If you still don't believe in media bias - SCOTUS and Obamacare
I'll keep my rant short. This article is from the Associated Press, and so it will be distributed in newspapers nationwide.
First line: "The Supreme Court could wipe away health insurance for millions of Americans"
The court does no such thing. The court is charged with one job: ruling on Constitutionality and law.
"But would the court take away a benefit from so many people? Should the justices even consider such consequences?"
The court won't take away anything. Claiming it will is calculated to blame them.
They absolutely should not consider consequences, as that is ACTIVIST not JUDICIAL. It is the job of the elected representatives to 'fix', AKA write, laws.
"The idea that Congress never would have created a system that was essentially designed to fail, by making health insurance unaffordable to so many people the law presumably was intended to help, is irrelevant, Cass said."
It's not only irrelevant, the premise is false. It is public knowledge it was written that way on purpose.
"Another factor that may be at work is the effect a decision could have on the court's reputation"
Which is why the AP 'journalist' opened with 'Court could wipe away health insurance for millions '
Pravda under the Soviets would have rejected this as too blatantly propagandist.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_28243880/how-do-justices-weigh-loss-health-insurance-millions
First line: "The Supreme Court could wipe away health insurance for millions of Americans"
The court does no such thing. The court is charged with one job: ruling on Constitutionality and law.
"But would the court take away a benefit from so many people? Should the justices even consider such consequences?"
The court won't take away anything. Claiming it will is calculated to blame them.
They absolutely should not consider consequences, as that is ACTIVIST not JUDICIAL. It is the job of the elected representatives to 'fix', AKA write, laws.
"The idea that Congress never would have created a system that was essentially designed to fail, by making health insurance unaffordable to so many people the law presumably was intended to help, is irrelevant, Cass said."
It's not only irrelevant, the premise is false. It is public knowledge it was written that way on purpose.
"Another factor that may be at work is the effect a decision could have on the court's reputation"
Which is why the AP 'journalist' opened with 'Court could wipe away health insurance for millions '
Pravda under the Soviets would have rejected this as too blatantly propagandist.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_28243880/how-do-justices-weigh-loss-health-insurance-millions