Today, the Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as constitutional. Right-wing media figures immediately began venting on Twitter. Here is an hour's worth of the worst right-wing ranting about the Supreme Court decision after it was announced:

Right-wing author and columnist David Limbaugh

Media Research Center VP of Business and Culture Dan Gainor

Fox News Radio reporter Todd Starnes

Breitbart.com editor Ben Shapiro

Fox News contributor Sarah Palin

Right-wing author and blogger Matt Vadum

Right-wing talk radio host and Fox regular Neal Boortz

Fox News contributor Steven Crowder continued Fox News' pattern of inciting intolerance against Islam, accusing a "high percentage" of Muslims of "hat[ing] Christians and Jews" and saying that "the real problem is the Quran."

Crowder made his comments on Sean Hannity's Fox News show. Hannity aired a clip from a French news program in which an Egyptian official affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood declined to answer questions from Israeli journalists. Crowder reacted to the clip by saying, "Well, I mean, what it really comes down to is, a Muslim here, not too fond of the Jewish people. I'm not shocked. Then again, I've actually read the Quran. ... I'm not saying all Muslims hate Christians and Jews. But there's a high percentage, and it's because of the Quran, if you've read it."

When fellow Fox News contributor Pat Caddell responded, "Let's stay with the real problem," Crowder replied, "That is the real problem. The real problem is the Quran."

Later Hannity tried to clarify, saying, "This is important for Steve. Because people are going to hear you say the problem is the Quran. Do you make a distinction between Islam and radical Islam? Those that believe that in sharia, jihad, holy war, infidels."

Crowder replied, "Here's the thing. I make distinctions between Muslims who may be peace-loving Muslims. There are Muslims out there who are that way. But when you read the Bible versus the Quran, they're two very different books. And here, here. Don't take my opinion. Open up the Quran, read a few chapters in any direction."

In 2010 on Hannity's Fox show, Crowder said that the "truth is that Muslims tend to be more violent than Christians."

Read the full entry ...

Today, Rush Limbaugh claimed that a Washington Post story on Bain Capital's investments in firms specializing in outsourcing was debunked by the Post's Fact Checker blog. But the fact-check Limbaugh mentioned was directed at a campaign ad, not the Post's own reporting.

On June 21, The Washington Post exposed Bain Capital's investments in companies "that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components," which went on while Romney "was actively involved in" running the company. The Romney campaign sought a retraction of the story, but after Limbaugh's show ended, it was reported that the Post is standing by its story and will not retract it.

When he was discussing the Romney campaign's efforts to get the story retracted, Limbaugh incorrectly claimed that the story had been fact-checked by the Post's Glenn Kessler, and said the report on Bain Capital was "so inaccurate it's embarrassing":

LIMBAUGH: This is from Dylan Byers at the Politico just now, about 45 minutes ago. Romney campaign representatives will meet with TheWarshington [sic] Post today to seek a formal retraction of its June 21 report that Bain Capital invested in firms that specialized in outsourcing American jobs.

[...]

Now, the Post's story -- they've got their own fact checker there, a guy named Glenn Kessler. And he gave his own paper's story four Pinocchios, which is the biggest -- the worst rating it can get for truth. Four Pinocchios -- four giant Pinocchios -- means this story is so inaccurate it's embarrassing. And so Romney is meeting -- his representatives are meeting with the Post today. They want a retraction.

But Limbaugh is wrong: Glenn Kessler did not fact-check the Washington Post's story on Bain Capital. Kessler's fact-checking post focused on a campaign ad that claimed Bain Capital engaged first-hand in the outsourcing of jobs. In contrast, the Post's story, which came out the day after the ad was posted online, reported and verified that Bain Capital invested in companies that facilitated outsourcing. There are no Washington Post Fact Checker stories about the Post's article on Bain Capital.

Yesterday a federal appeals court unanimously upheld the EPA's finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare, deeming the EPA "unambiguously correct" in addressing climate change through the Clean Air Act. One media 
outlet that is curiously silent on the ruling is the Daily Caller, whose reporter Matthew Boyle previously claimed the resulting regulations would cause the EPA to hire an "ARMY OF 230k BUREAUCRATS." The claim was completely false, and their refusal to correct the clear error damaged their reputation and embarrassed employees.

