Rush predicted that NBC would have a weak statement about this and he was correct...Once again it's the State-Run media doing Obama's bidding....who's head rolled????....How many heads rolled????....how can any American trust anything that is on the state-run media??? What a shame for the America to be in this situation....
Posted at 05:34 PM ET, 04/03/2012 TheWashingtonPost
NBC issues apology on Zimmerman tape screw-up
By Erik Wemple
NBC apologizes to viewers, but not directly to this viewer. (AFP/GETTY IMAGES) NBC has completed its investigation into the mishandling of the police dispatcher’s conversation with George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. And the process ends with a finding of error, plus an apology. Here is the statement just issued by the network:
During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.
That apology addresses the “Today” show’s failure to abridge accurately the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher in this high-profile case. This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
And here is how it actually went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black
.
No matter how you feel about Zimmerman, that bit of tape editing was unfair to the truth and to Zimmerman’s reputation, such as it is. Reaction on Twitter and elsewhere to my previous post on this matter, was brutal toward NBC, with many comments suggesting the worst about the network’s motivations, reliability and so on.
Does the statement adequately address those concerns? On the good front, it acknowledges the mistake and apologizes to viewers for the bad editing. It’s a forthright correction and spares us any excuses about the faulty portrayal. On the bad front, the statement is skimpy on the details on just how the mistake unfolded. Nor does it articulate an apology directly to George Zimmerman, the “viewer” who is most aggrieved by the screw-up. In light of all that’s happened, Zimmerman may be a tough person for a news network to apologize to, but that’s just the point: Apologies are hard.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Here Comes Obama's Death Panels!!!
Here Comes Obama's Death Panels....and you probably won't see this reported in the state-run media....Obamacare HAS TO GO...by the court or by repeal....
Doctor Panels Recommend Fewer Tests for Patients
By RONI CARYN RABIN Published: April 4, 2012
In a move likely to alter treatment standards in hospitals and doctors’ offices nationwide, a group of nine medical specialty boards plans to recommend on Wednesday that doctors perform 45 common tests and procedures less often, and to urge patients to question these services if they are offered. Eight other specialty boards are preparing to follow suit with additional lists of procedures their members should perform far less often.
The recommendations represent an unusually frank acknowledgment by physicians that many profitable tests and procedures are performed unnecessarily and may harm patients. By some estimates, unnecessary treatment constitutes one-third of medical spending in the United States.
“Overuse is one of the most serious crises in American medicine,” said Dr. Lawrence Smith, physician-in-chief at North Shore-LIJ Health System and dean of the Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, who was not involved in the initiative. “Many people have thought that the organizations most resistant to this idea would be the specialty organizations, so this is a very powerful message.”
Many previous attempts to rein in unnecessary care have faltered, but guidance coming from respected physician groups is likely to exert more influence than directives from other quarters. But their change of heart also reflects recent changes in the health care marketplace.
Insurers and other payers are seeking to shift more of their financial pain to providers like hospitals and physician practices, and efforts are being made to reduce financial incentives for doctors to run more tests.
The specialty groups are announcing the educational initiative called Choosing Wisely, directed at both patients and physicians, under the auspices of the American Board of Internal Medicine and in partnership with Consumer Reports.
The list of tests and procedures they advise against includes EKGs done routinely during a physical, even when there is no sign of heart trouble, M.R.I.’s ordered whenever a patient complains of back pain, and antibiotics prescribed for mild sinusitis — all quite common.
The American College of Cardiology is urging heart specialists not to perform routine stress cardiac imaging in asymptomatic patients, and the American College of Radiology is telling radiologists not to run imaging scans on patients suffering from simple headaches. The American Gastroenterological Association is urging its physicians to prescribe the lowest doses of medication needed to control acid reflux disease.
Even oncologists are being urged to cut back on scans for patients with early stage breast and prostate cancers that are not likely to spread, and kidney disease doctors are urged not to start chronic dialysis before having a serious discussion with the patient and family.
Other efforts to limit testing for patients have provoked backlashes. In November 2009, new mammography guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advised women to be screened less frequently for breast cancer, stoking fear among patients about increasing government control over personal health care decisions and the rationing of treatment.
