Funny political pictures

[Undertoad]

But I have *never* seen a retraction from them

i have... frequently

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

i have... frequently

http://video.foxnews.com/v/127946468...sy-in-hc-case/

The newscaster introduces the reporter as national correspondent Steve Centanni. He goes on to tell about Justice Kagan's previous connections with the health care legislation.

At about 0:40 the correspondent says:

"...she would legally be required to recuse herself from the case. But according to the Constitution, a Justice must recuse even if he or she quote, 'expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy'. That's from Article 28 of the Constitution. In spite of this controversy though, Kagan has given no indication yet that she will recuse herself in this case, in fact, Justices rarely do so.

The title to the graphic during this segment reads:

'expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy'

U.S. Constitution, Article 28, Section 144.

There are some real problems with this story. First of all, as numerous other sources have pointed out, there is no Article 28 or Section 144 of the US Constitution whatsoever--that was made up out of thin air to lend some semblance of credibility to their opinion-making--"wait, it isn't just me saying she should recuse him/herself, it's in the Constitution!!".

This isn't just a mistake. This is a lie. It is a deliberate attempt to deceive. This isn't news, it isn't Fair. They attempt to distract by invoking "Balance" by telling about Justice Thomas' recusal "situation" due to his wife's employment and potential conflict of interest. Interestingly, everything I can find actually supports the validity of the statements about the Thomas side of the story, but no invocation of the Constitution or calls for his recusal.

My questions to you, UT, are: Where is the retraction for this error? Why is it still being published on Fox's own website? What do you think of this kind of story? Do you consider it news? Do you think Fox is trying to present it as news?

[Lamplighter]

I grudgingly am going to dull the pain a tiny bit of Fox News here.
They were probably referring to this:

28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances,
when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion
that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice
either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge.

This refers to US District Courts, not the Supreme Court; and is in the Title 28 of the US Code.

P.S. Please tell Classic this is from Wikipedia, so he can critique it.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I grudgingly am going to dull the pain a tiny bit of Fox News here.
They were probably referring to this:



This refers to US District Courts, not the Supreme Court; and is in the Title 28 of the US Code.

P.S. Please tell Classic this is from Wikipedia, so he can critique it.

Yep. I saw that too, so the language came from somewhere in our law. That doesn't dull any of the pain though, it excuses none of the embellishment. "US Constitution" "Section 144", because, what? Now the detail adds realism? Where did these inventions come from? I'd like to know that. Congressman Jeff Sessions was cited as the source for the call for an examination of Justice Kagan's involvement, did he suggest the Constitution had a role here? Who did? I also notice that there's no attribution to the "calls from the other side of the political spectrum" for Justice Thomas' involvement, just ... anonymous calls.

Furthermore, I've seen no opinions indicating that this section of our laws do indeed represent what Fox says they represent, that Justice Kagan should recuse herself in this situation.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I grudgingly am going to dull the pain a tiny bit of Fox News here.
They were probably referring to this:

This refers to US District Courts, not the Supreme Court; and is in the Title 28 of the US Code.

P.S. Please tell Classic this is from Wikipedia, so he can critique it.

They may well have been referring to this:

United States Code, Title 28, Section 455

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/455.shtml

§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

A question for the room. Who here thinks that the following sections apply to Justice Thomas' recusal obligations?

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

You intentionally ignoring my questions V?

Nope, I gave an example immediately following your post as you can see.
Post #433:

Originally Posted by classicman

BigV - Define "Fox *News*"
To which part are you referring? The Hannity, O'Reilly, Wallace type shows to which MSNBC has Maddow, O'Donnell and Shultz or are you referring to the hour long "general" or "world" news shows?

Post #434:

Originally Posted by BigV

http://video.foxnews.com/v/127946468...sy-in-hc-case/

--snip

Their news is bad enough. Their editorializing is far more creative. I have issues with their news and with their opinions. But this is an example of a straight news story with some important facts wrong.

[Gravdigr]

[classicman]

BigV - Define "Fox *News*"
To which part are you referring? The Hannity, O'Reilly, Wallace type shows to which MSNBC has Maddow, O'Donnell and Shultz or are you referring to the hour long "general" or "world" news shows?

[Undertoad]

This isn't just a mistake. This is a lie. It is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

If you're going to masturbate at least have the sense to do it in private.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you're going to masturbate at least have the sense to do it in private.

What a fucking dodge.

I refuse to take your bate.

[ZenGum]

Too much political. Not enough pictures. No where near enough funny.

This whole thread is on report.

[Rrrraven]

Better?

[BigV]

Some of us were having fun....



FINE. Have your "funny political pitchurs", fine.

That one is funny, he's certainly having fun.

[classicman]

You intentionally ignoring my questions V?

[Nirvana]

Can we move this thread to politics?
KTHXBAI