If the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional...

[TheGlobalizer]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/argument-recap-a-lift-for-the-mandate/

"A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress.  They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform.  The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself."

that logic does not make sense...if they understandably don't want to go through the 2700 pages to find what can be severed from the madate, they are likely to throw out the whole thing, rather than uphold the mandate.

in other words, they're not going to spare the mandate just to keep from throwing out the entire law

I agree with this.  Constitutionality is not a relative determination, so if the individual mandate isn't constitutional, they'll have to either throw the whole thing out or throw out the parts that are inextricably tied to the mandate.

The more I see on this, the more I think that the court will want to toss the whole damn thing and tell Congress to start over.  I think they might actually reach a 5-4 consensus on striking down the entire law or most of it, which I thought was impossible a week ago.  Roberts actually appears to be the wildcard here moreso than Kennedy.

The "striking down the whole law is less judicial activism than striking down part" line of political argument is novel and I think it fits well within SCOTUS jurisprudence and historical practice.  The court will strike down as much of the law as is necessary to reconcile constitutionality without creating a broken/dysfunctional version of the law.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

agreed, Kennedy's comment was spot on, and Scalia's point was a home run: "[you actually expect us to parse this 2700 page bill to find the parts that are severable?]"

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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!

It isn't of the emergent variety. In fact I'm somewhat uncomfortable with emergent theology.

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.

Most Charismatics I know would beg to differ. I've NEVER met one of Pentacostal/Charismatic theology who supports gay marriage.

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

JCL, you don't get to decide on your own what an Awakening might look like any more than we do.

[Beet]

Obama might as well commit suicide. 2,700 pages of work gone? Two years and all the political capital and more from the biggest Democratic election win in 50 years traded for this bill, only to get it struck down by an unaccountable, unelected and highly partisan court? I can't think of a bigger disaster and shame. Even reelection wouldn't be adequate vindication.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Obama might as well commit suicide. 2,700 pages of work gone? Two years and all the political capital and more from the biggest Democratic election win in 50 years traded for this bill, only to get it struck down by an unaccountable, unelected and highly partisan court? I can't think of a bigger disaster and shame. Even reelection wouldn't be adequate vindication.

Quite frankly, I think the Citizens United ruling is reason enough for impeaching Justices.

[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.

ΟΚ, can you repeat that in English?

What did happen, happened.  Any arguments that "it could have been worse" are much like you fantasy weekend.

[Bacon King]

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.

What hurts the government's case moreso than anything Congress did was the Solicitor General's amusing back-and-forth of one day arguing it was a penalty and the next day arguing it was a tax, and that's something the Justices certainly commented on, during both days. However, just because Congress didn't explicitly call it a tax doesn't mean the taxing power doesn't apply. As I mentioned in the other thread, Robert Long gave an excellent testimony on the first day, and Scalia in particular seemed extremely hesitant to side-step the Anti-Injunction Act. This isn't going to be a simple up or down vote between the liberal and conservative justices.

[anvi]

As far as the Obama reelection prospects go, for those saying it won't matter or it will be a wash or it will allow Obama to energize his base, or it will relieve Obama of the burden of the thing hanging around his neck and so on, I'm really not so sure.  If the whole law is struck down, or of this linchpins of the law making broader expansion of coverage is struck down, I think it's easy for the opposition to portray that as disqualifiying him from deserving the public trust.  A president is asking for reelection whose crowning peace of legislation has been ruled in whole or in part unconstitutuonal.  I'm not aware of any other president who ran for reelection who had to face down that kind of disgrace, that kind of reprimand.  How, his opponent can say, can we trust this president with a second term to preserve, protect and defend the constitution when his signiture piece of legislation was ruled by SCOTUS itself as running afoul of that very constitution?  I sure wouldn't, as a candidate, want to spend my whole campaign trying to rebuff that.  If the mandate or the whole law is struck down, I won't agree with the ruling, and indeed I'll be rather profoundly disappointed--I already am.  All the same, Obama's people and he himself did a terrible job of selling it to the public, a terrible job of passing it and a really terrible job defending it in front of SCOTUS; I don't know why they treated something so important with such a lack of care.  It's really baffling.  But objectively speaking, I think it makes Obama's reelection, already in rough straits, even harder, and harder in a way that it's difficult to game out, because I don't remember it's ever happening before in a modern presidential campaign. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Obama's people and he himself did a terrible job of selling it to the public, a terrible job of passing it

the temperature of the Summer 2009 townhall meetings told you the public wasn't going to like it.  But Obama was between a rock and a hard place, being also pressured by the Left.