“Any information that can help inform medical decisions is good — the concern is when the information starts to be used not just to inform decisions, but by payers to limit decisions that a patient can make,” said Kathryn Nix, health care policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation a conservative research group. “With health care reform, changes in Medicare and the advent of accountable care organizations, there has been a strong push for using this information to limit patients’ ability to make decisions themselves.”
Dr. Christine K. Cassel, president and chief executive officer of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, disagreed, saying the United States can pay for all Americans’ health care needs as long as care is appropriate: “In fact, rationing is not necessary if you just don’t do the things that don’t help.”
Some experts estimate that up to one-third of the $2 trillion of annual health care costs in the United States each year is spent on unnecessary hospitalizations and tests, unproven treatments, ineffective new drugs and medical devices, and futile care at the end of life.
Some of the tests being discouraged — like CT scans for someone who fainted but has no other neurological problems — are largely motivated by concerns over a malpractice lawsuits, experts said. Clear, evidence-based guidelines like the ones to be issued Wednesday will go far both to reassure physicians and to shield them from litigation.
Still, many specialists and patient advocates expressed caution, warning that the directives could be misinterpreted and applied too broadly at the expense of patients.
“These all sound reasonable, but don’t forget that every person you’re looking after is unique,” said Dr. Eric Topol, chief academic officer of Scripps Health, a health system based in San Diego, adding that he worried that the group’s advice would make tailoring care to individual patients harder. “This kind of one-size-fits-all approach can be a real detriment to good care.”
Cancer patients also expressed concern that discouraging the use of experimental treatments could diminish their chances at finding the right drug to quash their disease.
“I was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer right out the gate, and I did very well — I was what they call a ‘super responder,’ and now I have no evidence of disease,” said Kristy Larch, a 44-year-old mother of two from Seattle, who was treated with Avastin, a drug that the F.D.A. no longer approves for breast cancer treatment. “Doctors can’t practice good medicine if we tie their hands.”
Many commended the specialty groups for their bold action, saying the initiative could alienate their own members, since doing fewer diagnostic tests and procedures can cut into a physician’s income under fee-for-service payment schemes that pay for each patient encounter separately.
“It’s courageous that these societies are stepping up,” said Dr. John Santa, director of the health ratings center of Consumer Reports. “I am a primary care internist myself, and I’m anticipating running into some of my colleagues who will say, ‘Y’ know, John, we all know we’ve done EKGs that weren’t necessary and bone density tests that weren’t necessary, but, you know, that was a little bit of extra money for us.’ ”
Doctor Panels Recommend Fewer Tests for Patients
By RONI CARYN RABIN Published: April 4, 2012
In a move likely to alter treatment standards in hospitals and doctors’ offices nationwide, a group of nine medical specialty boards plans to recommend on Wednesday that doctors perform 45 common tests and procedures less often, and to urge patients to question these services if they are offered. Eight other specialty boards are preparing to follow suit with additional lists of procedures their members should perform far less often.
The recommendations represent an unusually frank acknowledgment by physicians that many profitable tests and procedures are performed unnecessarily and may harm patients. By some estimates, unnecessary treatment constitutes one-third of medical spending in the United States.
“Overuse is one of the most serious crises in American medicine,” said Dr. Lawrence Smith, physician-in-chief at North Shore-LIJ Health System and dean of the Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, who was not involved in the initiative. “Many people have thought that the organizations most resistant to this idea would be the specialty organizations, so this is a very powerful message.”
Many previous attempts to rein in unnecessary care have faltered, but guidance coming from respected physician groups is likely to exert more influence than directives from other quarters. But their change of heart also reflects recent changes in the health care marketplace.
Insurers and other payers are seeking to shift more of their financial pain to providers like hospitals and physician practices, and efforts are being made to reduce financial incentives for doctors to run more tests.
The specialty groups are announcing the educational initiative called Choosing Wisely, directed at both patients and physicians, under the auspices of the American Board of Internal Medicine and in partnership with Consumer Reports.
