Notes on Politics: CNN Boots the Supreme Court Health Care Ruling

 

In a complicated, highly anticipated ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, declared that the massive federal health care law, spearheaded by President Obama and the then-Democratic-led House, is constitutional. It stays. (The nearly 200-page opinion can be found here.)

As I awaited news of the ruling, made myself comfy in front of the TV as I opened my Twitter account, I tuned to CNN, figuring they'd offer up a no nonsense account of the Supreme Court ruling about which on-air reporters were positively giddy given the colossally intense interest of the viewers at home.

Then, in its attempt to be the first with the news, CNN botched its reporting. It got the story exactly wrong. They reported that the Court ruled that the individual mandate requiring people to buy health insurance or face penalties had been ruled unconstitutional. I Tweeted what CNN had said and cited the network as the source, thank goodness.

Within minutes, the Associated Press issued this Tweet: "BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds Obama law's requirement that most Americans have health insurance."

What the what?

This was then Tweeted by the Supreme Court blog, "SCOTUS Blog:" "The individual mandate survives as a tax." Reuters concurred. Conclusion: CNN screwed up. Cue the piling on top of CNN's epic fail as Twitter skewered them, placing the mistake in the same the league as "Dewey Defeats Truman:"

"Looks like CNN got it wrong, which would mean they got this and Bush v. Gore wrong." -- Dan Abrams

"'Al Gore Wins!' -- CNN" -- Tweeted writer Danny Zuker

"I am not turning off CNN until they TELL ME GORE WON FLORIDA!!!" -- Damon Lindelof (one of the guys behind Lost)

"Be right, not first." -- @JournalistsLike

"Women reject '50 Shades of Grey' in droves . . . #OtherCNNHeadlines #SCOTUS" -- @TVMcGee

"CNN staffer emails me: 'Its [sic] shameful'" -- @BuzzFeedBen

Way to strike a severe blow to CNN's reputation as a trusted source of news when something big is happening. I only wished NBC's Brian Williams had been broadcasting live. . .

Image credit: C.W. Anderson via Poynter.

Notes on Politics: Michelle in Hot Water, 'Time's' Cover Girl and Kagan to Court

Michelle Obama in Hot Water

While President Obama was celebrating his birthday in Chicago, his wife and their 9-year-old daughter Sasha were traveling abroad in Spain. When the Obamas' Spain itinerary was released, there wasn’t much of an outcry.

Until the photo of our First Lady, looking glamorous and chic while walking through the streets of a southern Spanish town, started getting circulated, most prominently on the Drudge Report. Until reports about the hefty vacation price-tag and the details of the trip were revealed: They were staying at a ritzy, five-star hotel -- where the rooms go for “up to . . . $2,500” -- with 40 of Michelle Obama’s friends on a get-away vacation, to which the Obamas took Air Force Two and brought along 70 Secret Service agents, costing taxpayers major bucks, reported the New York Daily News.

Given the dire economic climate in the United States – including a new report out today saying that the jobless rate is just under double-digits nationwide – this is bad timing. And Michelle Obama’s taking a whole lot of crap for it. The Daily News’ Andrea Tantaros likened the First Lady to a “modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation” while the peasants beg for an extension of unemployment benefits because they can’t find jobs because no one’s hiring.

Tantaros wrote:

“I don’t begrudge anyone rest and relaxation when they work hard. We all need downtime – the First Family included. It’s the extravagance of Michelle Obama’s trip and glitzy destination contrasted with President Obama’s demonization of the rich that smacks of hypocrisy and perpetuates a disconnect between the country and its leaders. Toning down the flash would humanize the Obamas and signify that they sympathize with the setbacks of the people they were elected to serve.”

All of this hullabaloo reminds me of the kind of flack directed at Nancy Reagan back in the day with her pricey china. Nancy certainly got rhetorically smacked around quite a bit for appearing clueless about the obvious contrast between struggling Americans weathering the early 1980s recession and her regal “Reagan red” designer duds and high-end taste.

Time’s Cover Girl

Time Magazine did something daring. It placed an 18-year-old Afghan woman on the cover this week. What’s so button-pushing about the photo is that the woman has no nose. (She also has no ears but that fact is covered by her hair and a veil.) Why no nose? Because her husband – from whose family she had fled because they severely beat her and treated her like a slave – cut it off. He also removed her ears and left her to bleed to death.

Next to the jarring image on Time’s cover are the words, “What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan.” “. . . Afghan women fear that in the quest for a quick peace, their progress may be sidelined,” wrote Aryn Baker. Baker quoted an Afghan parliamentarian as saying, “Women’s rights must not be the sacrifice by which peace is achieved.”

