blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: CNN Maybe, Just Maybe, Screwed Up The Headlines Earlier

6.28.2012

CNN Maybe, Just Maybe, Screwed Up The Headlines Earlier



Edit: Funny photoshop.

(If you are too young to get it.)

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think each major news site had their headlines (upholding and striking down) already completed, but some posted the wrong ones. Fox had "NObama" up for about 10 minutes, and CNN did run what you posted.

Learning a Little Law said...

I was watching CNN, and once their analysts read the opinion as far as the section where it wasn't constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary & Proper Clause, CNN called it as overturned/unconstitutional. Took about 5-10 minutes before they figured it out and corrected it.

Tricky Justice Roberts, not putting his legal analysis in a 15-second sound bite and making "journalists" read something before reporting on it.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you had Premature Elation there old Green. Calm down um-kay?

Cleverly Disguised said...

I’m guessin’ each news organization had the preferred headline pre-prepared and couldn’t help themselves when they pulled the trigger. Shattered hopes are often very hard to swallow and often need a touch of Rye to make them palatable. Speaker Boehner often looks to have used that very cure.

Anonymous said...

Learning a little law

Then you get what Roberts was doing, gutting the Commerce Clause and pushing back against the Necessary and Proper Clause to setup for numerous future challenges. Trade off to limit futute congressional powers.

Sean Elliott's Dirty Dead Kidney said...

"Eyewitness News: Where the News Comes First and Sports Sleeps in the Wet Spot."

Anonymous said...

All I know is each passing day, we have more and more people in this country needing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of care that contribute zero or negative dollars toward that health care; with the expectation that others will. Works fine when 99% of the population is generally healthy and productive and cover their own medical costs and can easily pick up the slack for the 1% that truly need help. Not so good when it's about a 50-50 split as it seems to be today. How many net non-taxpayers that need extreme amounts of medical care for "free" can we afford in this country?

Learning a Little Law said...

11:47 -

It's certainly interesting reasoning. And you're right - it's been a long time since something was invalidated under the Commerce Clause.

Anonymous said...

I'm disappointed about Fox news making the same mistake. I was really wanting to slam CNN for being wrong just so they could try to be first. However, Fox made it a moot point since they did the same thing.

gern blansten

Anonymous said...

When you have a health care insurance system that is basically market driven, you will have a lot of people who will not be getting insurance coverage regardless of whether they work hard and try to lead a health life style. This is because insurance companies do not want to insure older people and/or people who have had some type of illness. If you are a politician or work for the government you have good health care and insurance. If you work for a big corporation or if you have some independent wealth you will usually have good heath care insurance. People who have the power to have the general public supplement or pay their health insurance such as people working in government jobs and the politicians have affordable health insurance. People who work for large companies usually have decent health insurance. Most other people don't unless they have a really nice income then you will be able to have good health care. The idea that government can solve all of the country's health care problems is wishful thinking, it won't. But having a country where people cannot afford health care and therefore they go to the emergency room for care is not a very good system either. There is much that is in the Affordable Health Car Act that is good and may improve things for people with preexisting conditions and who are growing older. They are designed to limit the power of insurance companies to deny us coverage. These things don't get mentioned very much because it always just seems to be called Obamacare. Obama got it passed so it has to be bad. Well maybe if the rich politicians who have nice health care don't like it and the profit driven insurance companies will have to actually provide health care coverage instead of deny it based upon preexisting conditions, then maybe it is not as bad as they make it out to be.

Anonymous said...

We're all doomed.

Anonymous said...

On December 21 2012 everything will be overturned.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody out there know if the Affordable Health Care Act will help seniors on a fixed income from escalating insurance premium costs? Yes, I know as we age, stuff happens and we have to pay for that, but many seniors will have to give up insurance supplemental policies unless a cap is put on the monthly premiums.

Even our county and school tax folks give seniors a break when they freeze taxes at sixty five.

Anonymous said...

Re: Photoshop

The creativity of Americans may be the last "thing" we are absolutely #1 at. Therefore hope.

Anonymous said...

2:40, Under the AHA all seniors will be fed to alligators on their 72nd birthday. Sorry bout your bad luck, that is what we get when we pass bills just so we can see what is in them. Kinda like that time I signed a vehicle lease agreement and failed to read I could only drive 10K miles a year. Cost me out the arse at the end, but hey I had a nice care for a while!

Katy Anders said...

Oh no! If the forwarded emails I get every day are accurate, the individual mandate is the part that is going to force us all to be gay Muslims, right?

Anonymous said...

Now Katie, we all know your not the least bit interested in a man date!

Katy Anders said...

@11:40: Ha! I've always said puns are the highest form of humor!