Carville: Carville: A Supreme Court loss will help Democrats

[Flopper]

I agree with Carville. The Dems will be the benefitiary of a Supreme Court loss. The GOP will be seen for what they are, which is a party that says, "If you can pay for Health Carem you can have it."

They are and will always be a party that caters to the rich and affluent. At least the Dems tried to gain a HC system for all, and with the backing of the GOP, it was throddled. The stories of mysery that this will cause will begin soon. Obama wins big in November.

Would the reverse be so? Would a win for the Democrats benefit Republicans?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Would the reverse be so? Would a win for the Democrats benefit Republicans?

No, it’s a win/win for Obama. The republicans screwed up when they decided to drag this partisan issue through the courts to begin with.

 

[Si modo]

Would the reverse be so? Would a win for the Democrats benefit Republicans?

No, it’s a win/win for Obama. The republicans screwed up when they decided to drag this partisan issue through the courts to begin with.

Well, the SCOTUS listens to constitutional issues. If there is no constitutional question, then it doesn't end up in the court.

You know that, right?

 

[dblack]

Hmmm... while I disagree with most of the reasoning going on here, I tend to agree with the conclusion. I'll certainly have less concern about Obama staying in office if the Court knocks down PPACA. In fact, unless and until we can take government back from the corporatists, I hope to always see the balance of the Court opposed to the president - and at least one branch of Congress as well. Gridlock is a good thing.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I agree with Carville. The Dems will be the benefitiary of a Supreme Court loss. The GOP will be seen for what they are, which is a party that says, "If you can pay for Health Carem you can have it."

They are and will always be a party that caters to the rich and affluent. At least the Dems tried to gain a HC system for all, and with the backing of the GOP, it was throddled. The stories of mysery that this will cause will begin soon. Obama wins big in November.

Would the reverse be so? Would a win for the Democrats benefit Republicans?

If the court leaves the Mandate in tact, Obama will lose. It's a hotrible piece of legislation. Defending it would kill him in debates and if it is upheld it would supercharge the Tea Party and unify them behind Romney, something that isn't a certainty at this point.

If the Mandate is struck down then there's a small bump for Romney, then that's it. The Mandate becomes a dead issue politically and the Tea Party loses some steam.

 

[Flopper]

Would the reverse be so? Would a win for the Democrats benefit Republicans?

No, it’s a win/win for Obama. The republicans screwed up when they decided to drag this partisan issue through the courts to begin with.

Well, the SCOTUS listens to constitutional issues. If there is no constitutional question, then it doesn't end up in the court.

You know that, right?

I seriously doubt that the public cares whether the commerce clause justifies the mandate or whether the law is inseparable. People that have insurance or were expected to get it due to the law are concerned. People that have insurance are concerned about rising cost.

Regardless of the decision the loosing side will to use the issue to fire up their supporters creating more division, if that's possible.

 

[Listening]

Would the reverse be so? Would a win for the Democrats benefit Republicans?

No, it’s a win/win for Obama. The republicans screwed up when they decided to drag this partisan issue through the courts to begin with.

Which is kinda like saying we figured out how to play your game.

You bastards have been using the courts to end-run the legislative process for decades.

In this case, the whole process is legitimate and you are saying that is a bad thing.

Un-freaking-believable.

 

[Big Fitz]

Indeed. make a simple system so complicated that the average Joe will throw in the towel and comply.

That is so well said it deserves a rep as do many here on this thread. Unfortunately, I used up every last rep in an hour or so last night, and have to wait 24 hours.

Great thread, The T. My kudos. I'm so grateful the
Supreme Court is considering making Congress stop going over the top with confusion in bills. Somebody needed to do it, because the Press is so grossly dishonest it has squandered being the Fifth Column in this nation.

You're very kind. Certain subjects/stories grab my attention and as I posted this thread in the interest of liberty and common sense, and what all freedom loving people everwhere should be concerned about... and the dark forces mounting against the very same that intend on robbing it all for the sake of control.

Now if we can only get passed the "read the bill into the record" rule/law/amendment whattever, that'll both tighten up law writing AND shut down tons of shenanigans PLUS slow down the entire process.

 

[auditor0007]

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

Carville knows they are in BIG trouble, both with Obamacare and in general.... he's just trying to keep the party faithful, well, faithful.

The legislation may well be in trouble. But what happens when health insurance premiums begin going up much higher than they have been over the last couple of years after Obamacare is overturned? And I am convinced that will happen. I'm telling you, shit is going to hit the fan if it's overturned.

 

[Big Fitz]

Colonel CueBall Speaks....telegraphs Democrat plans.



LINK With Video

Carville knows they are in BIG trouble, both with Obamacare and in general.... he's just trying to keep the party faithful, well, faithful.