The list of tests and procedures they advise against includes EKGs done routinely during a physical, even when there is no sign of heart trouble, M.R.I.’s ordered whenever a patient complains of back pain, and antibiotics prescribed for mild sinusitis — all quite common.
The American College of Cardiology is urging heart specialists not to perform routine stress cardiac imaging in asymptomatic patients, and the American College of Radiology is telling radiologists not to run imaging scans on patients suffering from simple headaches. The American Gastroenterological Association is urging its physicians to prescribe the lowest doses of medication needed to control acid reflux disease.
Even oncologists are being urged to cut back on scans for patients with early stage breast and prostate cancers that are not likely to spread, and kidney disease doctors are urged not to start chronic dialysis before having a serious discussion with the patient and family.
Other efforts to limit testing for patients have provoked backlashes. In November 2009, new mammography guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advised women to be screened less frequently for breast cancer, stoking fear among patients about increasing government control over personal health care decisions and the rationing of treatment.
“Any information that can help inform medical decisions is good — the concern is when the information starts to be used not just to inform decisions, but by payers to limit decisions that a patient can make,” said Kathryn Nix, health care policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation a conservative research group. “With health care reform, changes in Medicare and the advent of accountable care organizations, there has been a strong push for using this information to limit patients’ ability to make decisions themselves.”
Dr. Christine K. Cassel, president and chief executive officer of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, disagreed, saying the United States can pay for all Americans’ health care needs as long as care is appropriate: “In fact, rationing is not necessary if you just don’t do the things that don’t help.”
Some experts estimate that up to one-third of the $2 trillion of annual health care costs in the United States each year is spent on unnecessary hospitalizations and tests, unproven treatments, ineffective new drugs and medical devices, and futile care at the end of life.
Some of the tests being discouraged — like CT scans for someone who fainted but has no other neurological problems — are largely motivated by concerns over a malpractice lawsuits, experts said. Clear, evidence-based guidelines like the ones to be issued Wednesday will go far both to reassure physicians and to shield them from litigation.
Still, many specialists and patient advocates expressed caution, warning that the directives could be misinterpreted and applied too broadly at the expense of patients.
“These all sound reasonable, but don’t forget that every person you’re looking after is unique,” said Dr. Eric Topol, chief academic officer of Scripps Health, a health system based in San Diego, adding that he worried that the group’s advice would make tailoring care to individual patients harder. “This kind of one-size-fits-all approach can be a real detriment to good care.”
Cancer patients also expressed concern that discouraging the use of experimental treatments could diminish their chances at finding the right drug to quash their disease.
“I was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer right out the gate, and I did very well — I was what they call a ‘super responder,’ and now I have no evidence of disease,” said Kristy Larch, a 44-year-old mother of two from Seattle, who was treated with Avastin, a drug that the F.D.A. no longer approves for breast cancer treatment. “Doctors can’t practice good medicine if we tie their hands.”
Many commended the specialty groups for their bold action, saying the initiative could alienate their own members, since doing fewer diagnostic tests and procedures can cut into a physician’s income under fee-for-service payment schemes that pay for each patient encounter separately.
“It’s courageous that these societies are stepping up,” said Dr. John Santa, director of the health ratings center of Consumer Reports. “I am a primary care internist myself, and I’m anticipating running into some of my colleagues who will say, ‘Y’ know, John, we all know we’ve done EKGs that weren’t necessary and bone density tests that weren’t necessary, but, you know, that was a little bit of extra money for us.’ ”
Arrogant, Egotistical Obama.....We've got to Keep Reminding Him that He NOT a Dictator!
What a shame it is that America has to keep reminding this President that he NOT a Dictator and he IS subject to the Constitution and the Rule of Law....No one can say he is not Arrogant and Egotistical...
Justice Department under deadline to answer court over Obama's health law comments
Published April 04, 2012 | FoxNews.com
The Obama Justice Department has roughly 24 hours to explain to a federal appeals court whether the administration believes judges have the power to overturn federal laws -- in the latest escalation between the two branches of government over the federal health care overhaul.