[LastVoter]

Endorsing Single Payer would probably save Obama election. I haven't met a single person who supports Obamacare over Single Payer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care#Public_opinion_in_the_United_States

[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?

What did happen, happened.  Any arguments that "it could have been worse" are much like you fantasy weekend.

And so are yours about how "it could have been better".

[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.

ΟΚ, can you repeat that in English?

What did happen, happened.  Any arguments that "it could have been worse" are much like you fantasy weekend.

And so are yours about how "it could have been better".

Note the first part, "The economy has not improved enough... ."  McCain's proposal, which was similar to Hilary's, may have worked better as well.  We know where we are under Obama and most people are not happy about it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

McCain's proposal, which was similar to Hilary's, may have worked better as well. 

LOL. You're so awesome I'm wondering why Newt still hasn't asked you to become his VP.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Endorsing Single Payer would probably save Obama election. I haven't met a single person who supports Obamacare over Single Payer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care#Public_opinion_in_the_United_States

The Right will cry "Socialism" even louder than before. If Obama wants to lose, he can straight out endorse Single Payer.

[Bull Moose Base]

Thing is Anvi, your speculation about the public's reaction to rightwing attacks off a strike down of Obamacare rests on the assumption that the Supreme Court has credibility.  It won't be hard for Obama to attack the Court ruling against him as more evidence it's become a partisan entity (especially after a 5-4) who got this wrong just as it did Citizens United.  I assume Obama's reaction to a full strike down would echo his to that case, and in ways Gore's to Bush v Gore i.e. "I think that's a terrible decision but it's theirs to make."  So yes, FOXGOP would try to attack Obama as tyrant, but I doubt most people who aren't already in the tank for them would be persuaded (even most who think the mandate goes too far).  And I also bet a majority will poll as believing the SC has no semblance of impartiality.

I actually think a full strike down by the Supreme Court positions Obama reasonably well to embrace re-passage of the pieces of the law unrelated to the mandate, specifically the ones that have already gone into effect.  I even half suspect Romney, etching a new sketch for the General, would largely agree with him on that (while working to frame as an Obama failure).  But that strikes me as a wash for president- taking healthcare fairly off the table- and a boon for Democrats in congressionals.

[Sbane]

Yes a rebuke by the supreme court will hit Obama, but he can just hammer the republicans on how people with pre-existing conditions are now going to be thrown out. He can appeal to moms whose not so little kids will be kicked out of their insurance as well. People fundamentally do not understand what happened in 2010. According to the exit polls, Americans were evenly divided on health care bit voted by 7 points for the Republicans. If the 2010 election was decided on healthcare there's a good chance Pelosi would still be speaker, when you factor in the incumbency advantage.

[Frodo]

Endorsing Single Payer would probably save Obama election. I haven't met a single person who supports Obamacare over Single Payer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care#Public_opinion_in_the_United_States

The Right will cry "Socialism" even louder than before. If Obama wants to lose, he can straight out endorse Single Payer.

They cry 'socialism' over everything -including public education, Social Security, and Medicare.    

Besides, given his track-record of late as the Democratic version of Richard Nixon, Obama would not be the right spokesperson to advocate single-payer anyway.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

JCL, you don't get to decide on your own what an Awakening might look like any more than we do.

I know. I guess my right wing glasses on too tight.

[nhmagic]

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!

It isn't of the emergent variety. In fact I'm somewhat uncomfortable with emergent theology.

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.

Most Charismatics I know would beg to differ. I've NEVER met one of Pentacostal/Charismatic theology who supports gay marriage.

