Skip to main content

A lot of people seem to think that the Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).  Only 35% of recent Supreme Court law clerks think that the justices will strike down the individual mandate (the most controversial part of the law).

I for one hope the court does uphold it.  While the law isn't what all of us progressives would prefer (single payer would be much better), it does help millions of people gain healthcare, eliminates the policies of discrimination employed by most insurance companies, and actually reduces the budget deficit.  

However, while I certainly HOPE the Supreme Court upholds the law, I am pretty sure they will strike it down.

Why?

Simple, while the mandate (and definitely the rest of act) is almost certainly constitutional (based on past Supreme Court precedence), Citizens United showed us that the Supreme Court does not care about past precedence or what is constitutional.  This is an activist court with an activist agenda.  Four justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) are right-wingers who are essentially a bought and paid for arm of the Republican Party.  While some of these justices may, sometimes, vote reasonably in particular cases, when push comes to shove (and there is a chance to embarrass a Democratic President) they will do what they can to make that happen.

Justice Kennedy, while not a right-winger, is clearly a conservative Republican.  Plus, he is quite old and probably intends to retire within the next few years.  The last thing he wants is Barack Obama, a progressive Democrat, picking his successor.  So, in the end, Kennedy will join his comrades in voting to strike down the Affordable Care Act.  Furthermore, I believe that this group of five will vote to strike down the ENTIRE law, not just the mandate.  Removing the mandate but leaving the rest of the law would only hurt insurance companies (as the mandate is the main thing they got in this legislation).  The justices won't want to hurt large corporations (they are people after all).  Therefore, the Supreme Court will strike down the whole law.

So what happens next?  That's a lot murkier, but I offer some guestimates.  Please feel free to comment on these or add your own.

--The decision will negatively impact President Obama, but NOT nearly as much the media has suggested.  In the end, the election will be decided by the state of the economy.  If job creation continues, Obama will win easily.  If not, it will be a very difficult race.  

--The decision will have a major impact on the single payer movement.  So far, single payer legislation has only passed in Vermont, and even there it will take years to implement.  Once the states realize that a mandate won't work (at least with the current Supreme Court), single payer will go full steam ahead in many progressive states.  Look for single payer to become law within 5 years in small states like Oregon, Rhode Island, and Hawaii, but also larger states like Illinois, California and New York.  Once it takes hold in these states (and is successful and popular) it will quickly spread to more swing states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, Washington, and Wisconsin) before 2022.  Eventually, by the late 2020s or early 2030s, it will reach most states in the country.  There may be a few permanent holdouts, but even most of these will come around when they see the substantial cost savings.  Who knows, maybe the popularity of single payer will be so great that it will pass nationally sooner than many think.  We'll see.

Please add your comments and thoughts on the Supreme Court's ruling and its impact, and make sure you vote in the poll!

Poll

The Supreme Court will:

45%103 votes
19%44 votes
26%60 votes
9%21 votes

| 228 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    Join National Youth Rights Assocation, http://www.youthrights.org and join the youth rights revolution

    by teenvote on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:06:22 AM PDT

  •  by making a strong prediction (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kareylou, MKSinSA, G2geek

    you may be in a position to claim bragging rights-
    just like the stock pickers who write books proclaiming the next big bubble- or the next big crash.  Whoever is right gets bragging rights until the next swing in the markets.

    As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

    by BPARTR on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:16:41 AM PDT

  •  Single payer will go ahead (5+ / 0-)

    in many progressive states? I do so love dreamers.

    Alternative scenario. The bill is struck down. The right is vindicated, the health insurance lobby is empowered and healthcare reform in any form dies for for another 10 to 15 years.

    Oh the because of the defeat Obama leadership is called into question and despite an improving economy he loses.

    Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

    by jsfox on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:21:01 AM PDT

    •  I disagree (5+ / 0-)

      One branch of the California legislature recently almost passed single payer.  It failed only because of the abstention of a few Democrats.  

      If the law is struck down, there will be an ENORMOUS push by progressives for single payer in the states.  Once single payer is proven to be a cost saver in a few states (which it will be) and is popular (which it will be), it will rapidly spread out.

