How will the Supreme Court's Health Care Reform ruling ...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Toss-up between option 5 and 6 for me.

I think the mandate will be struck down but I don't know if that alone would really sink his approvals as it has never been popular.

It might if he goes out and defends the mandate. If he proposes a progressive alternative (public option, Medicare buy-in, etc), I could see flat approvals.

If either of his appointees throws out any part of the bill, that would obviously be a huge Romney victory.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Mandate survives?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If this sh**t is 6-3 for the mandate, Republicans are going to be pissed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm sure everyone cares about the federal government's ability to terminate state's Medicaid funds. That surely will get the juices flowing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ScotusBlog: Mandate upheld
CNN: Mandate struck down

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wait, it was 5-4 after all, and faux moderate Kennedy voted against?  I guess they felt like having a non-typical 5-4 split.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wait, it was 5-4 after all, and faux moderate Kennedy voted against?

No, Roberts voted to uphold it.

Yes, Roberts voted for it. Kennedy is in the minority for once.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Roberts is the only justice who voted that it wasn't OK as part of the Commerce Clause, but was OK as a tax.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Faux moderate Kennedy voted to strike the whole thing down.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just imagine, if Roberts had been like Kennedy, the whole thing would have been thrown out.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The court is still pretty right-wing. 4 of the justices, including Kennedy voted to kill the whole thing. 5 of the justices voted that the Commerce Clause doesn't allow for such things. ACA really dodged a bullet here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It would be fun to invent a time machine, go back a few hours, and say "Justice Kennedy will strike  the whole thing down. CNN will report that the mandate is dead", and watch the hilarious results.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let me rephrase: The Court ruled that the government cannot force anyone to purchase a product. That is the definition of a mandate. What's at issue here is that you are not being forced to buy health insurance, but you will be taxed if you don't.

Also, I read an interesting article that I think some people here might enjoy.

"Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius"
http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

Come on. These anti ACA people can't seriously expect us to believe that they would rather have Roberts do what he did rather then join 4 other justices in striking the whole thing down.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let me rephrase: The Court ruled that the government cannot force anyone to purchase a product. That is the definition of a mandate. What's at issue here is that you are not being forced to buy health insurance, but you will be taxed if you don't.

Also, I read an interesting article that I think some people here might enjoy.

"Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius"
http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

Come on. These anti ACA people can't seriously expect us to believe that they would rather have Roberts do what he did rather then join 4 other justices in striking the whole thing down.

That's what I've been saying all day, even before the decision was announced.  And I was one of the many people here who picked "Option 3 -- The whole thing struck down".

This is looking like a Machiavellian decision by Roberts:  He agrees with the conservatives on all the critical issues -- like mandate invalid under Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment precludes Medicare expansion -- and then leaves Obama and the Democrats to defend the most unpopular law since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

If he had done as I and most of the "experts" thought and struck down ACA, then Obama and the 'crats could go on the offensive against the "rightwing Republican court".  What he did was robbed them of that issue and stuck them with an ugly tarbaby to defend.  He resusitated the issue that most inflamed the voters in 2010.  No one's going to give a damn now about what Romney did at Bain Capital.  

[modify:]  Btw FWIW, left-wing TV host Ed Schultz agrees with me that this was a tactical victory but a strategic defeat for Democrats:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/28/ed_schultz_obamacare_decision_helps_mitt_romney.html

Look, this obviously wasn't a 100% victory for Democrats, but to claim that it was a victory for Republicans is pretty silly.