Agreed - the emergent church makes me uncomfortable - mainly because it uses carnal interests to "church" people.  It's trying to attract people to church via thrills and self-gratification.  Theres food waiting right at the door: cookies, donuts, milk, water and coffee (not that the items themselves are a problem, but the manner in which they are used to lure people).  The loud, strobe light music is also meant to appeal to peoples constant desire for excitement.  Worship is meant to come from a persons own heart, not from external stimuli that work people up so much that they believe what they are doing is worship.  Messages are dumbed down to the point that there is no spiritual growth and hardly any reading of the word.  Prophecy is hardly mentioned because "it scares away new church goers".  Also, some churches even create dark labyrinths where people go in and run around in darkness until they pass out and have a spiritual experience.  I visited an emergent church once and filled out a card.  Ever since I have received letters both in the mail and in email which read like corporate marketing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

JCL, you don't get to decide on your own what an Awakening might look like any more than we do.

Yeah, and what he's saying reminds me of a story about a woman on the Upper East Side who the day after the 1972 election said she didn't believe the results and it was obviously stolen because there was no way Nixon won by that much because everyone she knew voted for McGovern.

[LastVoter]

Endorsing Single Payer would probably save Obama election. I haven't met a single person who supports Obamacare over Single Payer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care#Public_opinion_in_the_United_States

The Right will cry "Socialism" even louder than before. If Obama wants to lose, he can straight out endorse Single Payer.

They cry 'socialism' over everything -including public education, Social Security, and Medicare.    

Besides, given his track-record of late as the Democratic version of Richard Nixon, Obama would not be the right spokesperson to advocate single-payer anyway.

This is why endorsing single-payer would be a great idea. If the Democratic party doesn't lose the message war like they always do, Single-Payer could win them the presidency, and both chambers. Most Americans(60%) are pro single-payer if presented properly. I still think Obama might endorse single payer if his bill is overturned and the fallout is bad and he is pressed to the wall. I doubt he will under normal circumstances though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

What did happen, happened.  Any arguments that "it could have been worse" are much like you fantasy weekend.

Uh congratulations, you just debunked your own point and proved his, which is that the fact the economy might've also improved under McCain is totally irrelevant.

[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.

ΟΚ, can you repeat that in English?

What did happen, happened.  Any arguments that "it could have been worse" are much like you fantasy weekend.

Uh congratulations, you just debunked your own point and proved his, which is that the fact the economy might've also improved under McCain is totally irrelevant.

No, I proved that the argument that it might have been worse is irrelevant, from a political standpoint.  The perception is that the economy is not good enough.

I actually think that had a "housing support" plan been adopted, the economy would have been worse in 2010 than it was, and better going into 2012 than it is now.   Obama chose a different path and he, along with the rest of us, will be paying the price for it.

[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!

It isn't of the emergent variety. In fact I'm somewhat uncomfortable with emergent theology.

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.

Most Charismatics I know would beg to differ. I've NEVER met one of Pentacostal/Charismatic theology who supports gay marriage.

Agreed - the emergent church makes me uncomfortable - mainly because it uses carnal interests to "church" people.  It's trying to attract people to church via thrills and self-gratification.  Theres food waiting right at the door: cookies, donuts, milk, water and coffee (not that the items themselves are a problem, but the manner in which they are used to lure people).  The loud, strobe light music is also meant to appeal to peoples constant desire for excitement.  Worship is meant to come from a persons own heart, not from external stimuli that work people up so much that they believe what they are doing is worship.  Messages are dumbed down to the point that there is no spiritual growth and hardly any reading of the word.  Prophecy is hardly mentioned because "it scares away new church goers".  Also, some churches even create dark labyrinths where people go in and run around in darkness until they pass out and have a spiritual experience.  I visited an emergent church once and filled out a card.  Ever since I have received letters both in the mail and in email which read like corporate marketing.

I actually agree with this entirely. There should be something hieratic and profound about church. Things like coffee hour are just extra gratuities of Christian charity for those of us who get up in the morning and don't have time to eat breakfast because the bus schedule on weekends is terrible here. Or, you know, whatever.