Skip to main content

View Diary: Video: CNN's 10 minutes of hell (225 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe you are a faster reader (0+ / 0-)

    Or better at deciphering the legal lingo. Diane Rehm's panel was reading off of Scotus Blog this morning, and their initial take was it was struck down. They were reacting in real time, as they read; so we got to hear how they gradually came to a different conclusion. I haven't seen the actual decision, but what would your conclusion have been if you only read the first paragraph or two?

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:44:45 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's not precisely true (2+ / 0-)

      While it is true that the NPR pundits were reading SCOTUSBlog, Diane Rehm based her initial report off of CNN. When she asked her panel for opinions, they bluntly told her they were waiting to read the decision, essentially waiting for SCOTUSblog to give out more info, before they would comment.

      And I have read the decision, and it does pivot quite dramatically from commerce clause to it being just fine as a tax. In other words, all CNN had to do was wait about 1 more minute, and they would have never had this fiasco in the first place.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:24:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site