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

[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.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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).

[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.

[Beet]

"For the health care industry, a decision striking down the entire ACA would be an absolute disaster. Physicians, hospitals, and private companies have been shifting how they practice medicine in anticipation of the ACA’s implementation. They’ve been creating accountable care organizations,[1] envisioning a significant reduction in uncompensated care, and enjoying increased Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement in primary care settings.[2] That will all vanish if the ACA is struck down. Moreover, seniors will pay more for prescription drugs and young adults will be taken off their parents’ insurance. The private insurance industry, which has seen its market shrink significantly over the last decade,[3] will see a real chance to reverse that trend disappear. According to one estimate, if the ACA is overturned, insurers may lose over $1 trillion in revenues between 2013 and 2020."

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/health-care-constitutional-chaos

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 Courts are supposed to show deference to the actual legislative branches, not be a legislative branch. Besides, the legislature can enact a law for whatever reason they want, while Court has to justify its decisions by determining whether something is unconstitutional. They can hardly do that without even knowing what it is.