The juxtaposition of the photo alongside the headline -- the if-the-United States-leaves-we'll-subject-other-girls-to-this-fate sentiment -- hasn’t set well with some folks who say that the United States didn’t embark on a war in Afghanistan to “nation build,” but now, somehow, building and fashioning this nation into something more democratic and western has become the U.S. military’s charge. The cover, with its accompanying headline, has been lambasted as manipulative pro-war advocacy. Either way, I can’t get that photo out of my head. It’s damned haunting.

Kagan to Court

After she’s sworn in as the 100th associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Roberts this weekend, Elena Kagan will join two other female justices on the Supreme Court, giving this court more estrogen than it’s ever had.

“Will three finally be the magic number that effects real change for women in terms of pay parity, access to education and sexual harassment in the U.S.?” asked Meghan Casserly in Forbes.com.

She continued:

“A study from Catalyst in 2007 suggests it will. In their study of the U.S.’s 500 largest companies, Catalyst found that the point where women effect change on corporate boards is three. Three women on the board proved to be the point where return on equity, return on sales and return on investment capital saw the biggest improvement. The bottom line: stronger than average performance results when at least three women serve.”

I’m just hopeful that there will soon be a day when a woman being nominated to the Supreme Court -- or to a corporate board for that matter -- won’t be something historic. It’ll just be a run-of-the-mill PR announcement.

Image credits: Torres/AP via the New York Daily News and Jodi Bieber/Time Magazine.

Notes on Politics: Sebelius Stands Up for Cancer Patients and a Supreme Court Mom

Sebelius Stands Up for Breast Cancer Patients

It was with supreme outrage that I read a Reuters report last week claiming that a health insurance company was targeting women who were freshly diagnosed with breast cancer for audits of their insurance policies in order to find a reason to cancel said policies.

Reuters highlighted two women who’d faithfully paid their insurance premiums, but soon after they were diagnosed with breast cancer were flagged for audits had their policies canceled. “They had no idea that WellPoint was using a computer algorithm that automatically targeted them and every other policyholder recently diagnosed with breast cancer,” Reuters reported. “The software triggered an immediate fraud investigation, as the company searched for some pretext to drop their policies, according to government regulators and investigators.”

Reuters continued, “Once the women were singled out, they say, the insurer then canceled their policies based on either erroneous or flimsy information. WellPoint declined to comment on the women's specific cases without a signed waiver from them, citing privacy laws.”

In response, an irritated Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius not only said that this practice – called “rescission” – will soon be illegal “thanks to the recently-passed Affordable Care Act,” but rapped the company, WellPoint, on the knuckles. Hard.

“WellPoint should not wait to end the unconscionable practice of deliberately working to deny health insurance coverage to women diagnosed with breast cancer,” wrote Sebelius. “I urge you to immediately cease these practices and abandon your efforts to rescind health insurance coverage from patients who need it most.”

A Supreme Court Mom?

Peter Beinart, writing on The Daily Beast, makes a case for President Obama to appoint a woman with young children to the Supreme Court. Pointing to the paucity of women with children in high profile positions in government and politics, Beinart wrote that in addition to having a woman justice who’s “more sensitive to the problems women face,” adding a mother to the court is important:

“. . . [B]ecause otherwise, the message you’re sending young women is that they can achieve professionally, or they can have a family, but they can’t do both. And without quite realizing it, that is the message our government has been sending. According to the Census Bureau, 80 percent of American women over the age of 40 have children. But look at the women who have held Cabinet posts in the last three presidential administrations. Only two of the Clinton administration’s five female Cabinet secretaries had kids.”

He also contrasted this issue to the fact that, “Men with children don’t have a role-model problem. After all, every one of the male Supremes has kids. (Antonin Scalia alone has nine.)”

Beinart continued:

“Soon after John Roberts was confirmed as chief justice, USA Today ran a syrupy feature entitled ‘Roberts Plays Dual Roles: Chief Justice and Father’ filled with sentences like ‘He takes the children to swimming lessons. He tries to keep 5-year-old Jack from using 6-year-old Josie’s violin as a pretend weapon. At the end of the day, he helps put them to bed.’ Message to little Johnnies everywhere: You can have a great job and a great life all at the same time. Compare that to Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell’s comment after Barack Obama nominated Janet Napolitano to head the Homeland Security Department. ‘Janet’s perfect for that job,’ Rendell quipped. ‘Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19 to 20 hours a day to it.’ Message to little Janets: Go ahead, shoot for the stars. Just be prepared for a life devoid of anything but work.”

Image credit: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services via More Magazine.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Palin's Meta-Working Mom Tale & Women on the Supreme Court

Palin's Meta-Working Mom Tale

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's shocking resignation continues to generate comment, analysis and interest. An image of Palin signing a toddler's dress takes up a third+ of the top half of the front page of the New York Times, 10 days after her ambiguous July 4 Eve press conference. The Times story paints a woman who's feeling so besieged and stressed out that her hair has thinned and her friends worry that she's become underweight.

