Update and Correction to the Politifact.com Fact Check of the O'Reilly/Obama Interview

It was brought to my attention by one of the lawyers for an involved party that the number of health care cases dismissed is incorrect.  The number dismissed should be corrected to 11; with the twelfth one pending.  The most recent court document that I could find (and I do not claim my search is either exhaustive or complete) shows a filing for summary judgement by the defendants on January 24, 2011.  I have not so far found a ruling on that motion, and the attorney for the U.S. Citizens Association informs me that they are currently in a pleading cycle on that summary judgement motion.  I appreciate having the error brought to our attention.  Unlike the notorious right wing media and blogosphere, we do update and make corrections.

Therefore the list provided to politifact.com by the White House was incorrect, and I would like our readers to be aware of the correct information.  Three of four claims by the U.S. Citizens Association were dismissed, one was allowed to go forward.


In checking the fact checkers, I came across an additional site, the Independent Women's Forum that makes for interesting reading for those who would like more in-depth information on the topic of this case and on the other health care reform litigation, although their own description suggests very strongly that this is a conservative think tank, not a centrist or independent one.  So, I offer a counter view of this litigation, in balance, it is a web site, Politijab.com, with interesting look at some of the participants of this particular suit.

And for those who have no patience with the interim litigation, here is an interesting analysis of the composite of the SCOTUS, and their judicial activism.  It makes the interesting observation that the more conservative the justice, the more likely that he or she is to make an activist decision which would overturn a Congressional enactment.  This analysis was done prior to the retirements of Justices Stevens and Soutar; but if the foundational premise is correct, then the newer justices, Kagan and Sotomayor, will follow a similar pattern.  The health care reform litigation, once it reaches the SCOTUS, presuming they rule on it, will make a fascinating test of this hypothesis.

Being from Minnesota, I feel as if I am watching all of this play out on the sidelines as a spectator; I do not know any of the participating legal eagles.  But it seemed appropriate that since it was an Arizona attorney who brought the error by the White House in the list of cases to my attention, it was fitting to end with an Arizona attorney's analysis as well.