The Journal Editorial Report: 9/12

" Coming up next President Obama doubles down on his health care -- Lip service to his opponents concerned but making few concessions is it enough so rally that Democrats plus. The Supreme Court and free speech why Sonia Sotomayor is first case of the justice could spell sweeping changes for campaign finance law. And a New Hampshire judge -- a home schooled girl to attend public school citing her rigid. Christian faith. The journal. Editorial report starts right now."

" Welcome to The Journal Editorial Report I'm Paul if you go in a speech that may have helped salvage. The democrats' health care agenda president Barack Obama addressed a joint session of congress this week conceding very little to his opponents. And promising that is 900 billion dollar plan will not add to the federal budget deficit."

" I -- not -- it if it adds one -- to the deficit. Now or in the future period. And to prove that I'm serious. There'll be a provision in this plan requires us to come forward -- more spending cuts if the savings we promise don't materialize."

" Joining the panel this week Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy editor Dan -- anger senior editorial page writer Joe Rego and Washington columnist Kim Strauss old fans so. The story now is in the polls a bump up for in support for health care and a lot of people in Washington talking about new momentum. Did he save the day for the Democrats."

" Well look this was it's speech to a joint session of congress that's a big deal and the president's doing this for a piece of legislation. I mean -- this is a guy who's running from behind you know rendering of football season here. This is like the Obama teams on their home twenties and they're just trying to push this fall up to midfield I think he got it to midfield but mainly what he did it seems to me in that speech. It was make clear to everyone. Why the bill is in trouble it's in trouble because they're trying to put their arms around 70%. Of the economy it was an extremely complicated speech."

" She well that's for sure all right Joe let's talk about some of arguments the president made particularly this one that says that -- 900 billion that's the price -- he's put on it which is smaller. In some of the other price case. But is is realistic to talk about not getting a dye into the deficit why don't think so. No one in congress is written bill yet that doesn't increase the deficit to house bill increases it by. 239 billion dollar that's what some pretty favorable accounting some really favor and only for the first ten year right if you look at the second ten years and that's about another trillion dollars this deficit. But if you look at what. President Obama basically blessed on on Wednesday night. I know he says cool -- raised taxes 450 billion who cut Medicare. 450 billion. Then he says Medicare is sacred trust -- he then says is bankrupting the country. -- says you know don't worry about people. Saying I'm gonna cut in Medicare the government to use that money to finance from. Health care for the middle class act Kim how potent is this Medicare argument for the opponents of this because the one that the president says look you're not connected to the -- seniors you're not gonna lose a dime a benefits we're gonna protect all that's sacred trust on the other hand we're gonna cut 500 billion dollars."

" Somehow that -- it doesn't really add up. It doesn't match that up and that's why you have seen seniors be the least happy and polls with some of this that's coming out. You know what -- well interesting as a president talked about waste and fraud they're gonna cut things out. You know what what people aren't talking about as what he's actually gonna do is cut Medicare Advantage which is actually this program which is doubled in size since 2003 seniors love it. He gives them more choice and control allows them to apply their. Their health -- daughters dollars to private insurers who who can give them better covered about twenty -- that sent about one and for all seniors have Medicare Advantage through right now that is right. These are the people in the cross hairs is the Democrats hate this plan they don't like that it exists in the private market they wanna get rid of it that's where the money's gonna come out of and that's the community this going to be released happy about it's all right."

" The other thing the president floated was this idea which with some people said this is a -- reaching across the -- And giving Republicans something they want is medical malpractice. Reform. He at least acknowledged it's a problem but how serious was his proposal for reform. Well you could have done no medical malpractice reform as a freestanding piece of legislation or even as -- five years or even as part of the bill he didn't just part of the bill he didn't put it as part of the bill he said didn't say this would be probably talk but demonstration. Projects in the states."

" Yeah I think it was mainly a rhetorical flourish look there are so many moving parts to this bill and the president's conveying the impression that you somehow have to be. 44. Against what he's doing. But if that's -- for what he's doing for -- nothing Arianna or your truck a standing in the way in Europe. Trying to protect the status quo right this is legitimately a political piece of politics that people can legitimately oppose and I think. He has not changed much of anything we're going to roll forward into the fall the baucus committee is gonna produce a piece of legislation and Republicans are going to oppose it. It's gonna be a purely partisan votes."

