Will Obamacare's Loss be Obama's Gain?

[BluePhantom]

I want to toss out a line of argument here for consideration. For the purposes of this thread we will assume that Obamacare is doomed based on the SCOTUS hearings the last two days. Many have said this will be a critical blow to Obama. Personally I am not so sure. I think it can be used as an effective weapon actually. Consider the following strategy. Keep in mind it matters not whether any of this ir true or factual...only that it can be sold to the American people.

1) Obama will attack Romney on the grounds that the Republicans through the conservative wing of the Supreme Court (and by extension Romney) just took away 40 million people's health insurance, allowed people with pre-existing conditions to be denied care, etc.

2) After Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional it's possible that businesses will breathe a sigh of relief that they no longer have a large financial burden awaiting them in the future. With this feeling of comfort and security they will likely start hiring again meaning unemployment decreases and the economy picks up steam.

3) Obama can argue that his economic policies are working if point #2 comes to fruition and therefore deserves a second term. Of course the exact opposite will be true: in that scenario the economy would start rolling because Obama's policies got throw out on their ear (and Romney will have to stick that point hard), but the average person will not make that connection and the media sure isn't going to point it out to them.

4) Health care will once again become a critical part of the general election campaign and most polls that I have seen show that people trust the Democrats more on that topic than they do the Republicans. Rasmussen , for example, has a two point edge to the Democrats on that issue. Obama will be able to bedazzle the voters with bullshit again and promise them ice cream cones and unicorns in regard to health care...and frankly they will fall for it again.​

Now I do think that Obama will take an initial hit when Obamacare goes down, but I am not so convinced that it will be a death bell tolling for him. I think he can use it to his advantage. And keep in mind I can't stand Obama so I am not engaging in liberal wishful thinking here.

Thoughts?

 

[Polk]

1. That assumes they'll strike down the whole law. It's far more likely they sever the mandate.

2 & 3. It won't happen, if only because businesses aren't that concerned about the law. Hiring lags because demand is still weak.

4. I don't think health care will be big campaign issue, but it could make the courts a winning issue for Democrats, between this case and Citizens United.

 

[SniperFire]

LOL

POLL: 68% of Americans angry at Obama...

Americans angry with Obama over gas prices | Reuters

 

[BluePhantom]

1. That assumes they'll strike down the whole law. It's far more likely they sever the mandate.

We will get a peek at their thoughts on that issue today but I tend to think they will strike the whole thing due to a lack of severability. But the SCOTUS does whatever the heck it wants so who knows.

2 & 3. It won't happen, if only because businesses aren't that concerned about the law. Hiring lags because demand is still weak.

Time will tell

4. I don't think health care will be big campaign issue, but it could make the courts a winning issue for Democrats, between this case and Citizens United.

Well the people hate the law. The majority of Americans favor repealing it and feel it's unconstitutional (1). Why would a SCOTUS ruling that reflects that make the courts a winning issue for Democrats?

1. Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[konradv]

If you sever the mandate, you might as well toss the whole law. I don't see that happening, though. That would call into question SS and I don't see more than 4 justices risking that. It's a tax the Republicans preferred, BTW, a private rather than a public option with the option being "with whom" rather than "whether".

 

[BluePhantom]

If you sever the mandate, you might as well toss the whole law. I don't see that happening, though. That would call into question SS and I don't see more than 4 justices risking that. It's a tax the Republicans preferred, BTW, a private rather than a public option with the option being "with whom" rather than "whether".

Regardless of who favored what...none of that makes any difference now....it appeared from Kennedy's line of questioning that he's at least leaning toward repeal. Obamacare supporters can forget about a vote from Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts.

Anyhow we're discussing all that over here.

As I said...for the purposes of this thread we're assuming it's going to go down.

 

[Katzndogz]

obamacare was deeply unpopular even before it was signed into law. It has only become more unpopular since. Democrats were able to delude themselves into a sincere belief that a majority supported the bill. If the bill is defeated in court, it is highly unlikely that obama is so stupid that he would make an issue that republicans defeated the bill. If democrats really think that striking down this incredibly unpopular law is a winning issue they are more deluded than I thought.

The only benefit democrats might take advantage of is what Blue Phantom pointed out. Businesses might be relieved at its defeat enough to start hiring again. However, they will be hiring at a time when energy is being squeezed at the other end. The EPA is poised to start shutting down power plants with black outs, brown outs, rationed power and exhorbitant rates.

