Carville: Carville: A Supreme Court loss will help Democrats

[The T]

Carville: A Supreme Court loss will help Democrats

Maybe that's true, but striking down unconstitutional legislation will be a victory for all the American people.

Agreed.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Correct. It would indeed be the best of both worlds: a campaign promise fulfilled and then capriciously taken away by a partisan, activist Court legislating from the bench.

Please elaborate on your "activist court" comment. This ought to be a riot.

 

[Ernie S.]

The way I see it, obama's one concrete qualification for the position was his status as a Constitutional Law Professor. How could having his signature legislation ripped apart by SCOTUS, possibly help him win reelection? All we're really left with is Biden's characterization of him as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy".

 

[Seawytch]

Most people are saying that obama will use a loss to attack the Supreme Court and ask for 4 more years so he could appoint new Justices.

Except for one thing. The health care bill was hugely, hugely unpopular. If obama says that if he gets four more years he'd pack the court, that may be a signal to a lot of people to vote against him.

He already looks like he's going to blame their lawyer for the loss. As much responsiblity as he's run from so far, this might be the last straw.

There were only parts of the bill that were unpopular. If the whole bill goes down, how many thousands of American will have something taken away from them that they've gotten from the bill?

Funny thing is that the parts of the bill that were unpopular were the Republican ideas...like the mandate.

Know what WAS popular? A Public Option...

 

[The T]

Most people are saying that obama will use a loss to attack the Supreme Court and ask for 4 more years so he could appoint new Justices.

Except for one thing. The health care bill was hugely, hugely unpopular. If obama says that if he gets four more years he'd pack the court, that may be a signal to a lot of people to vote against him.

He already looks like he's going to blame their lawyer for the loss. As much responsiblity as he's run from so far, this might be the last straw.

There were only parts of the bill that were unpopular. If the whole bill goes down, how many thousands of American will have something taken away from them that they've gotten from the bill?

Funny thing is that the parts of the bill that were unpopular were the Republican ideas...like the mandate.

Know what WAS popular? A Public Option...

If that was so? Why then did zero Republicans vote for it in either chamber of the Congress? And why did they take it to court for Constitutionality?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey dopey, it's an obvious observation. Conservative court takes away health care for children 26 and under and preexisting conditions as Tea Party Lunatics cheer?

mana from heaven

Colonel CueBall Speaks....telegraphs Democrat plans.

(CNN) - While the Obama administration fights to protect the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said a Supreme Court overruling may not be such a bad thing for the president, politically.

"I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party," Carville said Tuesday on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."

He added: "You know, what the Democrats are going to say, and it is completely justified, 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority'."

LINK With Video

Yeah, 'cause no one under 26 had access to health care before Obama.

Fail!

 

[Seawytch]

There were only parts of the bill that were unpopular. If the whole bill goes down, how many thousands of American will have something taken away from them that they've gotten from the bill?

Funny thing is that the parts of the bill that were unpopular were the Republican ideas...like the mandate.

Know what WAS popular? A Public Option...

If that was so? Why then did zero Republicans vote for it in either chamber of the Congress? And why did they take it to court for Constitutionality?

Because the Republicans decided that no matter what, anything that President Obama proposed, they would oppose it. Before he even had a meeting with them, they were dismissing anything he had to say. Remember Yertle the Turtle (Mitch McChinless) saying that their number one goal was to ensure the President's failure? They decided from the get-go...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0"]I'm Against It[/ame]

 

[Big Fitz]

Colonel CueBall Speaks....telegraphs Democrat plans.

(CNN) - While the Obama administration fights to protect the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said a Supreme Court overruling may not be such a bad thing for the president, politically.

"I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party," Carville said Tuesday on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."

He added: "You know, what the Democrats are going to say, and it is completely justified, 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority'."

LINK With Video

Dammit. I hate it when I have to agree with Carville. It makes him so damn IRRITATING!

It's true, the end of P-BOCare will reinvigorate the left better than anything else and they will come out and blame conservatives and inspire a tsunami of ads who's truthiness index is in the negatives... but that's what we'll be facing.

On the other hand, we must realize that there are two forces out there far stronger than gimme gimme entitlement junkies: Gas prices and unemployment. These, combined with a anemic economic improvement (if you can even call it that) and the possible collapse of the dollar (boy I don't know how it's not happened yet) will bone any sitting president as it has since this nation has begun.

P-BO is not only Jimmeh Carter in black face anymore... he's now Herbert Hoover with shoe polish as well.

 

[peach174]

What kind of spin will the Dem's have if the Court votes 9-0 on the mandate?

