Reuters spins Judge Vinson to the left
Reuters (from the Latin for “disdain”) isn’t exactly holding its cards close to its chest. Here’s the second graf from Tom Brown’s write-up on today’s ObamaCare strikedown:
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the reform law’s so-called individual mandate went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.
“So-called” by everyone from the President on down, so Brown could probably safely drop the scare quotes. And you know what he means by mentioning Reagan: “Appointed by Reagan? That judge must be ancient! And a conservative! Eeeeeeeeyyyyyyaaaaaah!” Also, was Reagan’s party affiliation ever in doubt? And is the President who appointed Vinson 20-plus years ago really rank as second-graf important?
Now the fourth graf:
Referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, he sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring it unconstitutional.
Eeeeeeevil Republican attorneys general, trying to take away you “Patient Protection and Affordable Care” Act. (Hey, I can use scare quotes almost as well as Reuters.) What Brown is implying here, of course, is that trying to roll back ObamaCare is the height of partisanship. What Brown doesn’t feel necessary to mention is that the bill passed on an entirely partisan Democratic vote in both houses, and even then required legal trickery to get the job done.
Remember when Reuters used to do this kind of smear with subtlety? Yeah, me neither.
There is so much deliciousness in the opinion like this:
From the opinion:
“Or what if two of the purported “unique” factors [of the health-care market] — inevitable participation coupled with cost-shifting — are present? For example, virtually no one can opt out of the housing market (broadly defined) and a majority of people will at some point buy a home. The vast majority of those homes will be financed with a mortgage, a large number of which (particularly in difficult economic times, as we have seen most recently) will go into default, thereby cost-shifting billions of dollars to third parties and the federal government. Should Congress thus have power under the Commerce Clause to preemptively regulate and require individuals above a certain income level to purchase a home financed with a mortgage (and secured with mortgage guaranty insurance) in order to add stability to the housing and financial markets (and to guard against the possibility of future cost-shifting because of a defaulted mortgage), on the theory that most everyone is currently, or inevitably one day will be, active in the housing market?”
And he lives in Florida!
And we all know what that means (Bush v. Gore)