The legislation may well be in trouble. But what happens when health insurance premiums begin going up much higher than they have been over the last couple of years after Obamacare is overturned? And I am convinced that will happen. I'm telling you, shit is going to hit the fan if it's overturned.

Politically, shit will hit the fan more if prices drop.

 

[editec]

If this is overturned then as more and more American people find themselves berift of HC, they will be reminded that the GOP wanted it that way.

THAT will be a DEM victory IF the Dems retain the White House.

That might very well frustrate Americans enough that the SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE plan could become a reality.

I personally think the current plan is disasterous, so obviously in this case I'm happy that the GOP is trying to sink this policy.

You see kiddies?

The LEFT hates OBAMA HC proposal.

It's the moderate DEMS who supported this formerly Republican plan for HC, kiddies, not the left

 

[Mac1958]

If this is overturned then as more and more American people find themselves berift of HC, they will be reminded that the GOP wanted it that way.

THAT will be a DEM victory IF the Dems retain the White House.

That might very well frustrate Americans enough that the SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE plan could become a reality.

I personally think the current plan is disasterous, so obviously in this case I'm happy that the GOP is trying to sink this policy.

You see kiddies?

The LEFT hates OBAMA HC proposal.

It's the moderate DEMS who supported this formerly Republican plan for HC, kiddies, not the left

Yep, this thing has been a sloppy mess from the start. The argument should be single payer vs. free market. The debate should be played out in public and with clarity.

Instead, we ended up with Obamacare, it was "passed" in the worst possible way, the only people who seem to be happy with it are the moderate Left, and now the whole thing may come crashing down.

While the righties will do their happy dance, the fact will remain that we have a serious problem. The right refuses to admit the fact that our health care "system" is costing all of us too much money, and the left is too afraid to offer a clear argument for single payer. Maybe they're not that confident in it, I dunno.

We're kicking an awfully big can down the road here.

.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Deflection?

You asked the question "why didn't any Republicans vote for the Affordable Care Act even though a mandate was their idea" and I told you why. That's not a deflection. Actually, what YOU did is more in line with a deflection is than my answering your question truthfully.

 

[Seawytch]

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 should she recuse herself if Thomas didn't?

 

[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...

Why should she recuse herself if Thomas didn't?

And why should anyone else recuse themselves? Did another justice help write up the case for the states?

 

[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...

Why should she recuse herself if Thomas didn't?

Was Justice Thomas actively as an officer of the Court arguing for it's passage?

*I didn't think so*

 

[Seawytch]

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

Why should she recuse herself if Thomas didn't?

Was Justice Thomas actively as an officer of the Court arguing for it's passage?

*I didn't think so*

No, but his wife personally benefits from lobbying against the Health Care law. She makes MONEY off of it. If you want Kagen to recuse herself, then you should be supporting the same for Thomas. You don't actually want to try to stack the deck in your favor do you?

 

[Big Fitz]

Why should she recuse herself if Thomas didn't?

Was Justice Thomas actively as an officer of the Court arguing for it's passage?

*I didn't think so*

No, but his wife personally benefits from lobbying against the Health Care law. She makes MONEY off of it. If you want Kagen to recuse herself, then you should be supporting the same for Thomas. You don't actually want to try to stack the deck in your favor do you?

Sorry, equivalency fail. Kagen was directly involved.

But you want to know a small secret?

It's irrelevant now. The point is you got three sure votes from The Ringer, The Racist and The Cryptkeeper (Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg) Souter SHOULD toe the line and obey the other three lefties as well, but we'll see. Kennedy it all matters on how hard the argument turned his legal stomach to see if he sides with the three harpies of the SCOTUS

 

[The T]

Why should she recuse herself if Thomas didn't?

Was Justice Thomas actively as an officer of the Court arguing for it's passage?

*I didn't think so*

No, but his wife personally benefits from lobbying against the Health Care law. She makes MONEY off of it. If you want Kagen to recuse herself, then you should be supporting the same for Thomas. You don't actually want to try to stack the deck in your favor do you?

She isn't an active officer of the court. Kagan is/was.

 

[The T]

Was Justice Thomas actively as an officer of the Court arguing for it's passage?

*I didn't think so*

No, but his wife personally benefits from lobbying against the Health Care law. She makes MONEY off of it. If you want Kagen to recuse herself, then you should be supporting the same for Thomas. You don't actually want to try to stack the deck in your favor do you?

Sorry, equivalency fail. Kagen was directly involved.

But you want to know a small secret?

It's irrelevant now. The point is you got three sure votes from The Ringer, The Racist and The Cryptkeeper (Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg) Souter SHOULD toe the line and obey the other three lefties as well, but we'll see. Kennedy it all matters on how hard the argument turned his legal stomach to see if he sides with the three harpies of the SCOTUS

We will see if they follow the Constitution or not.