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday at noon whether the administration believes judges have that authority. The challenge came after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care law and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."
One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court case.
The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.
"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.
Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to that question.
A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.
Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.
All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.
The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, though, told Fox News that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws.
"Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as their duty and responsibility the ability of striking down laws as unconstitutional," Carney said Tuesday.
However, he said the president was specifically referring to "the precedent under the Commerce Clause" regarding a legislature's ability to address "challenges to our national economy."
The most significant Supreme Court case hinges on the question of whether the individual mandate to buy health insurance violates the Commerce Clause. The administration argues it does not.
Though Carney said the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
Carney said that Obama was expressing the point that on national economic challenges, "there should be due deference paid as a matter of precedent to our democratically elected officials."
Justice Department under deadline to answer court over Obama's health law comments
Published April 04, 2012 | FoxNews.com
The Obama Justice Department has roughly 24 hours to explain to a federal appeals court whether the administration believes judges have the power to overturn federal laws -- in the latest escalation between the two branches of government over the federal health care overhaul.
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday at noon whether the administration believes judges have that authority. The challenge came after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care law and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."
One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court case.
The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.
"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.
Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to that question.
A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.
Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.
All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.
The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, though, told Fox News that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws.
"Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as their duty and responsibility the ability of striking down laws as unconstitutional," Carney said Tuesday.
However, he said the president was specifically referring to "the precedent under the Commerce Clause" regarding a legislature's ability to address "challenges to our national economy."
The most significant Supreme Court case hinges on the question of whether the individual mandate to buy health insurance violates the Commerce Clause. The administration argues it does not.
Though Carney said the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
Carney said that Obama was expressing the point that on national economic challenges, "there should be due deference paid as a matter of precedent to our democratically elected officials."
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Has Obama Been Tipped Off...or Is He Really Just That Arrogant!
You have got to wonder whether Obama has been tipped off by one of this liberally appointed justices and is trying to play big time defense in advance of a ruling...I wouldn't put that past this corrupt President and Administration....
Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare
By Jeff Mason WASHINGTON | Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:45pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism" that Republicans say they abhor.
Obama, a Democrat, had not commented publicly on the Supreme Court's deliberations since it heard arguments for and against the healthcare law last week.
Known as the "Affordable Care Act" or "Obamacare," the measure to expand health insurance for millions of Americans is considered Obama's signature domestic policy achievement.
A rejection by the court would be a big blow to Obama going into the November 6 presidential election.
Republican presidential candidates, who are vying to take on Obama in November elections, have promised to repeal the law if one of them wins the White House.
Obama's advisers say they have not prepared contingency plans if the measure fails. But the president -- who expressed confidence that the court would uphold the law -- made clear how he would address it on the campaign trail if the court strikes it down.
"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.
Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.
The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.
"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.
"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.
POLITICAL DEBATE
The Supreme Court justices are expected to issue decisions in the dispute by late June, a time when the presidential campaign season is likely to be in full swing.
"It's not that common for presidents to get into direct verbal confrontations with the Supreme Court," said Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman. "But it's also not that common for the Supreme Court to threaten to override one of the president's central legislative accomplishments."
A spokeswoman for the court declined to comment on Obama's remarks.
A spokeswoman for Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, took issue with Obama's preemptive strike and his use of the word "unprecedented."
"What was ‘unprecedented' was the partisan process President Obama used to shove this unconstitutional bill through despite the overwhelming objections from Americans across the country," said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul.
"Even if the law is upheld, Governor Romney will begin the process of repealing it on Day One in office."
Romney shepherded healthcare reform through the state of Massachusetts when he was governor there. Democrats note that Romney's law was an inspiration for Obama's.
The president, who once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said the "individual mandate" that requires most people to buy insurance was critical to the success of the healthcare overhaul.
The Supreme Court is looking at whether Congress exceeded its power to regulate commerce in U.S. states with that mandate.
"I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care," Obama said.
"So there's not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this. And I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate."
(Additional reporting by Joan Biskupic, Tabassum Zakaria, Samson Reiny, and Steve Holland. Editing by Christopher Wilson)
The Republicans are fighting back against Obama's totally unappropriate comments...
