With the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act on June 28, voters are guaranteed to continue hearing the same old false claims about the law from politicians. And President Barack Obama and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney wasted little time …
Mitt Romney railed against the “Obama EPA” and “how the Obama government interferes with personal freedom” — using as his example an EPA action taken in 2007, under President George W. Bush.
Furthermore, it was a Republican-nominated federal judge who made the initial ruling — in EPA’s favor — that was overturned recently by the Supreme Court.
At issue was a longstanding Environmental Protection Agency precedent regarding a property owner’s right to challenge an EPA compliance order in court,
President Obama is being forced to modify his absurdly wrong claim that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to strike down the new health care law.
He made that statement April 2 in a news conference:
Obama, April 2: Ultimately, 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.
As any number of others were quick to point out,
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that corporations can spend as freely as they like in federal elections, a decision that could bring a flood of new ads expressly favoring or opposing candidates in the congressional midterm elections this year.
The opinion in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission throws out a 63-year-old law that attempted to restrain the influence of business and labor in elections and overturns two of the Court’s own decisions.
Wisconsin ’08 was one of the nastiest state Supreme Court elections in modern history. Incumbent Justice Louis Butler went down to defeat after opponent Mike Gableman and business interests in the state ran slashing, misleading ads portraying him as soft on crime. We criticized the spots in several stories.
Today, Gableman, though sitting on Wisconsin’s highest court, is still fighting a legal battle over whether he lied in one of the ads that helped put him there.
Q: Are the health care overhaul proposals that are pending in the House and Senate constitutional?
A: Legal experts agree that requiring citizens to buy something is a novel concept that has not been tested in the courts.
Yesterday we wrote about a radio ad attacking Florida Republican Reps. Adam Putnam and John Mica for not denouncing radio personality Rush Limbaugh for calling Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a "racist" and a "bigot." We found that the ad was accurate in capturing the words of Limbaugh and in its description of the historical significance of Sotomayor’s nomination. We left it to readers to determine how responsible the congressmen were for Limbaugh’s words.
After the story was published,
Independent groups are taking to the airwaves to weigh in on the debate over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, whose confirmation hearings began July 13 in the Senate. The liberal Change Campaign Committee and Hispanic group Presente.org are airing a Spanish-language radio ad in Florida. The groups also posted the ad, with a translation and some video, on YouTube:
Two versions of the ad take Republican Reps. John Mica and Adam Putnam to task for not denouncing the words of radio host Rush Limbaugh,
Sonia Sotomayor isn’t mentioned in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in a much-watched reverse-discrimination case, Ricci v. DeStefano. But you can bet the decision will be mentioned plenty in the upcoming Senate confirmation hearing that could put her on that court.
Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld a lower court decision in the case, saying that the city of New Haven, Conn., was on firm legal ground when it threw out the results of two exams firefighters took in order to be promoted.
We’ve updated our Ask FactCheck item on Sonia Sotomayor and gun rights yet again. This time it’s to reflect the fact that the National Rifle Association has filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to hear its case challenging Chicago’s gun laws (which it lost this week in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals). The NRA asks the court specifically to decide the question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.