Print Email

Discussing HHS's Humana letter, Napolitano says "one should wonder how seriously this administration takes its oath to uphold the Constitution"

September 24, 2009 4:05 pm ET

From the September 24 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:

EMBED

Previously:

Fox & Friends continues to hype misleading Humana Medicare letter as example of government suppressing free speech

Beck, Fox News lead conservative media in uniformly decrying "McCarthy"-like violation of Humana's "free speech" rights

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All

- by all your eyes (September 24, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
  5
  
  This bloke used to be a breath of fresh air on this network, with his cool legal reasoning, shooting down the blowhards. Now, he's in lock-step with the loonies. It's a sad spectacle. I hope they're paying him enough to make up for his lost dignity.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by NiceguyEddie (September 24, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
    3 1
    
    "The loyalty of small men can be bought cheaply, because greed has no pride." ~Prince Xizor
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My Blog
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by The_Cat (September 24, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
      2
      
      Your quote is pithy, somewhat obscure, and exactly on point. Well done, NiceguyEddie! :)
      
      Reply Report Abuse
  - by puppienrainbows (September 24, 2009 6:02 pm ET)
    1 6
    
    When he says what you like to hear, you praise him. When he says what you don't like to hear, you despise him. Keep that objective mind open.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by pilotshark (September 24, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
  3
  
  LOL >>>>> well funny i know i can not take you seriously. Its funny as well to know that you were a judge. Do you feel bad that Judy has a bigger following then you or your friends there?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by mk3872 (September 24, 2009 4:25 pm ET)
  5
  
  So a govt that is not there to defend the rights of corporations is not upholding the Constitutions in the eyes of Fox News?
  
  This is absolute takeover of the GOP and their media wing, Fox News, by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.
  
  Let us also not forget that 2 of the Federalist Society's key former members, SC Justices Scalia, Alito & Roberts, are about to also overturn campaign finance laws because ... they are protecting big corporations "free speech".
  
  Why in the world low-income southerners support this party and this cable channel is beyond my comprehension.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by shaggles (September 24, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
    1
    
    'Let us also not forget that 2 of the Federalist Society's key former members, SC Justices Scalia, Alito & Roberts, are about to also overturn campaign finance laws because ... they are protecting big corporations "free speech".'
    
    That 3. ;) But yes. That is an incredibly important case that due to the make up of the court will likely be decided the wrong way. Remember in Roberts confirmation hearing when he said he would follow precedent?
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by mk3872 (September 24, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
      1
      
      Thanks for the correction. I thought of Scalia at the last minute!
      
      And yes, I do remember such statements from Roberts ...
      
      Conservatives have done an incredible job in couching their own right-wing judicial activism in this notion of strict Constutional guidance.
      
      In actuality, they'll just intrepret the Constitution in strict conservative terms and ignore precendence that does not suit them.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by bintx (September 24, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
        1
        
        They call what they are doing being "strict constructionists," but they are not. They are completely re-interpreting the Constitution to fit their ideological beliefs . . . partisan ideology has no place in a court of law.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mk3872 (September 24, 2009 8:36 pm ET)
        1
        
        All in the name of protecting those poor repressed "corporations"
        
        Reply Report Abuse
    - by bintx (September 24, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
      1
      
      The current S.Ct. is the biggest "activist" court in the land. The ruling on the 2nd Amendment proved it . . . Scalia and the rest of the Gang of 5 completely ignored the intent and the wording of the 2nd Amendment to make it say what they and the folks who seated them wanted it to say. Same with the discrimination case.
      
      They are worthless.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by fairliberal (September 24, 2009 10:11 pm ET)
        3
        
        "Same with the discrimination case"
        
        Yeah how dare they consider merit in promoting someone. Race is all we should look at.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by bintx (September 25, 2009 9:26 am ET)
        2
        
        Boy, are you uninformed. The case I was mentioning was a discrimination suit based upon gender and it had nothing to do with promotion, it had to do with unequal pay for the same job based upon gender and the discovery rule. See Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber. Fortunately, the Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
        
        Next time, you really ought to know what the heck you're talking about before posting. You just exposed your racism for all the world to see.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mjh (September 25, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
        1
        
        "Next time, you really ought to know what the heck you're talking about before posting."
        
        Bintx, that would preclude FAILliberal from ever posting again . . .
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by fairliberal (September 26, 2009 12:21 am ET)
        1
        
        Well perhaps you should reference the case you are talking about instead of making vague references . Since the Hartford case was recent is was a easy conclusion to come to. But it is affirmative action that is racist not a belief in merit promotions. But once again you libs love to play that race card, keep it up, it will sink your cause.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
- by DAWUSS (September 24, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
  
  He's a judge?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by The_Cat (September 24, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
  1
  
  Right, Napolitano, because insisting that a corporation which takes government money has to abide by federal regulations is very wrong. Hey, while we're discussing administrations and Constitutionality, where do you stand on, say, wiretapping the entire nation without a warrant? That okay with you?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by magnolialover (September 24, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
    1
    
    Not just regulations, but actual laws.
    