 

[BluePhantom]

obamacare was deeply unpopular even before it was signed into law. It has only become more unpopular since. Democrats were able to delude themselves into a sincere belief that a majority supported the bill. If the bill is defeated in court, it is highly unlikely that obama is so stupid that he would make an issue that republicans defeated the bill. If democrats really think that striking down this incredibly unpopular law is a winning issue they are more deluded than I thought.

The only benefit democrats might take advantage of is what Blue Phantom pointed out. Businesses might be relieved at its defeat enough to start hiring again. However, they will be hiring at a time when energy is being squeezed at the other end. The EPA is poised to start shutting down power plants with black outs, brown outs, rationed power and exhorbitant rates.

Good points, especially the last one.

 

[Sallow]

No..and it won't be a gain for anyone.

And in the long run it might actually hurt the supreme court. The court has taken a very radical shift. They've been actively engaged in legislating politics and judicial activism. Two things it seems conservatives use to be against.

 

[konradv]

obamacare was deeply unpopular even before it was signed into law. It has only become more unpopular since. Democrats were able to delude themselves into a sincere belief that a majority supported the bill. If the bill is defeated in court, it is highly unlikely that obama is so stupid that he would make an issue that republicans defeated the bill. If democrats really think that striking down this incredibly unpopular law is a winning issue they are more deluded than I thought.

The only benefit democrats might take advantage of is what Blue Phantom pointed out. Businesses might be relieved at its defeat enough to start hiring again. However, they will be hiring at a time when energy is being squeezed at the other end. The EPA is poised to start shutting down power plants with black outs, brown outs, rationed power and exhorbitant rates.

Good points, especially the last one.

What do brownouts have to do with "the purposes of this thread"?

 

[BluePhantom]

No..and it won't be a gain for anyone.

And in the long run it might actually hurt the supreme court. The court has taken a very radical shift. They've been actively engaged in legislating politics and judicial activism. Two things it seems conservatives use to be against.

I don't know Sallow....I think the questions posed by the justices yesterday had a lot of merit. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, the individual mandate is an unprecedented flexing of the muscles of federal law and constitutional authority. Shouldn't there be a very heavy burden of legal justification?

As Justice Roberts pointed out, since when has the court said the government can only regulate the payment structure of an industry? You can either fully regulate it or you can't at all so once you open that door the government can do anything they want. And as he points out...today it might just be payment methods but tomorrow it might be something completely different and since justification for government intrusion has been established there won't be any way to stop it.

I don't think it's at all "judicial activism" to expect the justices to make the government prove it's case.

 

[konradv]

If you sever the mandate, you might as well toss the whole law. I don't see that happening, though. That would call into question SS and I don't see more than 4 justices risking that. It's a tax the Republicans preferred, BTW, a private rather than a public option with the option being "with whom" rather than "whether".

Regardless of who favored what...none of that makes any difference now....it appeared from Kennedy's line of questioning that he's at least leaning toward repeal. Obamacare supporters can forget about a vote from Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts.

Anyhow we're discussing all that over here.

As I said...for the purposes of this thread we're assuming it's going to go down.

Kennedy isn't going to go that way in the end, IMO. That'd be radical for him.

 

[BluePhantom]

obamacare was deeply unpopular even before it was signed into law. It has only become more unpopular since. Democrats were able to delude themselves into a sincere belief that a majority supported the bill. If the bill is defeated in court, it is highly unlikely that obama is so stupid that he would make an issue that republicans defeated the bill. If democrats really think that striking down this incredibly unpopular law is a winning issue they are more deluded than I thought.

The only benefit democrats might take advantage of is what Blue Phantom pointed out. Businesses might be relieved at its defeat enough to start hiring again. However, they will be hiring at a time when energy is being squeezed at the other end. The EPA is poised to start shutting down power plants with black outs, brown outs, rationed power and exhorbitant rates.

Good points, especially the last one.

What do brownouts have to do with "the purposes of this thread"?

She is making the point that while the repeal of Obamacare may have a positive economic effect it may be negated by the effect of energy prices which would, at least in theory, make my 2nd point moot.