 

[The T]

Funny thing is that the parts of the bill that were unpopular were the Republican ideas...like the mandate.

Know what WAS popular? A Public Option...

If that was so? Why then did zero Republicans vote for it in either chamber of the Congress? And why did they take it to court for Constitutionality?

Because the Republicans decided that no matter what, anything that President Obama proposed, they would oppose it. Before he even had a meeting with them, they were dismissing anything he had to say. Remember Yertle the Turtle (Mitch McChinless) saying that their number one goal was to ensure the President's failure? They decided from the get-go...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0"]I'm Against It[/ame]

Nice deflection...what's your point?

 

[Liability]

LOL!

I love it.

Carville is a clown.

A huge dramatic loss (an in your stupid face loss) for President Obama on his "key" legislative "accomplishment" translates in Carville's fevered imagination into a "win" for the liberal Democratics.



I guess, by implication, it would have been a devastating political loss for the Dims to have the SCOTUS salvage the obviously unConstitutional drek that was ObamaCare?



Ok. We're buying the spin Mr. Carville.

 

[Big Fitz]

What kind of spin will the Dem's have if the Court votes 9-0 on the mandate?

THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. Souter is most likely going to stay left on it as well because political ideology guides them more than actual law, but he's not as tightly tied to this. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think. 3 of the justices are pretty much in the tank for it already looking at their past public comments and activities.

I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.

I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.

 

[The T]

What kind of spin will the Dem's have if the Court votes 9-0 on the mandate?

THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think.

I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.

I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.

And why Kagan didn't recuse herself as she was Obama's SG arguing this crap is beyond me...

 

[Liability]

What kind of spin will the Dem's have if the Court votes 9-0 on the mandate?

THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think.

I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.

I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.

And why Kagan didn't recuse herself as she was Obama's SG arguing this crap is beyond me...

Possibly, she's just fundamentally dishonest?

 

[Big Fitz]

What kind of spin will the Dem's have if the Court votes 9-0 on the mandate?

THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think.

I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.

I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.

And why Kagan didn't recuse herself as she was Obama's SG arguing this crap is beyond me...

Why do you think she was appointed in the first place? Ringer. that's why. Solely for this kind of decision. She owes P-BO everything and is smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds her.

 

[Big Fitz]

THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think.

I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.

I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.

And why Kagan didn't recuse herself as she was Obama's SG arguing this crap is beyond me...

Possibly, she's just fundamentally dishonest?

Obvious poster is poster.

 

[Si modo]

Most people are saying that obama will use a loss to attack the Supreme Court and ask for 4 more years so he could appoint new Justices.

Except for one thing. The health care bill was hugely, hugely unpopular. If obama says that if he gets four more years he'd pack the court, that may be a signal to a lot of people to vote against him.

He already looks like he's going to blame their lawyer for the loss. As much responsiblity as he's run from so far, this might be the last straw.

We'll see. If it is in it's entirety struck down due to 'severability'...

Obamacare suffers a severability trainwreck at the Supreme Court

Yet, the Democrats pushed this forward.

Not as if they weren't warned by those evil righties about constitutionality.

And Carville must be getting senile.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

IF the Madate is found unConstitutional? (That is the funding mechanism for Ocare...), then the Statist Democrats will still run with it and it's Medicare for everyone.

Watch them try it.

There's nothing TO "try".

IT WORKS!!!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgWjW1PoHf0]Kiefer Sutherland's Grandfather Remembered For Bringing Universal Healthcare System To Canada 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[The T]

Most people are saying that obama will use a loss to attack the Supreme Court and ask for 4 more years so he could appoint new Justices.

Except for one thing. The health care bill was hugely, hugely unpopular. If obama says that if he gets four more years he'd pack the court, that may be a signal to a lot of people to vote against him.

He already looks like he's going to blame their lawyer for the loss. As much responsiblity as he's run from so far, this might be the last straw.

We'll see. If it is in it's entirety struck down due to 'severability'...

Obamacare suffers a severability trainwreck at the Supreme Court

Yet, the Democrats pushed this forward.

Not as if they weren't warned by those evil righties about constitutionality.

And Carville must be getting senile.

Why on Earth did they not include 'severability' in this legislation?

I suppose thier arrogance got the best of them as they rammed it foward with secret backroom deals...Hell? They had the Government all to themselves...why not?

NO ONE would dare send it to the courts...they just had to pass it to see what was in it...

 

[The T]

THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think.

I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.

I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.

And why Kagan didn't recuse herself as she was Obama's SG arguing this crap is beyond me...

Possibly, she's just fundamentally dishonest?

That would be one and obvious...