Another short Timaeus diary. I can't find that anybody has commented on this yet.
Look at this outrageous article from the Christian Science Monitor:
http://news.yahoo.com/...
I just found this from a front-page link on Yahoo with the ponderous and ridiculous title of
"Supreme Court leaks could have lasting impact."
The actual article, by Warren Richey, is entitled
Questions about chief justice's health-care ruling could have lasting impact
Speculation persists over why Chief Justice John Roberts joined liberals to uphold the President Obama's signature health-care reform law, and that could affect the Supreme Court.
Under a false veneer of Thoughtfulness and Measured Reason, it's actually a right-wing hack job from start to finish, which argues that John Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act for "political" reasons.
Here is the article's premise:
Now, a week after the Supreme Court announced its opinion upholding the health-care law, Justice Roberts is being accused of having caved in to threats of political pressure.
Here is a sample of the article's "analysis":
“It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law,” the CBS report says.
The news report sparked a new round of criticism among conservative legal analysts.
“The fact that this decision was apparently political, rather than legal, completely undermines its legitimacy as a precedent,” said Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and one of the first legal scholars to raise questions about the constitutionality of the health-care reform law.
“Its result can be reversed by the People in November,” he added in a statement, “and its weak tax power holding reversed by any future court without pause.”
I'll stop there whilst fighting the waves of nausea induced by this bilge.
I thought the Christian Science Monitor had a reputation for being level-headed.