If the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional...

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Regardless of the ruling, Obama's a goner. If upheld obama will worse than if struck down.

Itll be 5-4 Tea Party victory and maybe they can strike Roe v Wade in the process.

[Likely Voter]

I understand the politics about calling something a tax, but the penalty for not buying insurance (under the mandate) sure acts like a tax. And it seems everyone agrees that Congress has the Constitutional right to tax. So in the end this whole thing could be struck down because Congress, who has a right to tax, enacted a penalty that acts exactly like a tax but just didnt call it a tax.

[LastVoter]

Regardless of the ruling, Obama's a goner. If upheld obama will worse than if struck down.

Itll be 5-4 Tea Party victory and maybe they can strike Roe v Wade in the process.

You guys really want a revolution ten years down the line?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Regardless of the ruling, Obama's a goner. If upheld obama will worse than if struck down.

Itll be 5-4 Tea Party victory and maybe they can strike Roe v Wade in the process.

I can't even.

[Cory]

By the way, I feel like pointing out that I really dislike the way that what's fundamentally a moral issue has been attacked by the Right on legal, technical grounds.

The Right would say the same thing about abortion, however.

[Oakvale]

Regardless of the ruling, Obama's a goner. If upheld obama will worse than if struck down.

Itll be 5-4 Tea Party victory and maybe they can strike Roe v Wade in the process.

I can't even.

That'd be a great ruling!

"blah blah blah blah mandate blah blah blah limiting principle blah blah blah

Also, we hereby overturn the decision in Roe v. Wade."

[Frodo]

It actually would be a blessing in disguise in that the issue of health care would at least no longer be a burden to Democrats -they no longer have to defend an unpopular law that even their base doesn't support.  It would free up resources to go on the offensive and demand single-payer reform as the only long-term solution to our health care funding crisis.  The base will be energized as never before, while Republicans (spin aside) will be deprived of a potent issue to use against the President.  

Defend a law their base doesn't support? The law they passed was indeed supported by their base, not the individuals who want single-payer, but the corporations (people!) and wealthy that finance campaigns and purchase public policy.

There's a reason Democrats didn't pass single-payer, it's because they serve their profit demanding owners. I have a hard time seeing single-payer passed before 2020 even if the mandate and the rest of the bill is struck down.

We're in for a long, disgusting for-profit ride.

Interesting that you say this, especially considering that passing a single-payer health care system would be the single most business-friendly thing Congress can do.  With such a system, businesses would no longer have to be burdened with providing health care for their employees, and can instead focus on doing what they do best -doing business and making profits.  

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Regardless of the ruling, Obama's a goner. If upheld obama will worse than if struck down.

Itll be 5-4 Tea Party victory and maybe they can strike Roe v Wade in the process.

You guys really want a revolution ten years down the line?

I see one coming regardless unless a Christian revival of the magnitude of of the Great Awakening or greater.

[greenforest32]

It actually would be a blessing in disguise in that the issue of health care would at least no longer be a burden to Democrats -they no longer have to defend an unpopular law that even their base doesn't support.  It would free up resources to go on the offensive and demand single-payer reform as the only long-term solution to our health care funding crisis.  The base will be energized as never before, while Republicans (spin aside) will be deprived of a potent issue to use against the President.  

Defend a law their base doesn't support? The law they passed was indeed supported by their base, not the individuals who want single-payer, but the corporations (people!) and wealthy that finance campaigns and purchase public policy.

There's a reason Democrats didn't pass single-payer, it's because they serve their profit demanding owners. I have a hard time seeing single-payer passed before 2020 even if the mandate and the rest of the bill is struck down.

We're in for a long, disgusting for-profit ride.

Interesting that you say this, especially considering that passing a single-payer health care system would be the single most business-friendly thing Congress can do.  With such a system, businesses would no longer have to be burdened with providing health care for their employees, and can instead focus on doing what they do best -doing business and making profits.  

It does make you wonder why the various factions don't team up to take down a universally bad special interest. I could see all the various business factions teaming up to kill the for-profit health insurance/pharma lobby or something like the renewable energy industry teaming up with the natural gas folks to kill coal, but why doesn't it happen?

Maybe they'd rather protect the hands-off principle in fear they will be next? Much like the Senate and its gridlocking unanimous rules.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Regardless of the ruling, Obama's a goner. If upheld obama will worse than if struck down.

Itll be 5-4 Tea Party victory and maybe they can strike Roe v Wade in the process.

You guys really want a revolution ten years down the line?

I see one coming regardless unless a Christian revival of the magnitude of of the Great Awakening or greater.

I doubt any revival at this point would be of your particular brand of Christianity, politically speaking (sadly, it would probably be theologically comparable, but let's not talk about that because it depresses me).

[LastVoter]

Regardless of the ruling, Obama's a goner. If upheld obama will worse than if struck down.

Itll be 5-4 Tea Party victory and maybe they can strike Roe v Wade in the process.

You guys really want a revolution ten years down the line?

I see one coming regardless unless a Christian revival of the magnitude of of the Great Awakening or greater.

