If the courts struck down the whole bill....

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

....rather than just the mandate, how will that affect the race?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Obama could be helped if he comes out strongly against the court for this and other bad rulings. 80% of Americans oppose Citizens United, and 65% strongly oppose it. How many issues have 65% of Americans strongly on the same side? Today's court would still rule 5-4 for Bush v. Gore. The court needs to branded the activist right-wingers that they are.

Of course if Obama just tepidly criticizes it, this will help Romney.

[BushKenya]

Advantage Romney as he will be able to claim that Obama and his Democratically controlled Congress rammed something down the American people's throats that they didn't want.  (The American People may want ObamaCare, but Romney will paint the court as speaking on behalf of the people.)

Obama could paint the court as far to the right and clueless, but if he comes out and complains too much it could brand him as a cry-baby, whether fair or not, and Romney will seize on that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Advantage Romney as he will be able to claim that Obama and his Democratically controlled Congress rammed something down the American people's throats that they didn't want.  (The American People may want ObamaCare, but Romney will paint the court as speaking on behalf of the people.)

Obama could paint the court as far to the right and clueless, but if he comes out and complains too much it could brand him as a cry-baby, whether fair or not, and Romney will seize on that.

The Supreme Court doesn't rule on behalf of the people. 80% of Americans oppose the Citizens United ruling. In the other direction, 73% of Americans opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court ruled on Loving v. Virginia.

[BushKenya]

Advantage Romney as he will be able to claim that Obama and his Democratically controlled Congress rammed something down the American people's throats that they didn't want.  (The American People may want ObamaCare, but Romney will paint the court as speaking on behalf of the people.)

Obama could paint the court as far to the right and clueless, but if he comes out and complains too much it could brand him as a cry-baby, whether fair or not, and Romney will seize on that.

The Supreme Court doesn't rule on behalf of the people. 80% of Americans oppose the Citizens United ruling. In the other direction, most Americans opposed Loving v. Virginia at the time.

You're right, but Romney could paint it as such saying the "people have been vindicated."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Advantage Romney as he will be able to claim that Obama and his Democratically controlled Congress rammed something down the American people's throats that they didn't want.  (The American People may want ObamaCare, but Romney will paint the court as speaking on behalf of the people.)

Obama could paint the court as far to the right and clueless, but if he comes out and complains too much it could brand him as a cry-baby, whether fair or not, and Romney will seize on that.

The Supreme Court doesn't rule on behalf of the people. 80% of Americans oppose the Citizens United ruling. In the other direction, most Americans opposed Loving v. Virginia at the time.

You're right, but Romney could paint it as such saying the "people have been vindicated."

I wonder if Alf Landon used that in his Presidential campaign. "Between these Supreme Court rulings, Maine voting for me, and this literary digest poll, I'm a shoo-in".

[xavier110]

Politically, this is probably the best option for Obama. The country moves on, the GOP is less motivated in the fall, and Obama can drop the issue entirely.

[anvi]

I suppose hypothetically there would be more of an upside for Romney.  But I suspect John Roberts is smart enough to know that such a decision would destroy the legitimacy of his court, so I doubt he would vote for a total strikedown.  The vast majority of the bill's provisions haven't got the slightest thing to do with the "mandate," so I don't know where they would derive the legal justification for that kind of decision.

[Purch]

I think Obama could be helped if he comes out strongly against the court for this and other bad rulings. 80% of Americans oppose Citizens United, and 65% strongly oppose it. How many issues have 65% of Americans strongly on the same side? Today's court would still rule 5-4 for Bush v. Gore. The court needs to branded the activist right-wingers that they are.

Of course if Obama just tepidly criticizes it, this will help Romney.

 In theory every year the supreme court could be challenged for being to ideologically to the left or right. Do you know why it's not challenged? Because its political suicide for a president to challenge the courts. It's one thing to challenge congress for being to concerned with their party because of re elections but its another thing to challenge the Court who has no incentive to appeal to any party considering they're in office for life.

It's one thing to have your bill stuck down but it's another thing to try and attack the court. The former might let you break even but the latter will lose you support fast even among your own party. A president criticizing the court for ruling a controversial bill unconstitutional, goes against the whole idea of separation of powers, no one wants a president overstepping his boundaries.

[Nagas]

It depends really. If Obama fired back and said he was going to introduce a new "Patients' Bill of Rights" that included: insurance companies must cover those with preexisting conditions and expansion of age to 26, he can pin Romney into a corner to oppose popular measures or support the President's agenda.

[True Federalist]

The 2012 election impact depends on how the campaigns spin it, but the political effects of striking down the whole bill versus part of the bill are quite significant for 2016.