 

[BluePhantom]

If you sever the mandate, you might as well toss the whole law. I don't see that happening, though. That would call into question SS and I don't see more than 4 justices risking that. It's a tax the Republicans preferred, BTW, a private rather than a public option with the option being "with whom" rather than "whether".

Regardless of who favored what...none of that makes any difference now....it appeared from Kennedy's line of questioning that he's at least leaning toward repeal. Obamacare supporters can forget about a vote from Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts.

Anyhow we're discussing all that over here.

As I said...for the purposes of this thread we're assuming it's going to go down.

Kennedy isn't going to go that way in the end, IMO. That'd be radical for him.

I beg to differ. Kennedy usually sides with the conservative wing on matters of economics so if he is viewing this as an economic issue as opposed to a social humanitarian issue (and it appeared from his questions yesterday he was) then it's very easy to see him voting to repeal. Regardless, it's all speculation at this point. Time will tell.

 

[Sallow]

No..and it won't be a gain for anyone.

And in the long run it might actually hurt the supreme court. The court has taken a very radical shift. They've been actively engaged in legislating politics and judicial activism. Two things it seems conservatives use to be against.

I don't know Sallow....I think the questions posed by the justices yesterday had a lot of merit. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, the individual mandate is an unprecedented flexing of the muscles of federal law and constitutional authority. Shouldn't there be a very heavy burden of legal justification?

As Justice Roberts pointed out, since when has the court said the government can only regulate the payment structure of an industry? You can either fully regulate it or you can't at all so once you open that door the government can do anything they want. And as he points out...today it might just be payment methods but tomorrow it might be something completely different and since justification for government intrusion has been established there won't be any way to stop it.

I don't think it's at all "judicial activism" to expect the justices to make the government prove it's case.

What merit? They kept asking the same questions. It was silly and scary at the same time. They all mentioned Brocolli. That's a right wing talking point. And of course the indivdual mandate is "unprecendented" as is most social legislation. But part and parcel with governance is the idea of the "common good", which, yes..the government is responsible for. The big mistake the Obama administration made..was taking a conservative idea. He should have went with single payer..which wouldn't have been "unprecendented". But he went with the market based solution to save the market created by Nixon. And this "industry" is unlike all others..as Kennedy..very belately..pointed out. In that if one person can't pay..everyone else does. And that has an adverse effect on society.

And I do think it's Judicial Activism when you start legislating from the Bench. Citizen's United and Heller are prime examples. As was Gore v. Bush.

 

[Sallow]

If you sever the mandate, you might as well toss the whole law. I don't see that happening, though. That would call into question SS and I don't see more than 4 justices risking that. It's a tax the Republicans preferred, BTW, a private rather than a public option with the option being "with whom" rather than "whether".

Regardless of who favored what...none of that makes any difference now....it appeared from Kennedy's line of questioning that he's at least leaning toward repeal. Obamacare supporters can forget about a vote from Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts.

Anyhow we're discussing all that over here.

As I said...for the purposes of this thread we're assuming it's going to go down.

Kennedy isn't going to go that way in the end, IMO. That'd be radical for him.

I dunno. He said "Brocolli" like the rest of them. They were like parrots.

 

[slackjawed]

No..and it won't be a gain for anyone.

And in the long run it might actually hurt the supreme court. The court has taken a very radical shift. They've been actively engaged in legislating politics and judicial activism. Two things it seems conservatives use to be against.

I don't know Sallow....I think the questions posed by the justices yesterday had a lot of merit. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, the individual mandate is an unprecedented flexing of the muscles of federal law and constitutional authority. Shouldn't there be a very heavy burden of legal justification?

As Justice Roberts pointed out, since when has the court said the government can only regulate the payment structure of an industry? You can either fully regulate it or you can't at all so once you open that door the government can do anything they want. And as he points out...today it might just be payment methods but tomorrow it might be something completely different and since justification for government intrusion has been established there won't be any way to stop it.

I don't think it's at all "judicial activism" to expect the justices to make the government prove it's case.

What merit? They kept asking the same questions. It was silly and scary at the same time. They all mentioned Brocolli. That's a right wing talking point. And of course the indivdual mandate is "unprecendented" as is most social legislation. But part and parcel with governance is the idea of the "common good", which, yes..the government is responsible for. The big mistake the Obama administration made..was taking a conservative idea. He should have went with single payer..which wouldn't have been "unprecendented". But he went with the market based solution to save the market created by Nixon. And this "industry" is unlike all others..as Kennedy..very belately..pointed out. In that if one person can't pay..everyone else does. And that has an adverse effect on society.

