American Morning
Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
May 29th, 2009
04:00 PM ET
We Listen!
American Morning’s Friday viewers remained focused on the pending confirmation hearings of Judge Sotomayor, as many expressed appreciation for AM’s in-depth coverage; others were frustrated that the “racism” comment attributed to Sotomayor was presented out of context.
- Bruce: Regarding Pres. Obama's supreme court nominee...I thought we had a process in place. First, the nomination then the Senate confirmation hearings. When did this process become so inflammatory? Why do we need commentary from the pundits, when the Senators will ask all the necessary questions and will then vote on her? Unfortunately, this process has become so partisan because the opposing party wants to tarnish the nominee. Who wants to go through that? This process should be dignified not a Jerry Springer episode. This is exactly why so many people are turned off by politics!
- Akua: Thank you for the interview about Judge Sotomayor it was insightful. However I will like to state with regards to the statement highlighted why is your show and other programs on CNN not stating she gave that speech at a diversity in the courts conference/seminar. When the statement is read without the correct context the information given to us is inaccurate. I love your show thank you for the good work. Cheers
- Ginspelts: The thing that worries me the most about Sotomayor is the video I saw where she is laughing and carrying on about "Judges are in the business of making policies. Oh I know I shouldn't say that. We are being filmed on camera, but hey we all know it is true." Judges do not make policies or the law. Judges are only suppose to interpret the law. As a American citizen these comments concern me greatly. I would like to know exactly what she meant when she made the comments. It is the job of congress to ask some very tough questions before making her one of the highest judges in the Supreme Court of the United States in America.
Has the American public been too quick to judge Sotomayor? What questions would you like to hear the Senate Confirmation Committee present to Judge Sotomayor?
Carol Costello’s piece on “Activist Judges” elicited some angry commentary.
- Ed: I just saw your piece on "activist judges". A little one sided wasn't it? You quoted all Republicans. Could you not find any Democrat who used the phrase "Activist Judges"? This is the example of just what is wrong with "news" media.
- Sylvia: So, according to CNN this morning the term “activist judges” is considered “name calling”? NAME CALLING? !!! This is the height of irresponsible journalism and bluntly propagandist. Now, according to CNN's Carol Costello freedom of expression and expressing one's point of view in generally accepted, clean English words should be stopped and be frowned upon????!!!!! Only because it is conservatives that are using these very decent words to say what they think? So where was CNN when Perez Hilton called Miss CA a “ dumb b%$#h”?,
- Gianine Garofalo called millions of Americans demonstrating against government spending “rednecks” ? and the list goes on and on. Quite to the contrary it is the American people that are sick and tired of self appointed, ACTIVIST JURNALISTS in the media trying to shove their political views and stupid pseudo intellectual stances on everyone else! You want to ignore what those of us on this side of the TV screen actually think and want. THAT IS WHY FEWER PEOPLE ARE WATCHING YOUR NETWORK PROGRAMMING….Lou Dobbs is the only actual journalist you have on the air these days and will continue to be the only one people will continue to watch at CNN.
What do you think about the term “activist judges”? Does it connote a negative image to you? Tell us what you think here or go to Carol Costello’s blog.
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
Here we go. Happy to chat with @wolfblitzerer !! https://t.co/C1hYBQzEh8
Judge approves 'crime fraud exception' in special counsel probe of Trump classified documents nbcnews.com/politics/justi… via @NBCNews
The mission? Slay the inflation dragon without singeing the banking system. My piece walking up to the #Fed decisiotwitter.com/i/web/status/1…Zy
RT @EarlyStart: "Maybe taking a pause at this point and just seeing in terms of the rate hiking cycle and just letting things calm down, ma…
Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said in Paris that “there is no such thing as the Palestinian peopletwitter.com/i/web/status/1…NF88kXYWwX
US Citizen Jeff Woodke released after 6 years in captivity twitter.com/jakesullivan46…
Regarding our readiness for a third party: ABSOLUTELY, YES! Our current two party system is too polarizing, represents noone but big business or unions. They represent the fringes of our society rather than the bulk. Most of us are relatively moderate and appreciate fiscal conservativism and are liberal about social issues.
John Roberts, interview with Mayor Virg Bernero, was very interesting. It is unfortunate more of Mayor Bemero ideas of free trade were not discuss. The free trade agreement is an issue that must be addressed, it is the major cause our nations economic problems.
The so called experts, that say free trade, is for the best interest of our country, never point out issues such as Mayor Bernero, had, in the brief time he was interviewed. Is cnn news realy keeping me informed?