The "must carry" provisions are popular and unlikely to be repealed before causing real havoc, which without some form of "must purchase" they will.  If the Supreme Court strikes down only part of the act, they will have created a ticking political time bomb that will cause significant damage to the incumbent party in 2016 unless the bomb gets unexpectedly defused in time.

[Harry]

It depends really. If Obama fired back and said he was going to introduce a new "Patients' Bill of Rights" that included: insurance companies must cover those with preexisting conditions and expansion of age to 26, he can pin Romney into a corner to oppose popular measures or support the President's agenda.

Guaranteed issue won't work without the mandate, unfortunately.

[BushKenya]

The 2012 election impact depends on how the campaigns spin it, but the political effects of striking down the whole bill versus part of the bill are quite significant for 2016.

The "must carry" provisions are popular and unlikely to be repealed before causing real havoc, which without some form of "must purchase" they will.  If the Supreme Court strikes down only part of the act, they will have created a ticking political time bomb that will cause significant damage to the incumbent party in 2016 unless the bomb gets unexpectedly defused in time.

So, you're saying that if the whole bill gets tossed that it may propel Mitt Romney into the White House as the 45th President, but we'll likely be looking at a Democratic 46th President starting January 2017?

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

I think Obama could be helped if he comes out strongly against the court for this and other bad rulings. 80% of Americans oppose Citizens United, and 65% strongly oppose it. How many issues have 65% of Americans strongly on the same side? Today's court would still rule 5-4 for Bush v. Gore. The court needs to branded the activist right-wingers that they are.

Of course if Obama just tepidly criticizes it, this will help Romney.

 In theory every year the supreme court could be challenged for being to ideologically to the left or right. Do you know why it's not challenged? Because its political suicide for a president to challenge the courts. It's one thing to challenge congress for being to concerned with their party because of re elections but its another thing to challenge the Court who has no incentive to appeal to any party considering they're in office for life.

It's one thing to have your bill stuck down but it's another thing to try and attack the court. The former might let you break even but the latter will lose you support fast even among your own party. A president criticizing the court for ruling a controversial bill unconstitutional, goes against the whole idea of separation of powers, no one wants a president overstepping his boundaries.

Not really overstepping a line with criticism.  Obama already criticized the Supreme Court after Citizens United and no one cared.  Obama's approvals are higher than theirs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/44-percent-of-americans-approve-of-supreme-court-in-new-poll.html?pagewanted=all

[True Federalist]

The 2012 election impact depends on how the campaigns spin it, but the political effects of striking down the whole bill versus part of the bill are quite significant for 2016.

The "must carry" provisions are popular and unlikely to be repealed before causing real havoc, which without some form of "must purchase" they will.  If the Supreme Court strikes down only part of the act, they will have created a ticking political time bomb that will cause significant damage to the incumbent party in 2016 unless the bomb gets unexpectedly defused in time.

So, you're saying that if the whole bill gets tossed that it may propel Mitt Romney into the White House as the 45th President, but we'll likely be looking at a Democratic 46th President starting January 2017?

No.  I'm saying that if we get a partial strike, it'll likely cause whichever party wins this November, be it Democrat or Republican, to lose in 2016.

If we get a complete strike, I see no clear advantage to either Obama or Romney.

[bgwah]

Still advantage Romney. But it's probably the least bad option for Obama.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Obama could be helped if he comes out strongly against the court for this and other bad rulings. 80% of Americans oppose Citizens United, and 65% strongly oppose it. How many issues have 65% of Americans strongly on the same side? Today's court would still rule 5-4 for Bush v. Gore. The court needs to branded the activist right-wingers that they are.

Of course if Obama just tepidly criticizes it, this will help Romney.

 In theory every year the supreme court could be challenged for being to ideologically to the left or right. Do you know why it's not challenged? Because its political suicide for a president to challenge the courts. It's one thing to challenge congress for being to concerned with their party because of re elections but its another thing to challenge the Court who has no incentive to appeal to any party considering they're in office for life.

It's one thing to have your bill stuck down but it's another thing to try and attack the court. The former might let you break even but the latter will lose you support fast even among your own party. A president criticizing the court for ruling a controversial bill unconstitutional, goes against the whole idea of separation of powers, no one wants a president overstepping his boundaries.

Not really overstepping a line with criticism.  Obama already criticized the Supreme Court after Citizens United and no one cared.  Obama's approvals are higher than theirs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/44-percent-of-americans-approve-of-supreme-court-in-new-poll.html?pagewanted=all

Yeah, I don't see why it would hurt him to criticize the right-wing 5 and talk about the dangers of activist right-wing judges. I'm not suggesting he try another court packing, that would be a bad idea.