And I do think it's Judicial Activism when you start legislating from the Bench. Citizen's United and Heller are prime examples. As was Gore v. Bush.

As was roe v wade

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

[BluePhantom]

No..and it won't be a gain for anyone.

And in the long run it might actually hurt the supreme court. The court has taken a very radical shift. They've been actively engaged in legislating politics and judicial activism. Two things it seems conservatives use to be against.

I don't know Sallow....I think the questions posed by the justices yesterday had a lot of merit. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, the individual mandate is an unprecedented flexing of the muscles of federal law and constitutional authority. Shouldn't there be a very heavy burden of legal justification?

As Justice Roberts pointed out, since when has the court said the government can only regulate the payment structure of an industry? You can either fully regulate it or you can't at all so once you open that door the government can do anything they want. And as he points out...today it might just be payment methods but tomorrow it might be something completely different and since justification for government intrusion has been established there won't be any way to stop it.

I don't think it's at all "judicial activism" to expect the justices to make the government prove it's case.

What merit? They kept asking the same questions. It was silly and scary at the same time. They all mentioned Brocolli. That's a right wing talking point. And of course the indivdual mandate is "unprecendented" as is most social legislation. But part and parcel with governance is the idea of the "common good", which, yes..the government is responsible for. The big mistake the Obama administration made..was taking a conservative idea. He should have went with single payer..which wouldn't have been "unprecendented". But he went with the market based solution to save the market created by Nixon. And this "industry" is unlike all others..as Kennedy..very belately..pointed out. In that if one person can't pay..everyone else does. And that has an adverse effect on society.

And I do think it's Judicial Activism when you start legislating from the Bench. Citizen's United and Heller are prime examples. As was Gore v. Bush.

Well we're not talking about those other cases; Gore v. Bush was a different set of justices, blah, blah, blah. The broccoli comparison i could care less about. The critical quotes I heard I posted in the OP of this thread. I am sorry, Sallow, I don't see a whole lot of political activism in those arguments. I see very sound and logical arguments on the constitutionality of this piece of legislation.

 

[Sallow]

I don't know Sallow....I think the questions posed by the justices yesterday had a lot of merit. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, the individual mandate is an unprecedented flexing of the muscles of federal law and constitutional authority. Shouldn't there be a very heavy burden of legal justification?

As Justice Roberts pointed out, since when has the court said the government can only regulate the payment structure of an industry? You can either fully regulate it or you can't at all so once you open that door the government can do anything they want. And as he points out...today it might just be payment methods but tomorrow it might be something completely different and since justification for government intrusion has been established there won't be any way to stop it.

I don't think it's at all "judicial activism" to expect the justices to make the government prove it's case.

What merit? They kept asking the same questions. It was silly and scary at the same time. They all mentioned Brocolli. That's a right wing talking point. And of course the indivdual mandate is "unprecendented" as is most social legislation. But part and parcel with governance is the idea of the "common good", which, yes..the government is responsible for. The big mistake the Obama administration made..was taking a conservative idea. He should have went with single payer..which wouldn't have been "unprecendented". But he went with the market based solution to save the market created by Nixon. And this "industry" is unlike all others..as Kennedy..very belately..pointed out. In that if one person can't pay..everyone else does. And that has an adverse effect on society.

And I do think it's Judicial Activism when you start legislating from the Bench. Citizen's United and Heller are prime examples. As was Gore v. Bush.

As was roe v wade

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

True.

But in my opinion..Roe V. Wade should have never made it to the supreme court. The right to privacy is implicit in the constitution. Banning a medical procedure infringes on that.

 

[BluePhantom]

Kennedy isn't going to go that way in the end, IMO. That'd be radical for him.

The other thing to consider of course is that oral arguments are not the end of the arguments. The justices will circulate briefs between them and argue amongst themselves through them. It seems to me that everyone's opinion is pretty much written in stone, although Kennedy made a comment at the end that indicated he may not be as set as it appeared earlier. So the justices will make their own arguments to each other and it's certainly possible that Kennedy could be swayed by the argument of one of his colleagues one way or the other.