      Join National Youth Rights Assocation, http://www.youthrights.org and join the youth rights revolution

      by teenvote on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:23:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can of a depressing scenario (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      It suggests that the election, future achievements in health care reform, and in essence the entire foundation of our Republic lies in the hands of Anthony Kennedy.

      I don't buy that.

      Join National Youth Rights Assocation, http://www.youthrights.org and join the youth rights revolution

      by teenvote on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:26:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and I'm with you. (0+ / 0-)

        F--- all these pre-emptive defeatists spreading their gloomy bull---- on a site that's supposed to be devoted to action.

        F--- all the moaning and despairing and waving of white surrender flags.

        What they should be doing is organizing to make damn sure we get a Congress that will do it the right way, with at minimum a public option (Medicare for all) as the fall-back compromise and complete single-payer as the goal.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 09:17:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  except for one thing: (0+ / 0-)

        Your claim that the mandate is probably constitutional, is flat out wrong.

        How would you like it if some future Republican administration and Congress scrap Social Security and force everyone, under penalty of law, to get a 401K account with Goldman or one of the bankster-banks?

        How would you like it if they decided that preventing a retail recession was in the national interest so they forced everyone, under penalty of law, to go Christmas shopping?

        Don't think those things can happen?  Once you grant government the power to force people to buy products from private companies, here's what will happen:  Every single stinking special interest will be lined up at the door looking for Congress to mandate that people consume their particular products.  

        The line between authoritarianism and outright tyranny is that an authoritarian regime demands "thou shalt not," and a tyranny demands "thou shalt."  

        Never before has government had the power to force people to buy products from private companies (and auto insurance is irrelevant: the law does not require you to drive a car).  

        Never before has refusing to buy something been considered a form of "commerce."  That would be like declaring that "freedom of religion" requires that you have a religion.  

        If the Court lets this one stand, mark my words, the consequences I've described will happen.

        Is that what you want?

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 09:26:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  only problem is current system is not sustainable (4+ / 0-)

      HCR is 1/5 of GDP and will become 2/5 in next 20 years without reform

      •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        And that's another reason why if the SCOTUS strikes this down, single payer is really the only option left.

        Join National Youth Rights Assocation, http://www.youthrights.org and join the youth rights revolution

        by teenvote on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:30:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No argument it will take all those (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC, Deep Texan, cultjake, CoyoteMarti

        years for it to get done. The fastest way to single payer is through ACA. The 80-85% requirement of premiums going to actual healthcare is going to force many private insurers out and as they go the opportunity for single payer grows.

        Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

        by jsfox on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:41:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So the Insurance Portion Collapses to Catastrophic (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        only, for most --or a blend of dental style coverage of preventative care with catastrophic for the huge events, with a massive donut hole in the middle.

        The provider industry undergoes a major contraction.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:52:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Private health insurance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      is a failed business model.

      In order to keep making profits it relies increasingly on commanding higher premiums from an ever diminishing pool of potential customers, most of whom are healthy enough and young enough to decline to purchase crappy insurance.  

      If the mandate is declared unconstitutional we will see massive consolidation and eventually a wave of bankruptcies and bailouts of the health insurance industry as it falls under it's own weight and unrealistic expectations of perpetual profit.  

      If anything we will get single payer all that much quicker if we let the private insurance companies have their way.  People will be so outraged at us bailing those bastards out that there will be a massive effort to either completely regulate the remaining companies after they exit bankruptcy or there will be a push to scrap the whole private insurance model in favor of a govt run Medicare type plan.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:18:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am sorry but I can't hope for the mandate to be (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cheerio2, CoyoteMarti, JamieG from Md

        declared unconstitutional.  There are people who are sick and dying, and cannot afford to wait for a collapse, bailout, and political adjustment.

        You say the people will get tired of the health insurance bailouts, and eventually support single payer.  I don't think there is a shred of evidence this will happen.  People are outraged over the wallstreet bailouts, and they haven't even supported the implementation of strong regulations.  Many even support relaxing regs on wall street.  

        right wingers have no interest in the problems of the poor and middle class.  I hear from reps I know that the best answer to the entire propblem of health care is to repeal the requirement that emergency rooms treat all patients. That, and the prohibition of medical malpractice awards.  They could keep the current system limping along for decades simply because they don't care whether the poor and middle class have health care or not.  

