If the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional...

[redcommander]

I would say yes, because what else does he have for "domestic achievements?"

[Landslide Lyndon]

I would say yes, because what else does he have for "domestic achievements?"

Other than dealing successfully with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, saving the auto industry, Wall Street reform, student loan reform and equal pay for women, nothing.

[Adam Griffin]

Health care reform was only one small piece of many things, as LL said. I love to hear the media yakking about how it took more than a year of his Presidency and that he used all of his political capital. The only reason it took so long and was so politically toxic was because Republicans completely shut down and gummed up the gears of it. It still turned out to be one of the most productive (nominal) congressional sessions in American history, despite their efforts.

[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.   

[Oakvale]

I think the healthcare ruling is pretty much a wash - if it's upheld, there's no real change, if it's struck down it gives Obama a way to energise the Democratic base.

[Sbane]

What would be the most interesting outcome, and I tend to think it's kind of likely though I am no expert on law, would be if the individual mandate is struck down and it is severed from the rest of the law except the pre-existing condition and community rating portion. It might not, actually should not be severed from that portion since the mandate is necessary to make covering pre-existing conditions and community rating possible. The rest of the law should be severed as it does not have anything to do with the individual mandate. Can the law experts please let me know what they think the possibility of that happening is? Seems like a perfect moderate hero option for Kennedy.

This would be interesting as suddenly covering pre-existing conditions would become a political football, and I doubt either party will be able to resist covering them again. Though it will be interesting to see what the tea party faction does as the Republican solution seems to be to make a health care tax, which you can get back if you prove you have insurance. Might that be attacked as a new tax by the idiot faction of the Republican party?

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.   

I tend to agree here, and right-wingers who rail against judicial activism would be well-served to exercise caution here: there's a very dangerous possibility for them that if Obamacare is struck down from the bench, the democratic base will be rallied as never before, much like the right was with Abortion.

[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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

All signs point to it being ruled unconstitutional, so we may as well prepare for the aftermath.

[King]

You're all delusional if you think this ruling wouldn't give Republicans a mandate on health reform. Rallying the base is nice, but the other 65 percent of America will see it as incompetence, myself included.

[J. J.]

I would say yes, because what else does he have for "domestic achievements?"

Other than dealing successfully with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, saving the auto industry, Wall Street reform, student loan reform and equal pay for women, nothing.

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

If "student loan reform" is Obama's major achievement in four years, he's finished.

[Torie]

What would be the most interesting outcome, and I tend to think it's kind of likely though I am no expert on law, would be if the individual mandate is struck down and it is severed from the rest of the law except the pre-existing condition and community rating portion. It might not, actually should not be severed from that portion since the mandate is necessary to make covering pre-existing conditions and community rating possible. The rest of the law should be severed as it does not have anything to do with the individual mandate. Can the law experts please let me know what they think the possibility of that happening is? Seems like a perfect moderate hero option for Kennedy.

This would be interesting as suddenly covering pre-existing conditions would become a political football, and I doubt either party will be able to resist covering them again. Though it will be interesting to see what the tea party faction does as the Republican solution seems to be to make a health care tax, which you can get back if you prove you have insurance. Might that be attacked as a new tax by the idiot faction of the Republican party?

A most cogent analysis sbane, particularly the community rating pool aspect. But that has been a flop so far, and the mandate won't raise much money, and it really isn't that important the way it is structured anyway as this de minimus toothless uncollectable wrist slap, so I am not sure I as a justice would strike down anything but the mandate itself. It's obvious the balance of the law needs to be reworked anyway, and everybody knows it. The conservative five would be most foolish to strike down the whole law, particularly since it can be "saved" with the Torie finesse to which you alluded and which was discussed extensively in oral argument actually (which obviously it won't be "saved" in its current form). It should be left to Congress and POTUS to work it all out.

Hopefully with the mandate gone, the campaigners will be under more pressure to elucidate their alternatives rather the waste everyone's time with arid rantings, and that goes for both sides.

The notion that the axing of the mandate will tank Obama is "hyperbole" by the way. In fact, it ironically might help him a tad since the Pubs won't be able to demagogue that the mandate is lurking out there ready to pounce and eat everyone alive, and "force" them into the Obamacare pit of despair.

