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

[WhyteRain]

If it goes 5-4 then it was political.

Yup, the 4 should join the 5 and make it unanimous.  I think you could get a 9-0 decision to partially overturn it.

[WhyteRain]

I don't see how the bill being thrown out would lead to anything other then a freefall in Obama's approvals... his signature achievement thrown out would be the theme kicking off every nightly news across America

I sort of see the opposite.  If the SC strikes down DemocratCare, then the GOP loses one of its biggest voter-mobilization arguments -- that "we must elect Republicans to the WH and Congress who will repeal it".

Meanwhile, I think the Democrats' base will be newly inspired.

So, ironically, the GOP should hope it's upheld while the Democrats hope it's struck down. 

[WhyteRain]

I don't see how the bill being thrown out would lead to anything other then a freefall in Obama's approvals... his signature achievement thrown out would be the theme kicking off every nightly news across America

Well, two points (1) it would be rightly seen as the fault of the Supreme Court. Even those who oppose the law admit that it being thrown out was highly unlikely in early 2010. No one could have been expected to foresee such activism.

I saw it.  I predicted in 2009 that the Democrats only chance of holding Congress in 2010 was failing to pass their healthcare reform.  It was easy to see in the Summer of 2009 that the electorate would explode in outrage -- remember the "Read the Bill!" chants at the Congressmen's meetings? -- if it passed.  The fact that Pelosi and Reid had to resort to bribes in the Senate and parlimentary tricks in the House to get it passed only made things worse.

And lots of people thought it was unconstitutional in 2010.  That's why 20-odd states attorneys general launched challenges to it that year.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I largely agree with this.  But what about the revolt of white Democrats -- 14 top white Democrats (so far) have announced they won't be seen with Obama in Charlotte.  (Also, why are they giving Obama only a three-day convention when every white Democratic nominee has gotten a four-day one?)

[WhyteRain]

OBAMACARE WINS!

Ensuring Romney's election and probably a GOP Senate in 2013.

[WhyteRain]

OK, that takes care of the Presidential race this year.  I'll bet the Repubs are now really pissed that they "settled", to use Michele Bachmann's term, for a moderate like Romney.  I predicted that any GOP candidate would win this year and this ruling just seals it. 

Unless Gary Johnson gets enough libertarian-oriented votes to swing states like Nevada, Colorado, etc. to Obama.

[WhyteRain]

DemocratCare

Born Mar. 21, 2010
Died Jan. 21, 2013

Age 2 years, 10 months.

R.I.P.

Personally, I think Roberts did something Machiavellian here.  He upholds a despised law and makes a tax of it.  The campaign commericials write themselves.

[WhyteRain]

I'm going to visit some of the rightwing blogs to see the fireworks.  Should be a lot of heads exploding over there.

[WhyteRain]

I was just taking my daughter to the library and heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio.  He sees this pretty much as I do:  Good news for the GOP's election prospects.

[WhyteRain]

Smart Democrats must see that they were scammed:

The "moderate" justice (Kennedy) would strike down the WHOLE law, but the "conservative" chief justice rides to the rescue?

Now the Democrats can't campaign against the Court, but have to defend DemocratCare.  It's a disaster.

Expect more white Democrats to skip the Charlotte convention as they try to save their hides.

[WhyteRain]

wow, the spin in this thread is making me dizzy.

Apparently what seems good for Obama now is actually bad in the long run (?), although I doubt many of the conservatives here would be spinning a struck down bill as ultimately bad for Romney.

You can't be talking about me, because I've been perfectly consistent.  Here's what I said -- right here, on page 2 of this thread -- before the news broke:

"If the SC strikes down DemocratCare, then the GOP loses one of its biggest voter-mobilization arguments -- that "we must elect Republicans to the WH and Congress who will repeal it".

"Meanwhile, I think the Democrats' base will be newly inspired.

"So, ironically, the GOP should hope it's upheld while the Democrats hope it's struck down."

Mine isn't spin.

[WhyteRain]

How will Health Care Ruling affect this election?

Has ACA gotten any more popular since 2010?  No?  Well, then see my prediction map of 11/03/2011.

This race has gone from "Do you support Romney or Obama?" to "Do you support Romney or ObamaCare?"  Romney would have to get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy at this point.

[Modify:]  To save readers the trouble, my prediction map of 11/03/2011 shows Romney winning 347 EV and Obama 191.

And, no, the 2010 election was not about "the stimulus and economic growth".  It was about ObamaCare.  Besides, has economic growth gotten any better since 2010?  

[Modify2:]  Or the deficit -- has that gotten any better?  (And no, "lower than 2010" doesn't count.  Nearly no voters know exactly what the deficit was in any given year, but they know when it's sky-high for several years in a row.)

[WhyteRain]

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

[WhyteRain]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IS A GENIUS

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
 
It will be a short-lived celebration.
 
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

READ THE REST AT:  http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

[WhyteRain]

3 people had "Reform upheld - Approvals rise"

Which seems to be the case, says Rasmussen.

Yup.  The same thing happened immediately after the passage of O'Care in 2010 -- Obama's approval numbers went up, about 4% for about 2 weeks.  Expect the same this time.

[WhyteRain]

3 people had "Reform upheld - Approvals rise"

Which seems to be the case, says Rasmussen.

Yup.  The same thing happened immediately after the passage of O'Care in 2010 -- Obama's approval numbers went up, about 4% for about 2 weeks.  Expect the same this time.

I decided to check Rasmussen's numbers:

Date        Strong Approve   Strong Disapprove   Total Approve  Total Disapprove
3/20/10
Date before
ACA passes      23%      (-21)      44%                    43%      (-14)    56%
3/26/10
A few days
later                31%      (-10)      41%                    49%       (-2)     51%
5/26/10
Two months
later                23%      (-22)      45%                    43%      (-14)    56%
11/02/10
Date before
2010 midterm  30%      (-15)      45%                    48%        (-3)    51%
6/25/12
Date before
law upheld       23%      (-21)      45%                    44%       (-10)   54%
6/30/12
Most
recent poll       26%      (-15)       41%                    50%       (+1)   49%

Given that the 2010 midterm was the greatest midterm election beatdown for a new President in generations (since 1922, and in 1922 the GOP had so many seats to spare that they didn't lose their House or Senate majority), how much are the polls "good news for Obama"?