" What about the public option Joe he talked about it and in the -- extolled and said we needed he supported on the other hand. He doesn't he's not wedded to a he's willing to thrown over the side and already you're seeing the -- in terms of the left begin to say well you always said we wouldn't we wouldn't pass this with out of public option well maybe. Not right I mean they're the reason he's not wedded to a public option is because a lot of Democrats actually hated especially the ones. Who are up for reelection in our very in in if he gets your so called blue dog Democrats and moderate districts and and that the senator from Nebraska Florida places like that right exactly. And you know it he'll he'll throw that over the side but that the rest of the bill still gets the same place he can get about 70% of what he wants. Just through regulating. Private insurance and subsidizing care designed -- it exactly and and and telling doctors and hospitals and you know. Cover this treatment don't cover that treatment. You know won't penalize you if you spend too much. But over here you know that's that's fine. And and really what's gonna happen is. All of the health care system is gonna become a subsidiary of congress and doctors potentially civil servants. I know around them down down down the line a threat Kim do you think the president really set the stage here for and for a victory did he convince his party reassure his party enough we don't have much time. To watch."

" The polls you know he he certainly -- pedal to the the leadership but the people he has not necessarily convinced are those blue dogs are those swing state senators they're gonna watch to see other public reacts to this. That's the public reacts positively it's gonna get across the finish line would be what I hear you saying. Yes but if what you see happening is this continued doubts that the poll numbers keep falling and more importantly if the president's numbers keep falling. Then there's going to be less of a reason to stick with them on this and that would be the real fears that the Obama administration."

" All right thank you -- when we come back the Supreme Court second chance the justices revisit two previous rulings. On campaign finance this time around will they strike a blow. For free speech."

" The Supreme Court -- for the first time by justice Sonia Sotomayor heard arguments as we get a case that could strike a historic blow for political free speech and against campaign finance restrictions the case involves a documentary. Made by conservative group last year about then senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Funded by a group called citizens united. Hillary the movie. Was intended to be shown on cable TV during the primary season and that got it caught in the net of campaign finance laws such as McCain Feingold. That control political advertising a federal court ruled that the film was a thinly veiled political attack -- And thus restricted by those campaign laws were back with Dan -- also joining us opinion journal dot com editor James Toronto and senior editorial page writer Colin Levy well -- you. Listen to the or -- oral arguments at the court to this week. Are we poised for five justices overturning these up precedence."

" Yeah I think there's a good chance -- that could happen this is something where we've watched in the past. A certain amount of reticence from Chief Justice John Roberts as well as justice Samuel Alito in taking big steps to. Revisit some of these campaign finance restrictions but this is the case. Where because this is a movie and it's the kind of band that the government has also said could sort of slide into books. That we're seeing it a real opportunity for. The justices to take a hard look at how. That these sort of restrictions against spending -- can become restrictions on speech."

" Now the term government conceded at an earlier stage that in fact books could be implicated here if if if the visits and under the under the FEC the federal election commission's interpretation of the statute."

" Yes that's true and they sort of backed off that slightly. In this instance that is very hard to draw a bright line between. Why a documentary should be able to be regulated and a book can't be so once you start regulating speech this is something that's very very iffy territory."

" Now Jesus was not an Academy Award winner has a movie but. So not a great piece of literature art on the other hand this would seem to be the kind of thing. Weighing in on a political campaign that that the constitution expressly designed."

" To protect well it's worth putting us in a broader context right America has an extremely. Broad interpretation of freedom of speech so there of very few limits it's just citizens united who made a porno movie. He would have been protected by the First Amendment if it it made a movie advocating racial violence it would have been protected by the First Amendment under in 1969 kids this is an exception it's an anomaly. What do they make an exception for this because it might influence the outcome of an election. And because well financed by corporate money right right that's the key issue but right under McCain -- well because it was far respect corporate money but also because it's political because it might affect the outcome. Of an election but what they think the First Amendment is for. But to influence politics and so Michael Moore is movie Fahrenheit 9/11. Which was an attack on the bush administration and Republicans that could've. Probably should have been banned under this kind of interpretation too well there's an exception for media companies so Fox News Channel on Wall Street Journal com whatever we want Miramax can put out Fahrenheit 9/11 which was actually very similar movie albeit with some degree of -- and production value. Hot but side I so there is this exception -- York times editorialized this week in favor obvious restrictions you're times endorses candidates. -- every year tells people how to vote on an offer office -- of anyone listens to them bunch."