Yes, because "Religion is the opium of the people". It would create an illusion of improvement to pacify the masses when things would actually get a lot worse. That's probably a solution all right-wingers religious or not want anyway. Torie am I right?

[Frodo]

Regardless of the ruling, Obama's a goner. If upheld obama will worse than if struck down.

Itll be 5-4 Tea Party victory and maybe they can strike Roe v Wade in the process.

You guys really want a revolution ten years down the line?

I see one coming regardless unless a Christian revival of the magnitude of of the Great Awakening or greater.

I doubt any revival at this point would be of your particular brand of Christianity, politically speaking (sadly, it would probably be theologically comparable, but let's not talk about that because it depresses me).

I don't quite follow.  Would you mind elaborating?  

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Regardless of the ruling, Obama's a goner. If upheld obama will worse than if struck down.

Itll be 5-4 Tea Party victory and maybe they can strike Roe v Wade in the process.

You guys really want a revolution ten years down the line?

I see one coming regardless unless a Christian revival of the magnitude of of the Great Awakening or greater.

I doubt any revival at this point would be of your particular brand of Christianity, politically speaking (sadly, it would probably be theologically comparable, but let's not talk about that because it depresses me).

I don't quite follow.  Would you mind elaborating? 

Christian revival movements by nature have Evangelical/Charismatic tendencies, which is the part that depresses me because I'm very much a liturgical Christian with distinct Anglo-Catholic and even Anglo-Byzantine leanings. However I doubt any kind of revival that would be 'of the magnitude of the Great Awakening or greater' could possibly be somehow exclusionary of the types of people that JCL's brand of Christian-influenced politics tends to marginalize (LGBTQ, women, to an extent minorities), especially considering how burnt-over the JCLs are already.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I understand the politics about calling something a tax, but the penalty for not buying insurance (under the mandate) sure acts like a tax. And it seems everyone agrees that Congress has the Constitutional right to tax. So in the end this whole thing could be struck down because Congress, who has a right to tax, enacted a penalty that acts exactly like a tax but just didnt call it a tax.

One of the litigants argued that even if it were considered a tax, it would be a capitation ("per head") tax under Article 1, Section 9, and not an income tax allowed by the Sixteenth Amendment.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

If it's struck down, it'll energize the left and then Obama can follow it up with a Jerry Brown/prop13-esque statement and win the center.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Ok. My brand of Christianity (Pentacostal) from its onset had both women and minorities in significant roles of influence. We were advocating for rights of women and minorities long before the Progressive Era. In fact, one of first major healing revivalists (who proceeded men like Oral Roberts by a good 60 years) was a woman named Mariah Woodworth Etter. One of the major leaders during the last major revival in American history (The Azusa Street Revival/ birth of modern day Pentacostalism in the US) was an American with African descent. That would be Willam Seymore.

So there goes your argument regarding minorities and women.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By the same logic you could say that my church supports slavery because John Henry Hopkins was our Primate once. The company that Evangelical and Pentecostal movements in this country most frequently currently keep is unfortunately a pale, much more unsavory shadow of what it was in the time periods of which you speak.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Any type of "Great Awakening" type revival would probably be of something similar to the emergent church, or maybe a liberal evangelical sort of thing. Hell as mentioned I already know some liberal charismatics, so maybe they're the trendsetters!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Any type of "Great Awakening" type revival would probably be of something similar to the emergent church, or maybe a liberal evangelical sort of thing. Hell as mentioned I already know some liberal charismatics, so maybe they're the trendsetters!

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The JCLs would like them theologically for the most part and hate them politically whereas the Nathans would be the other way around.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Something I think I've picked up on in the last few months: It is FAR easier to get someone who supports gay marriage to believe in charismatic theology (assuming they aren't already an atheist of course) than it is to get them to turn against gay marriage.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That makes sense. I don't imagine it would be particularly easy to turn them to ritualized liturgical Christianity, to be quite frank. I didn't so much find the Church as fall into its arms.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is on severability, not the mandate.

ok, but the severability is a pretty open and shut case - the mandate is just too central and too big of a part of the bill to cleave out.  Even many Dems have said so over the last 2 years.

Severing just the mandate would leave in place sections that would be unworkable without the mandate to highly encourage people to buy insurance.  But that is a policy argument for not striking only the mandate, not a constitutional one.

[J. J.]

The economy has not improved enough, and may have improved as much or more under Mcain.

And I could have banged Scarlett Johansson if only I had the chance to meet her.

And instead, like Obama, you spend your weekend alone.  The what could have happened, in theory, really has no bearing on it.

[Devils30]

I think Obama should then propose a modest health bill that's not controversial. Of course the GOP will vote against it but it could help the dems that way.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The economy has not improved enough, and may have improved as much or more under Mcain.

And I could have banged Scarlett Johansson if only I had the chance to meet her.

And instead, like Obama, you spend your weekend alone.  The what could have happened, in theory, really has no bearing on it.

ΟΚ, can you repeat that in English?