I joined the fray of analysts and deconstructed Palin's resignation in my Pop Culture column this week by saying that what you think about her and her decision to quit mid-way through her term, depends largely upon your political perspective and your life's experiences. For me, I view her story through a working mom prism.

Women on the Supreme Court

The only female jurist currently sitting on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg gave a fascinating interview to the New York Times Sunday Magazine in which she talked at length about her experience on the Court and how being female has affected her experience. Among the questions she fielded was about how having only one or two women on the Supreme Court affects deliberation.

When asked why it matters to have women on the Court, Ginsberg invoked the Sotomayor confirmation hearings saying, "It matters for women to be there at the conference table to be doing everything that the court does. I hope that these hearings for Sonia [Sotomayor] will be as civil as mine were and [Justice] Steve Breyer's were. Ours were unusual in that respect."

The exchange below I found particularly intriguing:

New York Times: Did you think that all the attention to the criticism of Sotomayor as being "bullying" or not as smart is sex-inflected? Does that have to do with the rarity of a woman in her position, and the particular challenges?

Ginsberg: I can't say that it was just that she was a woman. There are some people in Congress who would criticize severely anyone President Obama nominated. They'll seize on any handle. One is that she's a woman, another is that she made the remark about Latina women. [In 2001 Sotomayor said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."] And I thought it was ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that. Think of how many times you've said something that you didn't get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could. I'm sure she meant no more than what I mean when I say: Yes, women bring a different life experience to the table. All our differences make the conference better. That I'm a woman, that's part of it, that I'm Jewish, that's part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, NY, and I went to summer camp in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me.

Once Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor was questioning counsel at oral argument. I thought she was done, so I asked a question, and Sandra said: Just a minute, I'm not finished. So I apologized to her and she said: It's okay, Ruth. The guys do it to each other all the time, they step on each other's questions. And then there appeared an item in USA Today, and the headline was something like "Rude Ruth Interrupts Sandra."

Ginsberg is likely to be joined soon by Sotomayor, who's going through the Senate confirmation process where she'll be asked to defend/explain some of her more controversial statements, particularly the Latina woman quip. One thing's for sure, the Court needs women. I cannot imagine what men would say or feel if the highest court in the land didn't have anyone representing the male half of the citizenry.

Image credit: Ruven Afanador/NYT.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: A Supreme Court Nominee from the Bronx

The nomination of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the nation's highest court to fill the seat vacated by outgoing Supreme Court Justice David Souter will likely succeed, but not without some degree of controversy.

There's enough material out there on Sotomayer onto which folks with myriad viewpoints can latch and make hay. Conservatives, for example, are ticked that she described the U.S. Appeals Court as have a law-making role, not an interpretative one. (During a panel discussion she said: "[The] Court of Appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay. I know. I'm not promoting it. And I'm not advocating it.")

Plus there's that inflammatory comment Sotomayor made a few years ago that's been talk radio fodder this afternoon about how people's life experiences come into play when judges render legal opinions: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The web site Politico described Sotomayor's positions on the wedge issue of abortion as "murky:" "In 17 years on the federal bench, she has issued no opinions dealing directly with abortion rights. And in two cases dealing tangentially with the issue -- involving anti-abortion protesters and the government right to limit abortion-related speech by foreign recipients of U.S. aid -- the appeals court judge's ruling favored abortion opponents. Still, anti-abortion forces are convinced that [President] Obama would not nominate Sotomayor without being confident that she supports abortion rights."

But on one thing, I think people along the various points on the political spectrum can agree: She's got a great story. Sotomayor grew up in a Bronx housing project with her parents, born in Puerto Rico, and brother. Her dad died when she was 9 and her mother, a nurse, worked like crazy to pay for parochial school for her two children. Sotomayer, who was an avid fan of Nancy Drew mysteries as a child, according to the New York Times bio on her here, went on to attend Princeton on a scholarship and then Yale Law School, worked as an assistant district attorney and a corporate litigator before becoming a judge. Then there's the story about how Sotomayer "saved baseball" during the MLB baseball strike in the mid-1990s. ("She ended a long baseball strike [in 1995], briskly ruling against the owners in favor of the players," the Times wrote.)

The most moving moment in the announcement of her nomination occurred when she tried to describe how much she appreciates everything her mother did to help make this moment possible and she teared up. No matter what happens during this summer's confirmation process -- save for a scandal, she'll almost certainly be confirmed, though not without some protest over the justices-as-lawmakers comment -- it is heartening to hear a success story like Sotomayor's. (To hear her remarks, go about 11+ minutes into the video.)