Why Obama Wants Health Care Before the Supreme Court

[babylonsister]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/27/why_obama_wants_health_care_before_the_supreme_court.html

September 27, 2011

Why Obama Wants Health Care Before the Supreme Court


Rick Hasen makes the political case for why President Obama wants the constitutionality of his health care law decided by the Supreme Court during the election.

"If the Court strikes down the law, Obama makes more of an issue of a Court out of control (think FDR) during the 2012 campaign... If the Court upholds the law, this takes some of the wind out of the argument likely to come from the Republican presidential nominee that the health care law is unconstitutional. No lose before the election. Sometimes, you can win by losing before the Roberts Court."

[leveymg]

1. With Clarence Thomas making the deciding vote against HCR . . . which might explain why

the both political parties crucified Weiner and have let Clarence be Clarence. Maybe.

Makes more sense than the official explanation.

[Inuca]

5. Thomas does not have any more of a deciding vote

that any other of the justices. If anything, he is the vote that there is the least uncertainty about. As for Weiner, he "crucified" himself.

[leveymg]

6. Clarence will most certainly vote against. He is the 5th vote to kill HCR in SCOTUS.

They did a job on Weiner, (who quite perversely opened himself up to it by using an easily-hacked "private" feature of a public messaging forum), after he drew public attention to Thomas' false statements and ethics violations. The Democratic leadership hung him out to dry. Please, see, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/574

#
leveymg's Journal - Is Clarence Thomas being protected by the ...
journals.democraticunderground.com › Discuss › Journals › leveymgCached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jun 19, 2011 – Is Clarence Thomas being protected by the leaders of both political parties? Here's why. Posted by leveymg in Editorials & Other Articles ...
►
#

[Inuca]

8. Of course he will vote against

That's a given and that's what I said above. And that's why he is not really the deciding vote. As so often, that honor will probably go to Kennedy, who's vote is in doubt. Though it seems that the votes of some of the other right wing justices may not be so decided in advance either. We'll see...

[leveymg]

9. He's deciding if the usual conservative bloc (including Kennedy) goes against - by deciding, I mean

the 5th vote. If he recuses himself, or is removed, then he can't be the deciding vote. QED.

[karynnj]

11. Weiner's actions would have led to same place even if he never mentioned the name "Thomas"

As others said, his is one of certain "no" votes. The key is likely what Kennedy does.

Not to mention that even if Weiner's accusations were investigated and an impeachment launched, it is likely to come after a vote on this - and it is not as open and shut as you suggest. It is hard to see how Thomas could be impeached and a new person nominated and confirmed before this is heard.

[leveymg]

13. Thomas violated criminal law. He can & should be indicted. As for Weiner, they went after him

after he began to raise hell over Thomas. It was a classic honey trap, a la Monica.

[karynnj]

14. A la Monica??

Sorry, but Monica was not some kind of Republican trap. She was a young Democratic woman, infatuated with Clinton, who had the lack of morality and sense to think that flashing the President in the White House was acceptable. After that action, ANY President should have directed whoever controlled the interns to quietly fire her.

Bill Clinton was not forced or pushed to have oral sex in the White House with a young woman, nor was Weiner forced to photograph himself and then send the pictures.

As to Thomas, I do think the charges should be investigated by the appropriate people and IF there is sufficient reason, he should be indicted and tried.

[blueclown]

2. I can assure you that the President does not want the SCOTUS to strike down mandate.

Fighting against the SCOTUS is a losing battle; it's not a suitable comparision to FDR.. does the president want to increase the court size? If not, I don't see the comparision.

There is a very real opportunity that the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, and with that they strike down one of Obama's best domestic policy achievements and give the GOP a real upper edge in the 2012 election.

[customerserviceguy]

3. Well, there's a couple of flaws in that logic

First, the President will have just as much success running against the Supreme Court as he will running against a Rethuglican House. It remains to be seen how that will turn out exactly in November, 2012, but so far, the signs are not good.

Second, even if the SCOTUS says ACA is Constitutional, that will mean that the Rethugs will say, "You need us to repeal this, because the Supreme Court won't help you get this off your back!" We just saw this week how health insurance premiums have risen, when they do so again at this time next year, it will be a powerful argument to the mushy middle that the ACA has to go.

No, it might have been better for the President to have this decided after the election.

[dkf]

4. They need to get the uncertainty out of the way.

Going through all the rules for implementation is just a waste of time if it gets struck down.

[secondwind]

7. I hear that there is a precedent for this healthcare law, and that Scalia may be obliged to vote

in favor of it. Because he gave the opinion in the prior case, I think it was 2005 or 06, having to do with commerce laws.

[leveymg]

10. There's precedent for any way he wants to vote. That's true in almost all cases.

[former9thward]

17. The HCR bill is unique.

The central part of the HCR law is the mandate. Never before has the federal government ordered citizens to buy services from a third party.

[Owlet]

12. It all depends, doesn't it?

On whether a majority of Americans see the health care law as a good thing and want to keep it. There's another thread here today on that very topic: that Obama should be touting the benefits of the Act. In other words, if the Supreme Court strikes the thing down, and voters don't see that as a loss for them, then running against Scotus doesn't sound much like a winning strategy. Or am I missing something here.

[GSLevel9]

15. I don't know about that...

I think the headline "ObamaCare UNCONSTITUTIONAL" is a more effective propaganda tool for the right than "It's the Supreme Courts fault".
In addition, people need to remember that the SC is equally as powerful as potus and is NOT subordinate.

[bvar22]

16. The OTHER more important reason:

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will strike down the MANDATE before it is actually implemented in 2014.

If MILLIONS (30 Million - 70 Million ?) of already hard pressed Working Class Americans are forced to BUY Junk Insurance they can't afford to use due to high Co-Pays/Deductibles, they are NOT going to be happy.
Even with a subsidy, most will be forced to write a FAT check every year to a Big Insurance Corporation whose CEO has a Jet & a Summer Home in Aspen.
Using the IRS as the Collection Agency will infuriate a BROAD section of Americans who are already mad at "Big Government", and their Libertarian rage WILL attract many new followers who previously thought their "warnings" were hype.

They WILL blame the Democrats, and rightly so.
The Democrats passed a Republican SCAM without forcing the Republicans to take ANY responsibility.
ALL the Republicans have to do is sit back and say, "Yep. We voted against it,"
and Democrats will be unelectable for a generation.

A Perfect Storm is set to hit in 2014.

It would be MUCH better politically for the Democrats to let the Supreme Court strike down the MANDATE,
and then walk quickly away saying, "Well, at least we tried."
That way, they can keep the "game" alive.

Unfortunately, while "they" keep the game alive,
many thousands of struggling Americans will DIE due to lack of access to Health Care,
and many more will lose their Homes and Life Savings to the "Uniquely American Solution" private health care delivery system.

Obama explains WHY Mandated Health Insurance is BAD for America



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------