Boyle's claim on Twitter echoed his Daily Caller article misreading an EPA court filing. The EPA said that it avoided a scenario that would require 230,000 workers by using a "tailoring rule" to regulate only the largest polluters -- a rule that was upheld in the recent court ruling. After several outlets ridiculed Daily Caller's error, its executive editor defended the article by making a snide comment to Politico and making several bad rationalizations about why they did not correct their false report.

Read the full entry ...

Fox's chief Washington correspondent James Rosen hyped a Washington Free Beacon report alleging the Obama campaign employed call centers in Canada and the Philippines. But neither the Fox segment nor the Free Beacon article provided any substantial evidence to support such a claim.

The Obama campaign has been attacking Mitt Romney for his history of moving jobs overseas as a businessman at Bain Capital. After mentioning these reports on Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, Rosen touted the Beacon's claims, stating: "The Romney campaign, in turn, circulated a report in the Washington Free Beacon" which Rosen uncritically said "found the Obama-Biden campaign has paid companies headquartered in Canada and the Philippines more than $80,000 for telemarketing services."

However, ABC reporter Devin Dwyer pointed out that "the Beacon's claims are not fully substantiated" after looking at the actual facts. Dwyer first explained that Pacific East is based in Canada but has a division headquarters in Oregon. He went on to explain that the FEC filings provided no indication as to which Pacific East call centers were used by the Obama campaign or where they may have been based:

Closer examination of the facts, however, finds the Beacon's claims are not fully substantiated.

First, Pacific East, while based in Canada, has a division headquartered Beaverton, Ore., to oversee U.S. business operations. There is also no indication from FEC filings of where Pacific East call centers possibly employed by Obama's campaign may have been based. The Beacon does not cite any evidence.

Dwyer then said that the Beacon "points to expenditures in the Obama campaign's most recent Federal Election Commission filing that showed" money spent on telemarketing services from "the Los Angeles-based Donor Services Group (DSG)." Dwyer found that the Beacon's reporting on DSG also lacks convincing evidence:

As for DSG, the picture is much the same. The U.S.-based company specializes in call centers and donor outreach, according to its website. However, there is no mention of foreign operations there, or in FEC filings.

So where does "Manila" come from?

The bit appears in a 2009 services contract between DSG and a Maryland charity (Foundation Fighting Blindness, Inc.) that was obtained and posted by the Weekly Standard. The document outlines four different types of DSG call centers -- one of which was based in Manila "to make inexpensive calls designed to reinstate older lapsed donors more affordably."

It's unclear whether those call centers still exist or whether the Obama campaign benefited from their services.  The FEC filing, again, shows no direct evidence to support the Beacon's claim that Team Obama "paid a call center in Manila."

CNN's Soledad O'Brien dismissed GOP obstructionism on immigration reform, downplaying the filibuster of the DREAM Act by Senate Republicans and suggesting the Obama administration didn't do enough on immigration issues.   

In an interview today with Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), O'Brien said: 

O'BRIEN: When I was talking to [Romney adviser] Carlos Gutierrez -- who was representing the Obama campaign [sic] -- yesterday, his consistent message to me was, Forget about Mitt Romney. Let's talk about what Obama has done. Or hasn't done maybe is a better way of putting it. Doesn't he have a point? You look at immigration reform. There was an opportunity; it was not done. When you look at the record number of people who are being deported, that's something the president has done. Isn't this on immigration kind of a mixed bag for the president. 

After Van Hollen pointed out that Democrats tried to pass the DREAM Act but were blocked by Senate Republicans, O'Brien played a clip of Carlos Gutierrez, an honorary co-chair of Mitt Romney's Hispanic Steering Committee, accusing Obama of "fail[ing] to provide leadership" on immigration issues and said: 

O'BRIEN: You're specifically talking about the DREAM Act, but what [Gutierrez is] talking about is there was an opportunity early on and it was not done. Could have been done and was not done. 

Van Hollen responded by again pointing out that Republicans blocked the DREAM Act and saying that "if you can't even pass" the DREAM Act, "how can you talk about doing comprehensive immigration reform?" 

In 2010, despite nearly unanimous opposition from Republicans, the DREAM Act passed the House. It died in the Senate, however, even though three years earlier, a dozen Republican senators had supported the bill. ABC News wrote at the time: "By a vote of 55 to 41, the bill -- the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM Act -- failed to win the 60 votes needed to break a GOP filibuster, even though the measure passed the House last week."

Read the full entry ...

As right-wing media cheer on a partisan Republican effort to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt with regard to Congress' inquiry into the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious, Fortune magazine has released a stunning investigation which concludes that ATF "never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels" in that case.