Republicans slam Obama over warning to 'unelected' Supreme Court
Published April 03, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Republicans are accusing President Obama of trying to "intimidate" the Supreme Court by wrongly suggesting a ruling against the health care overhaul would be "judicial activism."
Obama, during a joint press conference Monday with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, said he's "confident" the law will be upheld but cautioned the "unelected" court against reaching any other conclusion. In doing so, Obama invoked what he described as conservative concerns about judicial activism.
But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called it a "fantasy" to think "every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.'"
"Judicial activism or restraint is not measured by which side wins but by whether the Court correctly applied the law," he said.
The president's challenge to the high court drew widespread attention, on the eve of the Republican presidential candidates' next round of primaries -- Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia are voting Tuesday. All the candidates oppose the health care law, though front-runner Mitt Romney has come under fire for his role in passing one with similar provisions while governor of Massachusetts.
Romney, who describes the federal law as an overreach, also slammed Obama for his Supreme Court comments on Tuesday.
Romney, in an interview on Fox News, said an activist court is one that "departs" from the Constitution and legislates from the bench. In this case, he said, the judges simply are weighing whether a law is constitutional.
"That will not be an activist court -- that will be a court following the Constitution," Romney said.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, agreed.
"Nothing could be more appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide than whether a bill is constitutional or not," he told Fox News Radio.
Smith said he was "disappointed" by the president's remarks.
"It is not unprecedented at all for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional, they do that on a regular basis so it's not unprecedented at all," he said. "What is unprecedented is for the president of the United States trying to intimidate the Supreme Court."
The Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments last week in four separate challenges to the health care law, which stands as the president's signature domestic policy accomplishment. A central challenge was over the individual mandate -- the requirement that Americans buy health insurance. Critics say the mandate is unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot force people into the insurance marketplace.
Obama on Monday said that without such a mandate, the law would not have a mechanism to ensure those with preexisting conditions get health care. He said the law is constitutional.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare
By Jeff Mason WASHINGTON | Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:45pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism" that Republicans say they abhor.
Obama, a Democrat, had not commented publicly on the Supreme Court's deliberations since it heard arguments for and against the healthcare law last week.
Known as the "Affordable Care Act" or "Obamacare," the measure to expand health insurance for millions of Americans is considered Obama's signature domestic policy achievement.
A rejection by the court would be a big blow to Obama going into the November 6 presidential election.
Republican presidential candidates, who are vying to take on Obama in November elections, have promised to repeal the law if one of them wins the White House.
Obama's advisers say they have not prepared contingency plans if the measure fails. But the president -- who expressed confidence that the court would uphold the law -- made clear how he would address it on the campaign trail if the court strikes it down.
"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.
Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.
The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.
"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.
"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.
POLITICAL DEBATE
The Supreme Court justices are expected to issue decisions in the dispute by late June, a time when the presidential campaign season is likely to be in full swing.
"It's not that common for presidents to get into direct verbal confrontations with the Supreme Court," said Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman. "But it's also not that common for the Supreme Court to threaten to override one of the president's central legislative accomplishments."
A spokeswoman for the court declined to comment on Obama's remarks.
A spokeswoman for Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, took issue with Obama's preemptive strike and his use of the word "unprecedented."
"What was ‘unprecedented' was the partisan process President Obama used to shove this unconstitutional bill through despite the overwhelming objections from Americans across the country," said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul.
"Even if the law is upheld, Governor Romney will begin the process of repealing it on Day One in office."
Romney shepherded healthcare reform through the state of Massachusetts when he was governor there. Democrats note that Romney's law was an inspiration for Obama's.
The president, who once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said the "individual mandate" that requires most people to buy insurance was critical to the success of the healthcare overhaul.
The Supreme Court is looking at whether Congress exceeded its power to regulate commerce in U.S. states with that mandate.
"I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care," Obama said.
"So there's not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this. And I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate."
(Additional reporting by Joan Biskupic, Tabassum Zakaria, Samson Reiny, and Steve Holland. Editing by Christopher Wilson)
The Republicans are fighting back against Obama's totally unappropriate comments...