[Beet]

I think it would be a clear advantage to Obama, because while the mandate is unpopular, striking down the whole bill would mean chaos and I think people would correctly perceive it as overreaching. I mean, they've admitted they have no intention of reading the bill. They literally would have no idea what they were doing.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think it would be good for Mitt Romney.

He can argue that Obama wasted a large part of his term working on a project that ultimately became nothing. Obama was heavily criticized from both sides for devoting his attention to health care when the economy was terrible. Striking down the whole law makes it look like Obama isn't in touch and has terrible priorities.

Moreover, Romney can argue that Obama will try to do whatever he wants with no regard for the constitution. Romney can play up fears of an unrestricted Obama Second Term.

Bottom line, I think it would give Republicans a ton of things to totally hammer the president with.

[Beet]

I think it would be good for Mitt Romney.

He can argue that Obama wasted a large part of his term working on a project that ultimately became nothing.

I think that would backfire because however people feel about the bill, they'd perceive that the SCOTUS, not the President, was to blame for its downfall and they'd see Romney attacking Obama over it as gloating, distasteful. After all, it would be Romney's side that go what they wanted, and it doesn't fit to attack the President for an outcome that Romney would support. Plus, I just don't think Romney would make this argument.

Striking down the whole law makes it look like Obama isn't in touch and has terrible priorities.

It doesn't affect the perception of Obama's priorities at all. He already took the damage from it while the bill was going through process.

Moreover, Romney can argue that Obama will try to do whatever he wants with no regard for the constitution. Romney can play up fears of an unrestricted Obama Second Term.

And Obama can say that although it eviscerated the bill, he'll respect the Court's decision (and not pull an Andrew Jackson) and his administration would start rolling up the bill. The people would see that he respected the rule of law and the Court despite the deeply unfavorable ruling to him.

Basically, the practical effects of the ruling and the massive size of the law, including the vast portions that have nothing to do with the mandate, have so far been low key. If they struck down those portions the debate would be focused on that, and the public would be focused on the more popular provisions that were struck down. Obama could then argue that the Court massively overreached and plead against a radical Republican takeover of all four branches of government, which would be effective. America is still a relatively centrist country.

[Beet]

I think Obama could be helped if he comes out strongly against the court for this and other bad rulings. 80% of Americans oppose Citizens United, and 65% strongly oppose it. How many issues have 65% of Americans strongly on the same side? Today's court would still rule 5-4 for Bush v. Gore. The court needs to branded the activist right-wingers that they are.

Of course if Obama just tepidly criticizes it, this will help Romney.

 In theory every year the supreme court could be challenged for being to ideologically to the left or right. Do you know why it's not challenged? Because its political suicide for a president to challenge the courts. It's one thing to challenge congress for being to concerned with their party because of re elections but its another thing to challenge the Court who has no incentive to appeal to any party considering they're in office for life.

It's one thing to have your bill stuck down but it's another thing to try and attack the court. The former might let you break even but the latter will lose you support fast even among your own party. A president criticizing the court for ruling a controversial bill unconstitutional, goes against the whole idea of separation of powers, no one wants a president overstepping his boundaries.

Not really overstepping a line with criticism.  Obama already criticized the Supreme Court after Citizens United and no one cared.  Obama's approvals are higher than theirs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/44-percent-of-americans-approve-of-supreme-court-in-new-poll.html?pagewanted=all

Yeah, I don't see why it would hurt him to criticize the right-wing 5 and talk about the dangers of activist right-wing judges. I'm not suggesting he try another court packing, that would be a bad idea.

One thing he could do is propose term limits for the justices, say 5 years. With the proviso that the first retirements don't happen until after 2016, so he can't be accused of packing. Term limits for judges are popular, because most people don't see the logic of having the same people sitting there their entire lives even if they become doddering 90-year olds, or have apparently lost the ability to speak (Thomas).

[I left.]

Why is it I can't bring myself to really care anymore?

[Beet]

Why is it I can't bring myself to really care anymore?

Because it's been watered down so much. Which ironically the Republicans still consider to be so radical, that it's illegal for Congress to even enact it.

[True Federalist]

I think it would be a clear advantage to Obama, because while the mandate is unpopular, striking down the whole bill would mean chaos

Returning to the status antelegislatum would not mean chaos.  It would cause some short term pain for some folks, just as usually happens anytime a law is struck down, but it would not cause chaos.

[WhyteRain]

I think it would be a clear advantage to Obama, because while the mandate is unpopular, striking down the whole bill would mean chaos and I think people would correctly perceive it as overreaching. I mean, they've admitted they have no intention of reading the bill. They literally would have no idea what they were doing.

No one read it before voting for it, so why must the Sup Court justices be tortured? 

The only people who have actually read the entire thing are a few Tea Partyers.