The Fortune piece is based on a six-month investigation that included the review of "more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents" and interviews with "39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case." Its author, Katherine Eban, is an award-winning investigative reporter who writes for major national magazines and whose work has been featured on national broadcast news programs. 

Operation Fast and Furious has long been presented by the politicians of both parties and by right-wing, traditional, and progressive media - including here at Media Matters - as a failed ATF operation in which agents were instructed to allow guns to be trafficked in order to build a complex case against a Mexican drug cartel. In that scenario, the guns were allowed to cross the border and were later recovered at crime scenes, including at the site of the murder of border patrol agent Brian Terry. Several members of Congress, including Oversight Committee chair Darrell Issa (R-CA), have followed the National Rifle Association and right-wing media in promoting a more sinister conspiracy theory: that the operation was conceived from the beginning to deliberately arm the cartels in order to promote a gun control agenda.

In contrast to both the conventional and conspiratorial narratives, Eban writes:

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

Eban's report raises important questions about the media's conventional wisdom on the case. As of publication, Fox News -- which has provided a constant flood of reports and commentary on every minor occurrence in Fast and Furious -- has not mentioned the story, which was published at 5 a.m. this morning.

Read the full entry ...

On The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart mocked Fox News' repeated attempts to attach the "Watergate" label to several of the right-wing media's manufactured attacks on President Obama.    

After pointing out that the Fast & Furious operation is the latest story to be labeled as "Obama's Watergate" by Fox News, Stewart mocked the network for using the same rhetoric to attack Obama over intelligence leaks, Solyndra, and the BP oil spill.

Right-wing media has repeatedly attempted to pin the "Watergate" label to the Obama administration. In addition to the examples listed by Stewart, right-wing media have unsuccessfully tried to elevate Obama's immigration policy shift, the Joe Sestak "bribe" falsehood, and the "birther" campaign to the status of "Watergate."

Consider the following scenario: Congress passes an important economic regulation designed to address a major national problem over massive opposition from conservative and corporate interests. Defeated in the democratic process, these forces then launch a legal attack, using a novel theory to claim the law is unconstitutional. Right-wing media cheer the suit, claiming it is a fight for freedom. 

Sound familiar? It should, given the unresolved fate of the Affordable Care Act, but this time the reform in the right's crosshairs is not health care. It's consumer financial protection. A new lawsuit and right-wing media campaign have taken aim at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), created by the Dodd-Frank law in response to the 2008 financial market collapse.  The purpose of CFPB is to "promote fairness and transparency for mortgages, credit cards, and other consumer financial products and services." Although the legal arguments made in the suit are questionable, the case should not be dismissed as harmless. The right-wing media's proven ability to move dubious legal claims into mainstream debate combined with a conservative federal judiciary sympathetic to corporate interests mean the CFPB suit bears close scrutiny. 

The lawsuit alleges that CFPB and another entity, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which oversees the law's "too big to fail provisions," are unconstitutional because key provisions of Dodd-Frank are too vague and do not provide sufficient oversight of the agencies' actions. They also challenge President Obama's recess appointment of CFPB Director Richard Cordray following a Republican filibuster of his nomination. 

Legal experts are already expressing skepticism on the suit's merits. Deepak Gupta, an appellate lawyer and former CFPB official, called the suit "more a political stunt than a serious legal challenge" and questioned whether the plaintiffs challenging the law have standing to do so. ("Standing" is a legal requirement that a party to a case be at least at risk of suffering a real harm from the action complained of.) A small community bank in Texas is a plaintiff in the case (along two conservative organizations), and an article in the American Banker questioned whether the bank is large enough to be subject to the provisions of which it complains.

Read the full entry ...

Carbon dioxide emissions are not just warming up our atmosphere, they're also changing the chemistry of our oceans. This phenomenon is known as ocean acidification, or sometimes as global warming's "evil twin" or the "osteoporosis of the sea." Scientists have warned that it poses a serious threat to ocean life. Yet major American
news outlets covered the Kardashians over 40 times more often than ocean acidification over the past year and a half.

Rising carbon dioxide emissions have caused the oceans to become around 30 percent more acidic since the Industrial Revolution, and if we do not lower the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, the ocean surface could be up to 150 percent more acidic by 2100. At that level, the shells of some plankton would dissolve, large parts of the ocean would become inhospitable to coral reef growth, and the rapidity of the change could threaten much of the marine food web. According to the National Research Council, the chemical changes are taking place "at an unprecedented rate and magnitude" and are "practically irreversible on a time scale of centuries."