Republicans slam Obama over warning to 'unelected' Supreme Court
Published April 03, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Republicans are accusing President Obama of trying to "intimidate" the Supreme Court by wrongly suggesting a ruling against the health care overhaul would be "judicial activism."
Obama, during a joint press conference Monday with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, said he's "confident" the law will be upheld but cautioned the "unelected" court against reaching any other conclusion. In doing so, Obama invoked what he described as conservative concerns about judicial activism.
But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called it a "fantasy" to think "every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.'"
"Judicial activism or restraint is not measured by which side wins but by whether the Court correctly applied the law," he said.
The president's challenge to the high court drew widespread attention, on the eve of the Republican presidential candidates' next round of primaries -- Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia are voting Tuesday. All the candidates oppose the health care law, though front-runner Mitt Romney has come under fire for his role in passing one with similar provisions while governor of Massachusetts.
Romney, who describes the federal law as an overreach, also slammed Obama for his Supreme Court comments on Tuesday.
Romney, in an interview on Fox News, said an activist court is one that "departs" from the Constitution and legislates from the bench. In this case, he said, the judges simply are weighing whether a law is constitutional.
"That will not be an activist court -- that will be a court following the Constitution," Romney said.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, agreed.
"Nothing could be more appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide than whether a bill is constitutional or not," he told Fox News Radio.
Smith said he was "disappointed" by the president's remarks.
"It is not unprecedented at all for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional, they do that on a regular basis so it's not unprecedented at all," he said. "What is unprecedented is for the president of the United States trying to intimidate the Supreme Court."
The Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments last week in four separate challenges to the health care law, which stands as the president's signature domestic policy accomplishment. A central challenge was over the individual mandate -- the requirement that Americans buy health insurance. Critics say the mandate is unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot force people into the insurance marketplace.
Obama on Monday said that without such a mandate, the law would not have a mechanism to ensure those with preexisting conditions get health care. He said the law is constitutional.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Arrogant, Egotistical, Eliteist, Totally Hypocritical Obama...What a Disgrace for America!
Obama Slams Supreme Court over Obamacare
The highest elected official in the United States dished out an extra helping of irony yesterday when, in speaking at a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Barack Obama slammed the Supreme Court as an "unelected group of people" who will have turned to "judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint" if they strike down Obamacare.
The President's remarks imply that the Court, were it to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, would be acting recklessly in undertaking judicial review of Congress' unprecedented use of the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health care or pay a penalty. The irony in all this is that this President has presided over an Administration that is the epitome of recklessly abusing power, at times in flagrant violation of the Constitution, and has empowered unelected bureaucrats to write scads of new regulations impacting nearly every corner of American life.
Obamacare, of course, is a prime example of that unchecked and multiplying web of the President's boundless dictates. The law's Independent Payment Advisory Board (otherwise known as "IPAB") is packed with unelected bureaucrats who have the power to limit seniors' treatment options and access to care, essentially ending Medicare as we know it.
On top of IPAB, Obamacare is rife with new regulations, all courtesy of unelected bureaucrats. Professor of law Gary Lawson writes that the implementation of Obamcare "will require many years and literally thousands of administrative regulations, and those regulations will ultimately determine the substantive content and coverage of the law." In other words, the future of health care in America will not be determined by the people's elected representatives, but by administrative rulemakings handed down by unelected and largely unknown agency officials. How's that for a "democratically elected government"?
Obamacare, though, isn't the only example of the Obama Administration imposing its will via executive fiat. In a new study, Heritage's James Gattuso and Diane Katz detail 106 new major federal regulations that added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. And those are regulations enacted not by elected officials who are accountable to voters, but by Washington bureaucrats who can wield their power without having to answer to the people.
While the President is throwing stones at the court, he's living in a glass house from which he has exercised his tyrannical abuse of power. In January, the President cast aside the Constitution when he illegally appointed Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, along with three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, all without Senate approval, as the Constitution requires. Former attorney general Ed Meese described the President's actions as "a constitutional abuse of a high order," and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said it was "a brazen attempt to undercut the role of the Senate to advise and consent the executive branch on appointments."
