A WORD OF CAUTION TO THE MEDIA
by Greta Van Susteren
Mar 16 2012
Sometimes when someone writes an article, others in the media seize upon it and it suddenly gets a ‘life of its own.’ That ‘life of its own’ can start a narrative in the media that is repeated. That is fine if it is correct and does not give a false impression to the public.
(and this is not the author’s fault, but rather how others have already begun to read it.)
_______________________ As the Supreme Court argument date over healthcare approaches, the Obama administration is NOT “shifting” its healthcare defense. (see below.) It is arguing the SAME points it raised in the lower appellate court – including the one that is the subject of this article below (the Necessary and Proper Clause.)
The “Necessary and Proper Clause” is not new to the litigation. It is old. It got plenty of attention in the lower court. (I was even in that Florida Court when it was argued.) That clause, and thus that argument by the Administration using that clause as support, was simply rejected by the lower court so naturally the Obama Administration is now asking the Supreme to review it, to reverse it. This is routine. It is not a shift if you ask the Supreme Court to review an argument you raised in the lower appellate court but which was rejected by that court.
In fact, without first arguing it in the lower court, the Administration would now be barred from raising it FOR THE FIRST TIME in the Supreme Court. You can’t raise new issues in the Supreme Court – you only get issues argued below considered (and upheld or reversed.)
It is appellate practice 101 — you raise every issue you think has merit (as the Administration did in the lower appellate court) and you hope that you are persuasive on one of them to give you the legal victory you seek.
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/03/16/a-word-of-caution-to-the-media/
Interesting to see Greta chime in on this. Thanks for posting.