before they were against it.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Let's return the favor, shall we?

CLINTON: You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength. And you heard how the Republican members led by Mitch McConnell, the president really demeaned the confirmation process.

The Stated Nonsense from the Left now includes these Progressive goals:

July 2, 2008, Obama had this to say: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."

“ . . . . . . they have become a generation of activists possessed with that most American of ideas – that people who love their country can change it.” -- Obama the Radical

On September 30, Van Jones told MSNBC "I think everybody should hold onto your seats. October is going to be the turning point when it comes to the progressive fight back."