Greta Van Susteren posted a comment that really puts things in perspective for me. I don't usually agree with her, but I think she is right this time. I thought it was curious that Obama wanted the Health Care law to go to the Supreme Court before the election. Greta figures that no matter what the SC rules, Obama wins. If the SC says the HC law is unconstitutional, the Republicans will not have an election talking point. They won't be able to urge voters to go to the poles to get rid of "Obamacare". If HC law is deemed constitutional there is nothing the Republicans can do to repeal it. It has been deemed law by the SC. Maybe this is all very simplistic but I think there is merit in it.

[www.huffingtonpost.com]

Um.. Yes ?

(I'm preparing for cleanup services, as various posters here experience head explosions for agreeing to a Fox News commentator).

Well, there is the even simpler "tarnish of failure" from having your signature achievement shot down, which may trump the nuance in the article.

If it is shot down, it all hangs on how well the Democrats focus their outrage in November. If they keep running about like a heard of cats they will be unable to capitalize.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2012 12:49PM by Acer.

"If HC law is deemed constitutional there is nothing the Republicans can do to repeal it."

I would tend to agree overall, but just because the SC deems obamacare to be the law of the land, it won't stop repubs from campaigning against it and promising to repeal it. They will keep right on doing just that.

Also, it may be hard to predict how the country would view it's being shot down. It could backfire on the repubs. The country believes that healthcare is an important issue and reforms must be done. Obama worked hard to reform it and the repubs stopped him. That could well be seen as obstructionist. The dems could be seen as the party that wants to help the little guy, but the repubs want the status quo.

I don't think they will strike down the entire thing. I think there's a better than even chance that they'll leave the law alone, and apply some "limiting principle" to the mandate to show that the health insurance market is so unique and so important (17% of GDP) in American commerce that it allows for a full participation requirement and for regulation by Congress under the commerce clause. Some lower court conservative GOP federal judges have already ruled in favor of the law and said pretty much that.


The idea that insurers could go back to not covering people for pre-existing conditions or refusing to cover children or all the other abusive things that were happening is not going to play well with anyone except insurance companies, and would be a very strong rallying cry not just for Democrats but for the majority of Americans who support those reforms.

Quote
Grace62
I don't think they will strike down the entire thing. I think there's a better than even chance that they'll leave the law alone, and apply some "limiting principle" to the mandate to show that the health insurance market is so unique and so important (17% of GDP) in American commerce that it allows for a full participation requirement and for regulation by Congress under the commerce clause. Some lower court conservative GOP federal judges have already ruled in favor of the law and said pretty much that.


The idea that insurers could go back to not covering people for pre-existing conditions or refusing to cover children or all the other abusive things that were happening is not going to play well with anyone except insurance companies, and would be a very strong rallying cry not just for Democrats but for the majority of Americans who support those reforms.

some of the more reasoned analysis I listened to last week observed that the SC does not want to be seen to legislate, ergo it's an all-or-nothing situation regarding their findings, past precedent notwithstanding.

I was little surprised to hear the President's strong comments today during his press conference. You wouldn't expect to hear a President to give that type of opinion about a pending case, on the other hand you also don't expect to hear justices spout Tea Party talking points as they did during opening arguments.

So he must figure what the heck.

Yes

---

Grateful11

I can see the opposite happening. If the SCOTUS strikes down the law, then the Republicans will beat their drums saying that since this was such bad legislation that even the Supreme Court struck it down, then do you really want the same POTUS for another 4 years? They'll hammer at Obama for the potential of leading the US down an even more "evil" path for the next 4 years.

If the SCOTUS upholds the law, then I think hal's assessment is spot on, the Repubs will continue to scream how they will overturn it.

Either way, unless the Democrats can get their act and their message together, then I think Pres. Obama will lose. The Republicans will keep their base in a frenzy and expand on that frenzy, while the Democratic base seems so disenfranchised by Obama's giving in to the Republicans that they will stay home on election day. That, coupled with more restrictive voting laws, may lead to a pretty big Republican win.

The Affordable Care Act is dead, kaput, over. Anyone who listened to the arguments should be able to see that. The administration's only hope was to convince Justice Kennedy and he was very much less than impressed with the case presented.

Edit: Obama wanted the Supreme Court to get it over with so he will have time to campaign after the act is thrown out. It will be a very close election indeed and I am preparing myself for life under President Romney. I don't like it, but I think that's how it's going to be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2012 06:27PM by Gutenberg.

>>I don't like it, but I think that's how it's going to be.

hahahahaha

hahaha....

oh god, my sides hurt

---

Quote
mattkime
>>I don't like it, but I think that's how it's going to be.

hahahahaha

hahaha....

oh god, my sides hurt

Why are you laughing? Do you really think that president Obama will easily win a second term?

Remember, Matt, that George W. Bush, the second-worst President in history, won two terms. We live in a Republican nation.

Quote
Gutenberg
Remember, Matt, that George W. Bush, the second-worst President in history, won two terms.

Did James Buchanan move down a notch?

---

Quote
Gutenberg
Remember, Matt, that George W. Bush, the second-worst President in history, won two terms. We live in a Republican nation.

well, a 50% Republican nation, give or take 10%.

---

[www.giyf.com]

Quote
Mike Sellers

Quote
Gutenberg
Remember, Matt, that George W. Bush, the second-worst President in history, won two terms.

Did James Buchanan move down a notch?

No, I moved Franklin Pierce down. Buchanan is #1--the Civil War trumps Iraq.

I don't think it will be easy but i don't see Romney or, erm, Santorum suddenly becoming charismatic.

Quote
Sam3

Quote
mattkime
>>I don't like it, but I think that's how it's going to be.

hahahahaha

hahaha....

oh god, my sides hurt

Why are you laughing? Do you really think that president Obama will easily win a second term?

---