Ron Phillips,
Las Vegas, Nevada
I am honestly at a lost as to what to do with health care. It is a complicated and broken system, but trying to adopt a European system is not sustainable, progressive, or advisable either. I will lay out all my confusion and problems that we have now ( in no certain order of thought, loll. ), and how trying to adopt a national health care system is not the answer either. I think the answer is a new kind of hybrid of both, along with new thinking in health-care.
We have the best health-care a person can afford...if they can afford it. We have a health-care system that is too structured in offering alternative treatments to chronic diseases, or health problems as a whole. We have a health-care system that is run by insurance companies, who can dictate limits on drugs, surgery, time in hospital, general care, and financial limits on that care. We have a health-care system that is usually "behind the curve" in correcting a health problem, until it is already too late, or too big of a problem, hence we spend more money as individuals and as a society on the "back-end" as opposed to the "front-end" of health-care. We discover serious health problems too late. I believe that we need more preventative medical approaches- like some type of policies that screen often for overall health- like general physical exams done several times each year that can possibly indicate an early problem. This must be a part of regular
insurance policies, so that we can save money in the long term.
We have a health-care system that allows everyone to sue for millions of dollars- even 10's of millions- for any mistake made by our health-care people. Sure, sometimes these lawsuits are justified, but most of the lawsuits are by people who are greedy, and seeking opportunity to get rich quickly. And we ALL pay for the frivolous lawsuits by these greedy people. Doctors are leaving the profession, because all of them need malpractice insurance, and can't afford it in order to run a profitable profession. Yes, they are running a business, and they can't be sued all the time from people who do not take personal responsibility for their actions, and look for any reason to sue for millions of dollars. We need to have some kind of state boards made up of a mixed group of professionals and regular people that "toss out" frivolous lawsuits to save our doctors money on malpractice insurance, and they don't pass that expense of the lawsuits on to all of us.
We need to have doctors determine prognosis and treatment, not insurance companies, or pharmaceutical companies. Too often, insurance companies limit options on health-care treatments and time in treatment, and also don't allow for alternative treatments. I like more natural treatments, but that is just me. I think that we use too many chemicals to treat ourselves and our body rejects these treatments in time. But, even with the use of chemicals, we are often too structured in our health-care system. Pharmaceutical companies have a pill for everything~! It has become a joke..."The doping of America" ( Which is in my book- "Digressions of a crazy man". ). And those pills have many different consequences for each person, because each person has a different reaction to them, because we are each chemically different, even though we are the same in so many ways as humans. They do not take into account past medical history, allergies, chemical confliction of
prescribing multiple drugs, our DNA, etc. Pills are like a "shotgun blast". Some people can live and get better, and some will die as a result. They are in fact too general in chemical nature to be applied to everyone ( Hence all their disclaimers in their commercials. Loll ). They offer a pill that only treats symptoms, not cures, because this way, they stay in business forever, and never cure the problem. I am not saying that there are drugs which are needed, and help us, I am saying that we take too many pills that don't really cure us, or even help us. They just give false hope, and don't address the deeper issues. The best solution is preventative check ups, and exams. Catch it early, and save money and lives.
Ultimately health-care is too expensive to adopt as a national goal without lots of changes. The Europeans have much smaller populations ( Anywhere from 80-140 million people ), and even they are having problems paying for it all. They decide fate by the seriousness of the problem, and the availability of access to what each person needs, and the governments ability to pay for it all. It sounds good, and it does help to a degree sure, but it is not efficient, or humane by our standards. We would need to adopt cut-off points in treatments, and even Euthanasia, as the Dutch do, to keep it affordable. Most people are generally healthy all their lives. But some people are born sick, diseased, or hypochondriacs, and they will bleed the system dry of money and resources. Life is not fair... never was, and never will be. We must put a price on human life, if we adopt national health-care, or else we will bankrupt our nation.
Oh well, another big issue for solutions. But we must discuss, and decide as a nation.
Questions I want to hear her answer:
1) Does a city have the right to seize a home under eminent domain power to help build a McDonald's (i.e. was Kelo decided correctly)
2) If pick up some seeds while hiking through the woods in my state, walk home, then plant the seeds in my backyard to grow a flower, and then give that flower to my wife as a gift, does that constitute interstate commerce? (i.e. were Raich v. Gonzalez and Wickard v. Fillburn decided correctly?)
3) Is diversity a "compelling state interest"? If so, why? Also, what makes something a "compelling state interest" in your eyes?
4) If Roe v. Wade was decided correctly, then was Lochner? If not, why?
hey,i'm just being honest here...please less exaggeration on Pronunciation...i guess journalists are taught to use alot of Expression in the reporting....sorry i just have to change the channel...just do the report...read it in a Normal tone,like people talk....you know like Larry King.......