    What the government told Humana to stop doing, they told them to stop, because it is against the law.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by rugger69 (September 24, 2009 9:06 pm ET)
      1 3
      
      How is it against the law? They sent out fliers to people stating facts and the big bully - government stepped in and said they did not like that quite or we will make you quit.
      
      Wire tap me I have nothing to hid and by the way they only wire tapped known terrorists and their phone calls, what rights to they have when they intend to do harm to the citizens of this country.
      
      You would cut your nose off to spite your face wouldn't you? The next time a major incident happens I hope it happens to people who scream about the terrorist rights and close Gitmo lets see who they will scream to protect them then.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by Brabantio (September 24, 2009 10:36 pm ET)
        2
        
        Again, I have to ask:if we were talking about "known terrorists", then why would FISA be inadequate in dealing with that?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
      - by The_Cat (September 24, 2009 11:22 pm ET)
        3
        
        Facts, rugger69? Propagandists don't need no stinkin' facts. See? I explained it right here.
        
        Wiretapping without a warrant is illegal. Was before 9-11, and still was after 9-11. They did not only wire tap known terrorists, rugger69. If you can't get it done within the law, then you shouldn't be in charge, because you lack vision and intellect.
        
        I wouldn't cut my nose off to spite my face, but I also will not sacrifice the Constitution on the false hope that less freedom somehow magically equals more security.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by rugger69 (September 25, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
        1 2
        
        So you have proof that they wire tapped other than terrorists?
        
        Well i would get a lawyer, bring this evidence out and show the world that the previous administration is in violation of federal law.
        
        In my opinion these terrorists have no protection under the constitution they are here for one purpose and one only to kill us and we should strike first and louder to show them we will not take it any more.
        
        If they kill 1 of ours we should kill 1000 of them, they know nothing but brute, blunt brutal force and we should show them no mercy.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by Brabantio (September 26, 2009 1:22 am ET)
        1
        
        You have no idea who was wiretapped, and that's the whole problem. There's no oversight. Again, if it was exclusively for known terrorists, then why did the system need any modification at all? The only way it makes any sense to begin with is if other people are being monitored.
        
        Accusing the subjects of these sorts of actions of being terrorists is very convenient, but it would justify anything. The government could shoot people in their homes and you could just say "they're terrorists and they're not protected". Without oversight, you have no way of knowing that.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by The_Cat (September 26, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
        1
        
        So you agree that Humana was indeed indulging in propaganda and abusing government supplied mailing lists for other than their intended purpose. Glad we're on the same page, rugger69.
        
        As for illegal wiretapping, if there was no wrongdoing, please explain to me why the Bush/Cheney administration felt it necessary to issue a blanket protection to the telecoms so that private citizens could no longer sue them for the illegal actions they undertook at government behest? If the telecoms did nothing wrong, why would they need protection from lawsuits?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
      - by bintx (September 25, 2009 9:29 am ET)
        2
        
        Most likely, you have already been wiretapped. You are incorrect with your assessment that they only wiretapped known terrorists and their phone calls. Do you not watch the news [real news] or read the papers. Very few of the calls spied on had anything at all to do with terrorism. In fact, it was revealed this week that of the thousands of cases investigated under the Patriot Act, only THREE had anything to do with terrorism. Most had to do with drug investigations.
        
        You might want to keep up a little better.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
- by mjh (September 25, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
  
  Napolitano says "one should wonder how seriously this administration takes its oath to uphold the Constitution"
  
  Andy's right . . . imagine, Bush saying, “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face . . . It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
  
  Um, you WERE talking about THAT administration, weren't you?
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by Brabantio (September 25, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
    
    That was never substantiated, as far as I've heard.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by njguy93 (September 26, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
  1
  
  Great question to ask. Judge Napolitano should have asked it during the Bush years. He could have stood up to the thugs in that Adminstration but decided not to so he could take uncle Rupert's enormous paychecks.
  
  THANK YOU.
  njguy93@yahoo.com
  
  Reply Report Abuse

Discussing HHS's Humana letter, Napolitano says "one should wonder how seriously this administration takes its oath to uphold the Constitution"

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds


	Username or Email Password Forgot your password? or Create An Account Email Username (required, for posting on forums) Zip Code Click here to subscribe to Media Matters action alerts and newsletters. or Log in to an existing account

Discussing HHS's Humana letter, Napolitano says "one should wonder how seriously this administration takes its oath to uphold the Constitution"

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds

Connect & Share