Despite a boom of recent scientific research documenting this threat, there has been a blackout on the topic at most media outlets. Since the end of 2010, ABC, NBC, and Fox News have completely ignored ocean acidification, and the Los Angeles Times, USA TODAY, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CNN, and CBS have barely mentioned it at all.

Read the full entry ...

An Iowa radio talk show host recently made headlines and provoked outrage when he suggested Catholic nuns who were traveling the country engaging in political activism ought to be pulled over and pistol-whipped.  Not helping matters was the fact the radio show's guest, an Iowa  Congressman, laughed at the "pistol whip" comment.

But at Fox News there was virtually no discussion about the disturbing incident. The infamous Fox outrage machine was definitely not cranked up this week, and hosts did not invite on a bevy of guests to express their shock and dismay at such wildly anti-Catholic rhetoric filling the airwaves and being laughed at by a politician.

In fact, the ugly incident wasn't mentioned once on Fox's primetime programs. And this from an outlet that at times this year has sounded like the in-house news channel for the Archdiocese of New York.

Why did Fox pass on what should have been low-hanging fruit for a channel that has spent so much of 2012 obsessing over supposed political slights directed at Catholics, and claiming Democrats have declared war on the church?

Three reasons. First, the traveling nuns are protesting deep budget cuts advocated by Republican Paul Ryan; cuts the nuns say will adversely affect the poor, disabled and elderly. Second, the Iowa host who made the violent "pistol whip" crack is a right-wing talker. And third, the guest who chuckled at the comment was a Republican, Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA).

In other words, this Catholic story was completely off-message for Fox and its copyrighted narrative about how Obama's Democrats are waging war on the church. The nuns story was just one of several that Fox has been eagerly avoiding in recent weeks.  

Read the full entry ...

More than half of all public broadcasting stations would be put "at risk" if federal funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting were eliminated, according to a new report commissioned in response to attacks from conservatives that put the funding in jeopardy.

The report stated: "Ending federal funding for public broadcasting would severely diminish, if not destroy, public broadcasting service in the United States."

The study, released June 20 from Booz & Company Inc., reviewed alternative funding options for public broadcasting if federal funding is removed. It found that trying to replace such funding -- which accounts for about 15% of CPB's operating budget -- with advertising and other revenue would be detrimental as well.

In 2011, a House vote to defund National Public Radio was supported by numerous conservative commentators, many spouting false claims of liberal bias and citing alternative sources that could be used to replace the federal dollars -- many of which the CPB report finds ineffective.

"There have been a lot of suggestions that public broadcasters could just turn to commercial broadcasting, but this report shows that is not possible," said Tim Isgitt, senior vice-president for communications and government affairs at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. "The most surprising thing that comes out of this report is that advertising would significantly limit our other funding sources; foundations provide funding because it is a public good and mission driven. They wouldn't do that if we were a commercial model, and individual members would be less likely to give money to an entity that is commercial."

The study was commissioned at the request of the Conference Report accompanying the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012 (H.R. 2055). The report states that "the conferees requested that CPB provide a report to House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment of the Act on alternative sources of funding for public broadcasting stations in lieu of federal funding."

The report states, in part:

A reduction or elimination of CPB funding will put 63% (251) of radio stations and 67% (114) of television stations in the public broadcasting system at risk:

19% (76) of radio stations and 32% (54) of TV Stations that currently operate at a minimum practical cost level, and would be at a high risk of closing.

44% (175) of radio stations and 35% (60) of TV stations have a history of operating deficits and would suffer reduced effectiveness or closure under increased financial pressure.

Read the full entry ...

People who watch Fox News closely are familiar with the fact that Fox has been misleading viewers with deceptively edited videos for years. On the June 26 edition of Special Report, Fox aired an edited clip of President Obama that is interesting because it is symbolic of the whole story Fox is trying to tell about the 2012 presidential election.

During a report about the campaign, correspondent Ed Henry noted that some Democrats are not planning to attend this summer's Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. Then, he aired an edited clip of President Obama's speech at a June 26 campaign event in Atlanta:

HENRY: [Sen. Claire] McCaskill is the ninth no-show so far among officeholders across the country, including Pennsylvania Congressman Mark Critz. Critz's office bluntly notes internal polls show in his district, the president is down double digits to presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. 