  •  Everyone, please recommend (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    so more Kossacks can view this, comment and vote in the poll!

    Join National Youth Rights Assocation, http://www.youthrights.org and join the youth rights revolution

    by teenvote on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:24:54 AM PDT

    •  teenvote - Kennedy will not retire (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      If President Obama is re-elected. He would not retire and allow the President to flip the Court majority. He will hang in there until 2016.

      Your comment that the mandate is clearly constitutional is presumptuous. While there is a good case that it is constitutional if you read the many briefs filed in the case the opponents of the mandate make a good case that this is an expansion of the Commerce Clause beyond anything thing that has proceeded the ACA. Should the justices strike down the mandate they would be on solid legal ground.

      Regarding your theory that the five conservatives will vote to strike down the law based purely on the politics of harming the President, I don't agree. There are some here at DKOS who think the mandate will be upheld because it is a windfall for the private health insurance industry and the five conservatives are corporate shills.

      I think this one is very difficult to forecast and today's oral argument may give us some clues, although sometimes oral argument gives us less clarity rather than more.

       

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 08:26:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most constitutional scholars and lawyers (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        costello7

        don't agree:

        Should the justices strike down the mandate they would be on solid legal ground.
        To overturn the mandate,, the Supreme Court would have to reverse decades of Commerce Clause jurisprudence...or make a jurisprudentially naked "one time only" ruling in the mold of Bush v. Gore.

        I'm not worried about the former scenario; I am somewhat worried about the latter.

        •  elmo - there are enough constitutional scholars (0+ / 0-)

          who think the mandate is a bridge too far for the Court to toss it and with lots of support. The only "majority" that counts is among the nine Justices on the SCOTUS.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 10:04:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Most nonideological analysis (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CoyoteMarti

        as well as a majority of lower courts have found that the mandate is well within prior precedents interpreting the Commerce Clause (kind of like climate change -  there's the great weight of mainstream science and then a very loud but very fringey fringe that tries to assert otherwise).  

        As for the Evil Five -  their prior opinions read like pure Republican propaganda.  And their extrajudicial speaking engagements (always to rightwing groups) really give the game away completely.   Their striking down the ACA can be viewed as "not political" only by nitwits who think Bush v. Gore was "not political".

        •  blueoldlady - this one is very ideological (0+ / 0-)

          The constitutionality of this comes down to each Justice's view of the Commerce Clause. Prior to the 1930's the overwhelming view of the Commerce Clause was that it was there to prevent the states from having tariffs between the states, not to give the federal government a broad charter beyond its enumerated powers. The New Deal challenged that view of the Commerce Clause and the SCOTUS rebuffed FDR stating that his programs were not constitutional. After a battle threatening to add new members to the Court the SCOTUS approved most of the New Deal, changing the historic view of the Commerce Clause. My guess is that the conservative majority may feel that the trend has strayed too far and would like to see a more constrained federal government and that this is a place to draw a line in the sand. We shall see.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:03:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it might be a good idea.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...if Obama strong-armed the Court like FDR did.

          •  Difference between ideology and politics. (0+ / 0-)

            I could be wrong (it's been 30 years since Con Law) but I think there's a difference between ideological and political considerations.

            Here's a thought experiment that might tease out the difference:  does anyone here seriously believe that if PPACA had been worded identically to the current version but signed by Bush the Younger (back when the individual mandate was a Republican idea) instead of Obama that we would even be having this debate?

            I, for one, do not believe that Scalia or Thomas would have ever voted to strike down a Republican-sponsored individual mandate.  They really do hate Obama and they really are focused on damaging his presidency.  I think that makes this a purely partisan decision.

            •  blueoldlady - we will never know (0+ / 0-)

              No GOP President would have signed the ACA. However, had the ACA even been bipartisan I do think the Court would be very reluctant to to overturn it. The ACA passed using reconciliation in the Senate and with one GOP vote in the House, and public opinion is against it, so it has clearly been positioned as very polarizing.  However, I do think it would have been taken to the Court for their consideration, but maybe folks like Kennedy and Roberts would be more sympathetic.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:34:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Public opinion" (0+ / 0-)

                quite a bit more nuanced than that, when you actually drill down into the polls, and don't stop at the headlines.