[cavalcade]

If it is ruled unconstitutional it will have no effect on Obama being re-elected.  Both bases will be fired up for this election no matter what.

The only way it could hurt Obama is if he reacts by endorsing single payer during the campaign, and there's zero reason to do that.

[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.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

You folks do realize that the health care law that passed wasn't really what Obama wanted. He wanted the public option, but the right-wingers in Congress didn't let him get it.

[fezzyfestoon]

I would say yes, because what else does he have for "domestic achievements?"

Other than dealing successfully with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, saving the auto industry, Wall Street reform, student loan reform and equal pay for women, nothing.

Oh, come on...

[TomC]

You folks do realize that the health care law that passed wasn't really what Obama wanted. He wanted the public option, but the right-wingers in Congress didn't let him get it.

Uhm, no, he could have ignored the right wingers- it was the moderates who wouldn't let him.

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

look at it this way:  If Obamacare is struck down, the Dems would have wasted two congressional majorities (1994, 2010) in the past 20 years attempting to overhaul health care...without a thing to show for it.

[Likely Voter]

If the entire law is struck down then it is a big loser for Obama, and he can be accused of wasting time. Ironic because he never liked the mandate to begin with and he was sold the idea by the insurance companies and the crazy belief that conservatives would support an idea that they came up with.

But I think that the court is more likely to sever the mandate and leave the rest. That means that the law becomes all carot and no stick. The pre-existing conditions thing, covering kids and other elements of the law are popular.

Also a recent poll found that 75% of Americans thought that the court would rule based on their personal politics and not the merits of the case. Since Bush v Gore (and Citizens United didnt help either), the court has lost its image of nonpartisan neutrality 

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

But I think that the court is more likely to sever the mandate and leave the rest.

there is no way they can parse it like that.  if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, then the whole thing fails.  and you would probably see Congress move very quickly to pass a law requiring kids be covered under existing insurance.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, then the whole thing fails.

Then that means the entire 1996 Telecommunications Act is unconstitutional, because it included the Communications Decency Act, which was ruled unconstitutional.

It also means the entire 1996 welfare "reform" law is unconstitutional, because the part that allowed states to require drug testing was ruled unconstitutional.

See how that works?

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

if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, then the whole thing fails.

Then that means the entire 1996 Telecommunications Act is unconstitutional, because it included the Communications Decency Act, which was ruled unconstitutional.

It also means the entire 1996 welfare "reform" law is unconstitutional, because the part that allowed states to require drug testing was ruled unconstitutional.

See how that works?

 

I understand only some portions of other bills have been struck down...but to say, as your logic seems to be saying, that the nucleus of a bill can be struck down while allowing the rest of it to stand, is not an opinion based on reality of the situation.

[Likely Voter]

But if the whole law required the mandate, how do you explain that parts of the law are already in effect today and the mandate isn't yet in effect.

[Torie]

Well, our friend Justice Kennedy seems to think the whole law needs to go (he considers partial surgery a more radical exercise in judicial activism than total interment), an opinion in which Scalia enthusiastically joins, and Roberts plays the sphinx. It does appear that considerably more than just the mandate might go down the tubes, with Justice Roberts being the one to determine just how much, unless Kennedy says he won't strike down the mandate unless the whole law goes down, in which event presumably Roberts will join him and just kill off the whole thing. This all assumes that Kennedy finally decides there is no way to carve out a safety net for the mandate while still having some bright line principled limitation to what would be a further erosion of federalism if the mandate stands.

Anyway, that is my first cut at wild speculation, based on the spin for the Politico article without having read the transcript myself.

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

But if the whole law required the mandate, how do you explain that parts of the law are already in effect today and the mandate isn't yet in effect.

I'm not saying the parts already phased in require the mandate, but the mandate is central to the bill.  The SCOTUS is not in the business of making a VW Bug out of a Lincoln Town Car.  Since Congress would have to revisit the bill even if only the mandate is stripped out, the SCOTUS would just leave it to the Congress to start over.  

There is too much of the bill can NOT exist without the mandate to justify the SCOTUS going through the rest of the bill and picking the parts that could survive without the mandate.