OBAMA: They'll say, you know, the economy is bad, and it's Obama's fault. [break] And because times are tough and because they're spending these ungodly sums, you know, it's going to be close. 

HENRY: While the president did not complain about big money last time, when he enjoyed a massive edge over Republican John McCain, his campaign aides privately say Romney may raise $100 million this month alone, which is why the president today penned a fundraising letter warning supporters, "I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign." [emphasis added]

The White House transcript of the event in Atlanta reveals what Fox News didn't think was worthy of inclusion in its report (in bold):

OBAMA: [T]his is still going to be a close election because the economy is still tough and folks are still frustrated.  And what that means is that you're going to have more money spent in this election than ever before by the other side on negative ads.  And their message will be simple. They'll say, the economy is bad and it's Obama's fault.  (Laughter.)  They suffer a little bit of amnesia so they don't remember -- (applause) -- all the stuff that happened before I was sworn into office, but that's going to be their message.

And because times are tough, and because they're spending these ungodly sums, it's going to be close.

Fox is doing its best to sweep away this very fact: that the economy was in a time of historic trouble before Obama took office.

Read the full entry ...

Attacking a Department of Justice hotline for potential civil rights abuses in Arizona, Rush Limbaugh declared that reporters of such abuses are merely "tattle-tales" or "criminals" who "can now snitch out law enforcement." But the potential civil rights concerns over the law - especially concerns about racial profiling - are very real.

Although the Supreme Court struck down most of SB1070, Arizona's controversial immigration law, it allowed the so-called "show me your papers" provision to go into effect. In an effort to keep tabs on potential racial profiling abuses, the federal government launched a hotline and email address where people can report potential civil rights concerns.

Limbaugh labeled the hotline a "tattle-tale line," created so that "ticked-off, sniveling little liberals" "can call and rat out Arizona law-enforcement officials to Barack Obama." He went on to address Arizona residents:

LIMBAUGH: When your police and your sheriff departments try to do their jobs, left-wing lawyers stand ready to bury your bogus law suits, at the request and the behest of Barack Obama. This hotline, this email address, is criminalizing the enforcement of the law.

[...]

What this is all about is the presumption that law enforcement does nothing but profile. And they're gonna profile. And who gets to decide whether it's profiling or not? A former ACLU lawyer, former La Raza lawyer at the Department of Justice?

[...]

Criminals can now snitch out law enforcement, folks. Barack Obama has sided with people who are on the other side of the law.

In reality, racial profiling concerns over Arizona's immigration law are legitimate.

Read the full entry ...

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court struck down three of the four contested provisions of Arizona's anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. In the wake of the decision, the Washington Post, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times all allowed anti-immigrant voices to peddle misinformation about the ruling's impact. The LA Times quoted an Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) statement while the Washington Post quoted both Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) -- a Southern Poverty Law Center labeled- hate group -- and Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, a group associated with white supremacists and the notorious anti-immigrant activist John Tanton. However, while both the LA Times and the Post gave limited space to these voices, the New York Times provided an extensive section to Mr. Stein and FAIR:

Both sides claimed on Monday that they had achieved important gains. Dan Stein, the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, a group that supported Arizona, called the ruling "an important victory."

"Even if the Obama administration refuses to enforce most immigration laws, states have the power to deter and discourage illegal aliens from settling or remaining within their jurisdictions," Mr. Stein said.

He said the ruling, coupled with a Supreme Court decision last year that affirmed an Arizona law requiring employers to verify the legal immigration status of employees, gives states "broad latitude to carry out a policy of attrition through enforcement."

Mr. Stein's organization supported a small but determined corps of lawyers who created legal blueprints for Arizona's and other state laws that were intended to drive out illegal immigrants by making daily life impossible for them in this country.

As a Media Matters study previously found, the top five newspapers in America cited anti-immigrant groups hundreds of times since the introduction of SB1070 in January 2010. In addition, as was the case with FAIR's description here, the New York Times often whitewashed the group's ugly past, including its strong ties to Tanton and the fact that it has received over $1.2 million from the white supremacist Pioneer Fund. The Times had previously published two articles detailing the group's affiliations to Tanton and white nationalist organizations and acknowledging FAIR's effort to scrub Tanton's name from their website following the initial report.