" So some corporations are more equal than others like corporate rates at its bid and then had has did with that did that come up and -- and end at the that's a Supreme Court at all a column this week -- kind of distinction."

" Yet it did and I think that that's the key point here which is. That this is a case where they have to decide whether the government can censor certain speakers but not others I think. You know what what John Roberts in particular was listening for with the idea that the First Amendment either protects everyone or it doesn't."

" You know it strikes me was so beautiful and there's it's almost some more -- health care debate in the sense that our viewers watch these subjects we discussed. And you get tangled up in this incredible complexity all the time this is about. Funding campaigns right but the that you end up with the Supreme Court case of this sort of play and that plays in the the arms of the politicians who know the -- of the public has lots process I don't care meanwhile their rights are eroded. Without them really know well I think it has explains a lot why we have the sort of campaigns we do. The fundamental problem with this system is that individuals. Are restricted from giving more than 2100 dollars to a candidate in an election cycle right that's the basic. Bright look a limitation. So as a result you have all of these forces trying to start find ways around that. But the fact is that we have. And people complain about this all time our candidates either tend to be people. Who have our professional candidates they don't hold any office or you have billionaires who fund their own campaigns make it very difficult for the average guy or woman to launch a presidential campaign."

" James Justice Kennedy as she has as -- been developing -- jurisprudence of individual liberty a lot of cases do you think that this place in in this case plays to him siding with with they have to conservatives."

" Well yes especially because our that was aside he took he was a decider he's usually this remote but he was a decider in both of the precedents -- going next 1990 and one in 2003 doing with the can't find goals. So the real question is Alito and Roberts who probably will come out in favor of free speech but just haven't gone that far yet."

" what are we learn about justice Sotomayor. That during the oral argument."

" Well I think we learned that she's going to be about what people expected she's always. Anyone who's wanted to stick closely to president when it was what people talk about and here. The precedent is for restricting speech so she seemed to be willing to hold onto that."

" did of course campaign finance laws I think are one of the great offenses against the constitution and with any luck they'll will get five to through these precedents and all right thank you. When we come back in New Hampshire judge orders a home school girl to attend the local public school setting the rigidity. Of the Christian faith. The details -- next."

" New Hampshire court ordered a home -- Christian girl to begin attending fifth grade at the local public school last week citing the rigidity. Her religious -- the court said that ten year old -- Kirk how -- need to consider other views as she matures although she was found to be generally well liked -- academically promising. The court noted that -- quote vigorous defense of her religious police suggests strongly. That she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view. The judge's order goes on the say that -- would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time. In her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior. Wall Street Journal columnist William -- joins the panel along with Naomi Schaefer Riley who edits are."

" Houses of worship column bill you've followed this case and and other child cases like this is this something or how -- the state. Take somebody -- six somebody out of being home schooled enforcement public school with a really not a true it right well that's what people are asking is it grows out of a messy divorce. Where the parents have always been split about education. So once the child but there has been home school and a child for years and the father is always disliked it primarily it seems because he thinks it doesn't. Socialize her well and so forth. What makes it extraordinary. Is is that the line of reasoning. That pulled the concept of education you go to public school to have your faith challenge and so forth and that a judge can make a ruling on this for I mean judges they think. Frequent these cases have to choose between parents I'm told also that in New Hampshire. The girl's been going to home school for four years and as you say been doing well that it's much harder for court to make this kind of decision. Given those four years. But who wish wish -- done well as any other thing it's so odd about this is. There's no finding of the mothers on -- that the girl is in danger. Though that that would have I understand this and the only -- the state has an interest of protecting. -- the security of -- the safety of all of them of the mine that doesn't -- media play in this in this case is there are some it. Inclination. Program implication rather of religious violence."