And this is the President who said in December, "What I'm not gonna do is wait for Congress. So wherever we have an opportunity and I have the executive authority to go ahead and get some things done, we're just gonna go ahead and do 'em," irrespective of whether the people's duly elected representatives have a say in the matter.
Now that the President is seeing the potential for his signature legislation to go down in flames because of its unconstitutional individual mandate, he is lashing out at the Supreme Court. To date, President Obama has enjoyed ruling with impunity and has attempted to carry out his agenda without so much as a hat tip to the Constitution. But come June when the Court rules on Obamacare, the President might finally see part of his agenda stopped in its tracks.
The highest elected official in the United States dished out an extra helping of irony yesterday when, in speaking at a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Barack Obama slammed the Supreme Court as an "unelected group of people" who will have turned to "judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint" if they strike down Obamacare.
The President's remarks imply that the Court, were it to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, would be acting recklessly in undertaking judicial review of Congress' unprecedented use of the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health care or pay a penalty. The irony in all this is that this President has presided over an Administration that is the epitome of recklessly abusing power, at times in flagrant violation of the Constitution, and has empowered unelected bureaucrats to write scads of new regulations impacting nearly every corner of American life.
Obamacare, of course, is a prime example of that unchecked and multiplying web of the President's boundless dictates. The law's Independent Payment Advisory Board (otherwise known as "IPAB") is packed with unelected bureaucrats who have the power to limit seniors' treatment options and access to care, essentially ending Medicare as we know it.
On top of IPAB, Obamacare is rife with new regulations, all courtesy of unelected bureaucrats. Professor of law Gary Lawson writes that the implementation of Obamcare "will require many years and literally thousands of administrative regulations, and those regulations will ultimately determine the substantive content and coverage of the law." In other words, the future of health care in America will not be determined by the people's elected representatives, but by administrative rulemakings handed down by unelected and largely unknown agency officials. How's that for a "democratically elected government"?
Obamacare, though, isn't the only example of the Obama Administration imposing its will via executive fiat. In a new study, Heritage's James Gattuso and Diane Katz detail 106 new major federal regulations that added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. And those are regulations enacted not by elected officials who are accountable to voters, but by Washington bureaucrats who can wield their power without having to answer to the people.
While the President is throwing stones at the court, he's living in a glass house from which he has exercised his tyrannical abuse of power. In January, the President cast aside the Constitution when he illegally appointed Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, along with three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, all without Senate approval, as the Constitution requires. Former attorney general Ed Meese described the President's actions as "a constitutional abuse of a high order," and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said it was "a brazen attempt to undercut the role of the Senate to advise and consent the executive branch on appointments."
And this is the President who said in December, "What I'm not gonna do is wait for Congress. So wherever we have an opportunity and I have the executive authority to go ahead and get some things done, we're just gonna go ahead and do 'em," irrespective of whether the people's duly elected representatives have a say in the matter.
Now that the President is seeing the potential for his signature legislation to go down in flames because of its unconstitutional individual mandate, he is lashing out at the Supreme Court. To date, President Obama has enjoyed ruling with impunity and has attempted to carry out his agenda without so much as a hat tip to the Constitution. But come June when the Court rules on Obamacare, the President might finally see part of his agenda stopped in its tracks.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Green Energy.....Obama's Follie....he's just wasting our Taxpayer Money....
More evidence that Obama is just wasting our money on this green energy love of his.......
Administration-touted solar firm seeks bankruptcy protection
Published April 02, 2012 | Associated Press
WILMINGTON, Del. – A California solar energy company that was unable to meet a deadline for an Energy Department loan guarantee last year has sought bankruptcy protection in Delaware.
Solar Trust of America's Chapter 11 filing on Monday listed assets between $1 million and $10 million, and liabilities between $10 million and $50 million.
The filing comes amid the ongoing controversy surrounding Solyndra, a solar firm that received a half-billion dollar federal loan and was touted by the Obama administration before declaring bankruptcy last year.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and California Gov. Jerry Brown were on hand last June when Solar Trust broke ground on a 1,000-megawatt project in California. The project was touted as the world's largest solar power plant and a keystone of the Obama administration's efforts to promote solar energy.