                And looking only at the individual mandate, this is clearly something the GOP has supported in the past.

                Would the conservatives on the Court back in the 1940's have supported New Deal-style legislation if Hoover had proposed it?  

                •  blueoldlady - probably not (0+ / 0-)

                  All of the precedent up to that point was for a very narrow view of the Commerce Clause. I don't think they would have changed their view if Hoover had proposed the New Deal.

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:56:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  if SCOTUS strikes down ACA with an eye (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, G2geek, costello7, blueoldlady

    to preserving conservative grip on Congress, my guess is they would witness a backlash instead.  It seems to me an unprecedented number of elected officials are up for recall now due to their legislative hijinks
    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/...

    •  Everything About the Behavior of the Right Is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoldlady, CoyoteMarti

      betting on the WH being a very long shot, but energizing the troops for downticket gains.

      Striking down ACA more or less completely would be consistent with their strategy.

      It could, as you say, backfire or fail in many ways, but I think it's a certainty they will make big gains in some areas.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:54:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Striking down the law..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      ....will energize Democrats and progressives.  This is in no way a perfect law and must be improved upon.  But the spectre of giving this SC even more power over the next two generations is terrifying.  Striking down the law will have serious political consequences.  

      The pattern of right wing overreach is actually sinking in to the American discourse, even those who don't pay much attention.  Maybe it's just wishful thinking (because I do believe that this law has a good chance of being struck down), but I hope it will energize Democrats to remove as many Republicans from power as possible.  

  •  If this gets struck down, the ads write themelves: (6+ / 0-)

    "Republicans killed my daughter because the insurance company dropped her from coverage"

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:29:21 AM PDT

    •  zenb - but it would not be republicans (0+ / 0-)

      It would be the SCOTUS, which I think makes it much more difficult to use as an easy campaign ad. The majority of Americans don't approve of the mandate which is another fact that makes it difficult to leverage.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 08:28:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  we can still make that assertion. (0+ / 0-)

        Bottom line is, that assertion, that the Rs did it, has the ring of truth to it regardless of the technicalities.

        "Republicans killed my daughter" is a winning emotional narrative, and it's the emotional narratives that count.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 09:28:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  G2 - you may be right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek

          But I don't think you will see any Dems run that kind of ad. However, a SuperPAC just might.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 09:56:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes, that would work. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            BTW, interesting quote from a USSC Justice:

            "So, you're trying to create commerce in order to regulate it?"

            I think it was Kennedy.  Conservative whatever blahblah but that was a very insightful way of putting it.  Brilliant in fact.

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:16:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  SCOTUS will strike ALL of it down (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    costello7, G2geek

    I agree with the article, because the SCOTUS is what it is, it will strike down the entire thing.

    And then, combined with the inane, unnecessary voting laws, offenses against women, etc. in this country, maybe libs will indeed get angry enough to do something about it.

  •  I think they'll uphold it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC, cultjake

    But I also thought they would never take Bush v. Gore, much less reach the result they did.

    There's plenty of precedent for them to uphold it under the commerce clause.  And the two cases from the 1990s striking down laws as not within the commerce clause power involved non-commercial activity (guns, violence against women).  The ACA's clearly does.

    That's not to say the mandate is wise.  Only that it is constitutional.

    "We calmly accept our uncertain position." Joey Rathburn. But HBO can kiss my ass for cancelling Luck.

    by Paleo on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:07:24 AM PDT

    •  Apart from Thomas.... (0+ / 0-)

      ....I don't think that most of the conservatives want to take us back to the pre-1938 interpretation of the Commerce Clause, so if anything is going to be struck down, it's going to be with a scalpel and not an axe, but I could be wrong.