Unfortunately, the Washington Post and the New York Times weren't the only ones to provide a platform for Stein to air his anti-immigrant views. Immediately following the ruling, CNN hosted Stein for an interview to air his reaction to the ruling. Unsurprisingly, CNN's John King also failed to note Stein's unsavory ties, instead calling FAIR "the country's largest immigration reform group." 

Following the Supreme Court ruling striking down most of Arizona's controversial immigration bill, Fox News gave a platform to the heads of two anti-immigrant groups to comment on the decision.

On June 25, Fox News Latino's politics section published a piece by Dan Stein in which the frequent Fox guest and president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) declared the ruling a "victory" for Arizona and criticized the Obama administration's use of prosecutorial discretion to postpone deportation proceedings of certain undocumented workers in order to prioritize the removal of others.

On the same day, FoxNews.com published an opinion piece by Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA. Beck heralded the ruling as an opportunity for other states to "follow Arizona's lead" in enforcing immigration laws "in the way that Congress intended, even if the president insists on violating those laws."

Fox's decision to give Stein and Beck a platform to comment on the Arizona immigration ruling comes in spite of the fact that both of their groups are virulently anti-immigrant.

Indeed, FAIR is an anti-immigrant organization considered a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Not only does it have a history of using extreme, violent, and offensive language aimed at undocumented immigrants, but it has extremist ties as well.

Beck's NumbersUSA is an anti-immigration group with white nationalist ties. It also has ties to the anti-immigration network of John Tanton, "the anti-immigration crusader" who "spent decades at the heart of the white nationalist movement."

The SPLC has referred to Beck as Tanton's "heir apparent." Beck has also been an editor of Tanton's journal, The Social Contract, which, according to the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights (IREHR), "has repeatedly served as a platform for white nationalists."

Fox News is falsely accusing the Obama administration of "thumbing its nose" at the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down most of Arizona's controversial immigration law. In fact, the federal government is continuing to enforce immigration law in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

The court on Monday struck down most of the law, but allowed the so-called "show me your papers" provision of the law to go into effect. In response, the Department of Homeland Security announced that federal officials will not respond to every traffic stop at which Arizona authorities claim to have an undocumented immigrant in their custody. Federal officials will continue to take into custody immigrants with a criminal record and other people who meet federal immigration enforcement authority. DHS is also rescinding its immigration enforcement partnership program with Arizona.

While this announcement is in no way at odds with the court's ruling, Fox News is citing as evidence that the Obama administration is in defiance of the court.

Sean Hannity claimed that Obama was "basically thumbing his nose at the judiciary branch."

Other Fox commentators made similar comments. Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer claimed that Obama was acting "high handed and lawless." And Fox News host Greta Greta Van Susteren  claimed the president "snub[bed] his finger, a little bit, at the full court."

In fact, the DHS announcement is perfectly consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court said that ICE must "respond to any request made by state officials for verification of a person's citizenship status." And DHS will indeed continue to verify an individual's immigration status on request. But the Supreme Court did not impose additional limitations on the federal government such as a requirement that the federal government must arrest all the people that Arizona wants arrested.

Under the court's ruling, the federal government retains its well-established power to use its discretion to decide who it wants to deport.

Fox News has long downplayed concerns that voter ID laws could suppress the vote, especially among groups that lean Democratic. But the Republican House Majority Leader in Pennsylvania, Mike Turzai, recently validated those concerns at a meeting of that state's Republican State Committee, reportedly saying that passing ID laws would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania":

House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) suggested that the House's end game in passing the Voter ID law was to benefit the GOP politically.

"We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we've talked about for years," said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation - abortion facility regulations - in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

Read the full entry ...

Since President Obama's assertion of executive privilege over a set of internal Department of Justice (DOJ) documents, Fox News "straight news" anchors have repeatedly suggested that the president is attempting to "have it both ways" by invoking the privilege while also maintaining his longstanding position that he was not involved in the authorization or management of the failed ATF Fast and Furious operation. At times they have continued to do so even after their colleagues have informed them that these positions are not inconsistent.

Both Gregg Jarrett and Jamie Colby, the guest hosts of Happening Now and America's Newsroom, respectively, have pushed this baseless idea - echoing GOP talking points - during this week's broadcasts. Although Colby and Jarrett have been corrected by their colleagues on-air for their mistaken claims, Jarrett's revival of the specious claim during yesterday's show demonstrates that the idea that Obama's routine use of executive privilege evidences something sinister is alive and well at Fox News.

From the June 25 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:

From the June 26 edition of America's Newsroom:

Read the full entry ...