Administration-touted solar firm seeks bankruptcy protection
Published April 02, 2012 | Associated Press
WILMINGTON, Del. – A California solar energy company that was unable to meet a deadline for an Energy Department loan guarantee last year has sought bankruptcy protection in Delaware.
Solar Trust of America's Chapter 11 filing on Monday listed assets between $1 million and $10 million, and liabilities between $10 million and $50 million.
The filing comes amid the ongoing controversy surrounding Solyndra, a solar firm that received a half-billion dollar federal loan and was touted by the Obama administration before declaring bankruptcy last year.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and California Gov. Jerry Brown were on hand last June when Solar Trust broke ground on a 1,000-megawatt project in California. The project was touted as the world's largest solar power plant and a keystone of the Obama administration's efforts to promote solar energy.
Obama - Threatening the Supreme Court...Who does he think he is...a dictator?????
Who Does Obama Think He Is????.....If I were on the Supreme Court I would strike down the mandate solely because he is trying to bully them into taking his position.....he acts like he thinks he's a dictator.....This guy has GOT to GO!
Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law
Published April 02, 2012 | FoxNews.com
President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.
The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.
The Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments last week in four separate challenges to the health care law, which stands as the president's signature domestic policy accomplishment. A central challenge was over the individual mandate -- the requirement that Americans buy health insurance. Critics say the mandate is unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot force people into the insurance marketplace.
Obama on Monday said that without such a mandate, the law would not have a mechanism to ensure those with preexisting conditions get health care.
"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," Obama said, describing the law as "constitutional."
The president spoke following meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Until the heath care case remarks, the press conference was focused mostly on economic issues, as well as the war on drugs.
The leaders vowed a new effort to boost North American trade and cut needless regulation that stifles it. "Our three nations are going to sit down together, go through the books and simplify and eliminate more regulations that will make our joint economies stronger," Obama said.
Obama noted trade among the three neighbors now tops $1 trillion a year, and he wants to see that number rise.
But notable by its absence from the post-summit news conference in the Rose Garden was the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada's oil sands in Alberta to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Obama shelved the plan pending further review -- and has endured ferocious GOP attacks ever since, with Republicans calling the move a blow to job creation and U.S. energy needs. He maintains GOP leaders in Congress forced his hand by insisting on a decision before an acceptable pipeline route was found.
Harper has voiced disappointment with Obama's decision. He also visited China in February to explore alternatives. Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves -- more than 170 billion barrels -- after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to rise to 3.7 million by 2025.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law
Published April 02, 2012 | FoxNews.com
President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.
The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.
The Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments last week in four separate challenges to the health care law, which stands as the president's signature domestic policy accomplishment. A central challenge was over the individual mandate -- the requirement that Americans buy health insurance. Critics say the mandate is unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot force people into the insurance marketplace.
Obama on Monday said that without such a mandate, the law would not have a mechanism to ensure those with preexisting conditions get health care.
"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," Obama said, describing the law as "constitutional."
The president spoke following meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Until the heath care case remarks, the press conference was focused mostly on economic issues, as well as the war on drugs.
The leaders vowed a new effort to boost North American trade and cut needless regulation that stifles it. "Our three nations are going to sit down together, go through the books and simplify and eliminate more regulations that will make our joint economies stronger," Obama said.
Obama noted trade among the three neighbors now tops $1 trillion a year, and he wants to see that number rise.
But notable by its absence from the post-summit news conference in the Rose Garden was the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada's oil sands in Alberta to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Obama shelved the plan pending further review -- and has endured ferocious GOP attacks ever since, with Republicans calling the move a blow to job creation and U.S. energy needs. He maintains GOP leaders in Congress forced his hand by insisting on a decision before an acceptable pipeline route was found.
Harper has voiced disappointment with Obama's decision. He also visited China in February to explore alternatives. Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves -- more than 170 billion barrels -- after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to rise to 3.7 million by 2025.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)