What a joke of a headline from the AP: "Big legal setback for Obama's health care overhaul"

[jenmito]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul hit its first major legal roadblock Monday, thrown into doubt by a federal judge's declaration that the heart of the sweeping legislation is unconstitutional. The decision handed Republican foes ammunition for their repeal effort next year as the law heads for almost certain eventual judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., marked the first successful court challenge to any portion of the new law, following two earlier rulings in its favor by Democratic-appointed judges.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101214/ap_on_go_ot/us_health_care_overhaul

A "Big legal setback"? :rofl:

[Clio the Leo]

1. He might as well resign now. nt

[jenmito]

3. Yeah...

and I don't recall the AP writing any headlines about Obama winning big victories when 2 judged voted the mandate Constitutional. :eyes:

[Hawkeye-X]

2. Some say it's the right move

and I have to agree. Why give the insurance company a lifeline?

[jenmito]

4. Of course you agree. But do you think the headline was accurate? n/t

[Hawkeye-X]

5. Wildly inaccurate.

I agree.. What'd you expect from AP?

(They must wait until their million monkeys have actually inputted something that makes no sense, but is in English)

[jenmito]

6. OK. Thank you. That was the point of my OP. n/t

[OHdem10]

7. And the Media wonders why they poll below "Used Car Salesmen"

No disrespect to anyone who may sell cars.

Creating a wild narrative is more important than
the actual story.

[Canuckistanian]

8. You almost have to wipe the drool off the screen

A wee bit premature there, APers.

[jaysunb]

9. I noticed that...

what a crock of shit :evilfrown:

[ProudDad]

10. It's a pretty big setback and will probably be upheld by the Supremes...

And it's a correct decision even considering the source...

I too think that it's unconstitutional to demand that SOME people have to buy a defective product from private corporations at an inflationary and ever increasing price...

[golfguru]

11. Yeah, if a public option was available

I would have less problem being required to buy insurance.
Being forced to support the for profit private insurance companies
makes no sense at all.

[jenmito]

15. It's a ruling by a RW judge who should've recused himself for conflict of interest. Period. n/t

[wisteria]

12. I agree. The score is actually 2 for and 1 against, but the press just reports on the 1 vote

against. This smacks of aiding and abetting the Republicans at the expense of our President and what is in the best interest of the American people.

[jenmito]

16. Yup-and it gave Repubs. something to wave around-"proof" that they're right.

:eyes:

[saras]

13. mislabled

It's not a joke just because YOU think it's funny. It's an extremely expensive bit of propaganda.

[budkin]

14. How come the other rulings that said it was constitutional weren't made into big news?

Oh yeah.

[ProudDad]

17. Because they're irrelevant

The Supremes will declare it unconstitutional...probably 6-3 or 7-2...

Forcing SOME USAmericans to buy a defective product from PRIVATE CORPORATIONS just because they're alive is and should remain unconstitutional...

[treestar]

18. Right. Great legal victories, weren't they?

[craigmatic]

19. Apparently bashing the president is the popular thing to do. Liberal media my ass.