  •  Striking the ACA down could have far reaching (6+ / 0-)

    consequences. Consider the following from Armando's post currently on the fp:

    The issue could also raise fundamental questions regarding our modern federal government. If the Court chooses to issue sweeping doctrinal formulations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, or appeals to liberty of contract interests in striking down the individual mandate, the very foundations of our modern government could be at risk. Such a decision could challenge the basis of our modern federal administrative state. Questions regarding the EPA, Medicare, Social Security, and other federal agencies and regulatory regimes would be reopened. It could lead to a reversal of the 1937 transformation of our national government.
    I'm not certain the rightwing activists on the SC are willing to decide this in a way that has the potential to imperil the federal government to such an extreme extent. Well, Thomas and Scalia probably would, but I think Roberts and Alito would be very hesitant to take responsibility for what could end up resulting in a second US civil war.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 07:38:18 AM PDT

    •  Here's a thought..... (0+ / 0-)

      Could this energize the left for a generation, like the Civil Rights Act energized the right?  

      I'm not saying just ACA but its implications for everything else.  

      •  It sure as hell should. Elections matter if for no (0+ / 0-)

        other reason than that SC decisions matter. A lot.

        Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

        by JTinDC on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 09:19:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Armando's hair is clearly on fire. (0+ / 0-)

      He needs to start drinking decaf or something, or next thing you know he's going to go into orbit.  

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 09:29:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Even Scalia.... (0+ / 0-)

      ....believes in some role for the Federal government and has rejected opportunities in the past to hit the Commerce Clause harder. Thomas, on the other hand, is basically a Teabagger. I think he scares even Scalia.

  •  If it goes down where's the GOP going to get (0+ / 0-)

    another fundraising ploy??
      This is one of those things they need to be against for all those pearl clutching reasons, and a dandy thing to fundraise off of, until of course people actually know what it is and use it.
       Remember SS used to be the third rail in Politics, not any more, it's all being lumped together, and like Obamacare , can be in place, and still be attacked.

      No, it will stay , too good a money maker.

  •  I think its an election wash (0+ / 0-)

    However SCOTUS rules on healthcare, the momentum for this election year is already in place.  The Right Wing isn't going to hate Obama any more than they already do, either way, and Dems aren't going to question the sanity of Rethugs any more than they already do, either way.  At most, people who are 98% certain to vote will become 99% certain to vote--and it sure won't change "how" anyone intends to vote.

    On the presidential level, I don't see any way Obama loses (unless SCOTUS chooses to steal another one--always a possibility with this group).

    What I really think is fascinating is what Rethugs are doing to themselves, long term.  Usually, the Right plays the long game.  Challenging the mandate (a GOP idea, as we all know) is an incredibly short-sighted strategic blunder.  Because, if the law is overturned, there will be no alternative but Single Payer.  The system we have DOES NOT WORK.  Costs will explode beyond sustainability almost overnight, to the point that even a Rethug president would have to seek the shelter of the only system that actually works--Single Payer.  And I'm talking national.  Single Payer enacted piecemeal is only going to drive up prices quicker in non-Single Payer states.  Further, if Obama is re-elected, as I'm certain he will be, I would expect him to push and push hard for Single Payer.  Because, truthfully--and absent the modest benefits of the Affordable Healthcare Act--the only way to get deficits under control is and will be Single Payer.  I also think its a strong enough issue that, if he can't get the majorities to do it before 2014, the issue will drive up Democratic turnout in the midterms.  And even Rethugs agree Single Payer would be Constitutional.

    Oh, and, yes, IF SCOTUS tosses the mandate, they will definitely toss the entire law.  I still think they'll uphold it.  I think the can of worms they open by tossing it is a whole lot bigger than the can of worms for upholding it.  You might even see a 6-3 in favor, though I wouldn't hold my breath for anything other than 5-4.

    From what was reported today, it sounded like Kennedy was musing that the healthcare industry might just be special enough to warrant unprecedented treatment (to be clear, HE was the one who seemed to think it was unprecedented, even if I don't agree).  If upheld, though, they'll make it a narrow ruling that only ever applies to healthcare (all those "mandated broccoli" folks are just hysterical idiots anyway).

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

    by costello7 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 09:51:12 AM PDT

  •  I have a $100 bet that they will strike it down. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CoyoteMarti

    The four wingers have no integrity at all.  They hate Obama, they hate Democrats, they have no respect for the concept of a government of laws, not of men.

    And Kennedy is just a cranky old fart.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site