" I think you could you could say that but I I would start with just the point that the state has kind of been forced into this case here I mean you have clearly a bitter divorce and bitter dispute between two parents. Who think that they have the welfare of their child and mine and there's a long history of the state getting involved in cases where. Someone claims that the welfare of the child is at stake and we could dispute I think whether in fact this child is -- any kind of you know and social welfare danger. But I think that we have to consider hit that it is her father. Who was actually asking the court to take action here but when the mother gets custody typically in divorce case -- the child as well -- you get custody that would include presumably being able to make a decision about the education of the child well that's true but you know when you consider the fact that a significant portion of Americans are in interfaith relationships interfaith marriages. You have cases where a lot of times the people this -- I just in disagreement about. Extremely fundamental religious issues I mean is daddy going to hell is the question that I think we don't want your child and."

" Can you insist upon somebody getting out of the home because of their religious analysts say what is so don't send that job Oscar and also say that. You're doing it because it's a public schools job. To challenge your faith because your faith needs to be attenuated by public school is an odd definition of a public school. And it's an odd I think it's the bizarre kind of reasoning people than the family law people that I talked to don't think the reasoning. Can be -- you might you'll make a decision this way but the reasoning is very very threatening all right -- your product of Catholic schools I mean if your faith been challenged."

" Sufficiently in those Catholic schools and you should have been thrown into a public school well to judge that she -- her -- ought to be challenged users in order to watch more television before. But no -- cases like this growing -- federal cases sort of this this is the judge's decision basically -- this legal status of home schooling vis a vis the public school system does the public school system in this country. Trump everything and I could see a case like this rising up through the judicial system may be all the --"

" Record -- followed another case involving a Muslim girl who was -- late this team I think she's seventeen she's asked to be protected the state to protect her from going back to her family because she's fled from Florida to Ohio. And she's afraid that if she retrieved his returned to her family she won't be hurt because she has converted to christianity right. This is this is much more passionate case because the stakes are a lot higher. That the girl actually fled from Ohio to Florida I'm -- Florida now she's seventeen. So it's a little complicated because within a year you know presumably should be the measure our independent sure in some ways though it's much more passions become a holy war on the Internet. I think in some ways it's less about religion. In that the real issue is she says. The father threatened to killer said you become a Christian. And he's he's threatening killer or senator -- asylum. He says he never made the threat. And that Christian evangelicals that put this in her head I think that's the issue whether this -- whether they determined that this this dad made this threat."

" There there is a long history precedents -- for the state intervening as I said there's a case called Quincy Massachusetts and which -- jehovah's witness was having her. Daughter go on pedal religious literature on the streets and the state. Decided that there was a compelling interest that this was not in the child's welfare interest and there have been several more cases like that involving Christian scientists. Where they denied medical care to a child. And the state said look we have an interest in making sure that the welfare of the child is protected and one intervened."

" That would seem to argue in this case for such -- such -- erring on the side of caution I'm. We have to take one more break when we come back our hits and misses of the week."

" Time now for our hits and misses of the week -- first -- you. I'd like to commend the New York Times reporter who is rescued by British commandos. From the Taliban in Afghanistan. -- people were killed in that -- including you reporters. Afghan interpreter. And net and one British commando and now a lot of people are coming forward to second guess the commandos and criticize the decision. In his own story. To reported seeing -- describe the air right home. With a -- guys who saved in this way he wrote I thank everyone who is still alive to thank he wasn't and never will be enough. That's a graceful note from a reporter with the good perspective."

" All right Naomi well let's give a -- to the teachers unions and I am shocked. This -- a second that this week school started in new York and other kids -- exactly one day after the teachers arrived. Thanks to brilliant -- negotiating umpire Randy -- the American Federation -- Teachers teachers -- to -- one day to prepare at the end of summer vacation. If you go to the AST's website if they call themselves a union of professionals. I say if you're professionals and you should take a little bit more time to prepare for can -- All right Colin."

" Well I'm gonna give a hit to University of Wyoming president. Tom Buchanan for standing up to protesters who've been objecting to the naming of an international center for. Dick Cheney there on campus because of his support for the Iraq War. And that president of the university reminded the protesters that real intellectual diversity includes and extends to people who you don't agree with. So he deserves our applause. For the idea that universities teach not."

" Indoctrinate our I think you Collins that's it for this week's edition of The Journal Editorial Report thanks to my panel and do all of you for watching our apologies go. We hope to see you right here."