That's how it seems, reading about issues before the courts on which the political class and other elites have strong feelings. Now that attention returns to (and will soon escalate over) President Obama's individual health care mandate, recall as you stay current how the coverage will include bias to frame the issue, largely as one of Republican-appointed judges blocking Obama.
Naturally you recall the earlier stories, following favorable rulings, about Democrat-appointed judges giving Obama an assist. Right?
This morning's WSJ item, preceding today's ruling, included this:
The Virginia challenge is led by that state's attorney general, Republican Ken Cuccinelli. Separately, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Fla., on Thursday will hear arguments in a challenge brought by officials in 20 states. He could offer the clearest indication yet of how he will rule.
Supporters of the law are bracing for defeats in Virginia and in Florida. Judges Hudson and Vinson have both shown sympathy to the plaintiffs' arguments and are GOP appointees.
Two other federal judges, in separate lawsuits in Michigan and Virginia, have already ruled in the administration's favor on the individual-mandate question.
The reporters failed to identify the political origin of those other appointees alluded to, which is odd because apparently it is material. Today. And in the event Judge Vinson disappoints the media. But not when -- as is the case with those alluded Obamacare-approving judges, Steeh and Moon -- we are dealing with a Democrat appointee. Then it's not so relevant.
So here's to the day when we read that five politically motivated judges stood in the way of four apolitical judicial sages to toss Obamacare out of the U.S. Code.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article