Obama should hope the Supreme Court

I35

I35

5,000+ Posts
Obama should hope the Supreme Court rules again Obamacare. The reason I say this because as we know the most important thing to Obama is his re-election campaign. It's about him keeping power more than what's best for America. Most every poll shows the American public is against it and mostly overwelmingly. So if he wants to get re-elected there are 100,000 or so that will vote against him just to get it repealed which would be critical in the swing states. Many of those would like to vote for him but won't be able to get past knowing the only way to get it stopped is getting him out of office. If the Supreme Court ruled it to be against our constitution (which it is) then he will look bad for it now but the voters that like him won't have to vote against him to get it stopped.

I personally think he's already done but he's sealing his own fate by this whole Obamacare thing.
 
I35, do you think it gets passed or not?

If found unconstitutional, will the SC rule ALL or part of it unconstitutional?

The liberal judges will vote lock-step thumbs up, but the conservative judges are a toss-up.
 
I think there will be an option to line item cut the mandate if ruled unconstitutional. Of course that would render the law useless but technically the bill could survive.

The bigger implication of this ruling however is not whether obamacare remains. IF the mandate is ruled within the government's power under the commerce clause, the ruling basically blows open the door for anything.

Clarence Thomas once argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the entire nation.

Universal healthcare would just be the beginning.
 
I am not convinced that the justices will approach this the way a legislator would.

The constitutional argument does not lend itself to an obvious conclusion, regardless of what one's particular bias might be.

I would not be surprised if some of the conservatives, including the Chief, may be reluctant to strike down legislation that was passed by Congress and signed by the President, even if generally favors a more restrictive reading of the commerce clause.

Whether a justice supports the general legislation will, for the most part, be irrelevant.
 
dheiman,

This first day is spent deciding if they can even rule on it because it's not actually been implimented yet. Normally the decisions are made after the fact than for preventive measures.

BBB, you have more confidence than I do on them keeping it from going political. History is not on your side on this.
 
421.jpg
 
Does anybody else just shake their heads at the people in front of the Supreme Court Building?

The one's for repeal I understand. The one's that says don't take MY Healthcare away, are they ******* kidding me? What is there about MY in this Healthcare bill? Get an education, get a job and you will have healthcare.
 
One potential irony if SCOTUS strikes down the mandate will be if it eventually causes the emergence of a universal single payer system.

The mandate may be the last attempt at a market based solution. Conservatives want a true free market healthcare system, but that is not going to happen. Even Paul Ryan has backed away from cutting Medicare too much.

Eventually liberals will accrue enough seats to get a single payer system in place.

I really don't have any idea what the "best" solution is for healthcare's two primary issues: unsustainable rising costs and lack of coverage, but it would be an ironic unintended consequence if conservatives prevail in killing the idea once championed on the right as a market based solution only to have it supplanted with an actual socialist solution.
 
dheiman:

Is there a conservative alternative to the status quo? I think that employers are going to begin dropping coverage given the increasing cost burden, regardless of whether there is an affordable healthcare insurance private market.

At some point I would not be surprised to see large employers and managed care companies force payment reform at the commercial level, which could impact long term affordability.

However, it seems that as long as we continue to have fee for service, costs will continue to climb.
 
majorwhiteapples, My insurance jumped up 13% in 2011. I called around to get other prices and I am forced to stay with my current insurance.
brickwall.gif
 
The purpose of this Healthcare bill is a Money grab,nothing more or nothing less. The true number of uninsured people in this country is 15 million, less than 5%.

As we have with the current SS and Medicare plans, there is 65 trillion in unfunded debts. If the government can open the can of Healthcare it kicks the can down the road at least a couple of generations, this is nothing more or nothing less.

If just the mandate is struck down the liberals have what they want instantly, one payer system, MEDICARE for all!!!!!

This is such a bad bill/law for all of America, rich, poor, middle class, white, black, latin, asian, it is really bad and nothing but a money grab.
 
Well it looks like it will be all or nothing. One of the Judges asked the atty for the pro-healthcare bill if he expects the judges to go through and read all 2700 pages to determine what is legal and what is not. The judges are grilling this bill and they don't seem to have the answers. This is going to be ruled uncostitutional which we already knew.
 
Looks like ObamaCare did not have a good day yesterday before the Supreme Court. I believe Justice Sotomayor recognizes the undeniable truth that if the Commerce Clause is interpreted as the Obama administration contends, there is no limit to the power the federal government has carved out for itself and the federal government can compel you to enter into commerce, or, to put it plainly, it can force you to buy a product or enter into a contract. Justice Kennedy was also very skeptical of the Solicitor General's testimony.

You never know based on the hearings, but this could be bigger margin than a 5-4 vote to strike it down.
 
As more and more administrators talk about the logistical nightmare of having the pieces of this thing in place in order for it to work, I think it's better for the Dems in the long run that it fails. The narrative is already being built that the solicitor general has been incompetent, and the media will argue that Obama had a great bill that would have passed with adequate support from his team. He can then run against the conservatives who sabotaged the entire process, and we will hear stories about how the justices politicized the process (never any discussion of why the liberal judges stuck together despite a defense that called the law a tax on day 1 and not a tax on day 2 - among other points of idiocy).

It's horrible legislation designed to get as much power with as little information as possible as to how it would be done. Never has a bigger "fill-in-the-blank" law been taken this seriously by people who actually claim to be impartial observers. The defense has literally had to make it up as it has gone along, and it finally looks like someone is actually asking them questions about that.
 
Considering the way this bill was written behind closed doors, when the leader of the House didn't even know what was in it and admitted. The funny thing about Pelosi, I don't think that was a gaffe. I truly believe she believed what she said. She didn't know what was in it and we will find out as it is implemented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top