The U.S. National Elections For President, The Senate And The House Of Representatives.

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Disagree. This destroys Romney's biggest talking point against Obamacare - he's been running around calling it 'unconstitutional' in every single speech he gives.

Disagree with your disagreement. I think you overestimate the influence of politician-talk on voters. Sociological research suggests that for the most part, voters make their decision by asking themselves: "Do things seem to be going in the right direction? Am I better off now than I was a year ago? If yes, I'm going with the incumbent. Otherwise, I'm throwing the bum out." Today's decision will not affect how well-off people will be on November 6th, 2012. Consequently, I don't expect it to influence the election.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Disagree. This destroys Romney's biggest talking point against Obamacare - he's been running around calling it 'unconstitutional' in every single speech he gives.

Disagree with your disagreement. I think you overestimate the influence of politician-talk on voters. Sociological research suggests that for the most part, voters make their decision by asking themselves: "Do things seem to be going in the right direction? Am I better off now than I was a year ago? If yes, I'm going with the incumbent. Otherwise, I'm throwing the bum out." Today's decision will not affect how well-off people will be on November 6th, 2012. Consequently, I don't expect it to influence the election.

You don't think the negative effects of the ACA or mandate being struck down would have been very problematic for Obama? I sure do. Avoiding massive political problems is the equivalent of a massive political win.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

In four months, joe, this may not be an issue. The economy may trump this decision.
I note that LA gov Jindal (R) is already somewhat sneeringly framing this as Obama's tax increase: "The Supreme Court has decided to be for more honest than Obama was. They rightly call it a tax."
Palin tweeted the same thing - for what that is worth.
I note that Sen Marco Rubio (R) said: "While the Court has said that the law is constitutional , it remains a bad idea for the economy. I hope that in the fall we will replace it with real solutions that will insure more people and cost a lot less."

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

I suspect that the Roberts influence to characterize it as a tax was to set up the politicians at all levels of government to be easily squeezed by the Grover Noquist no taxes contract in voting no on anything to do with ACA .

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

I don't understand why everyone thinks Roberts came up with the tax thing out of the blue, it was part B, alternative option of the Obama arguments.

Quote:

But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

source

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Disagree. This destroys Romney's biggest talking point against Obamacare - he's been running around calling it 'unconstitutional' in every single speech he gives. And he's specifically said that the difference between this and the health plan he supported was that mandates are constitutional on a state level, but not a national one.

A supreme court ruling has never stopped someone from saying that the supreme court was wrong. Look at all the people still saying that Citizens United was decided wrongly. Romney will keep calling the ACA unconstitutional, and those who are inclined to believe him will agree.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's now going to be extremely difficult for him to differentiate himself from Obama on this issue, which is a big failure for him.

It always has been difficult for him to differentiate Romneycare from Obamacare -- as his opponents in the primaries were quick to point out. Nothing has changed just because the SC came down with this decision.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And it's a boost for Obama. If the mandate were struck down, there would be chaos as we struggled to figure out the results. If the whole ACA were struck down, Obama would have been pilloried for 'wasting time' on an unconstitutional law. By both the left and the right.

Meh. Nobody's vote would have changed as a result. Democrats might have been disappointed that Obama wasted all that time on a health insurance bill that didn't withstand constitutional scrutiny, but I doubt any of them would have said: "That's it! I'm so fed up I'm voting for Romney!"

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Additionally, it's a gigantic morale killer on the right-wing, who were running around guaranteeing everyone (mostly themselves) that the SC would overturn this ruling, and save them a lot of work. The RW blogs today are totally despondent.

That bears no resemblance to reality. Every time the SC has struck down abortion regulations, for instance, the right wing gets more energized, not less. I imagine right wing bloggers are despondent because Romney is unquestionably the worst candidate to run on an anti-Romneycare platform, but this election is going to be about Obama's handling of the economy, not about the ACA.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There's no other way to look at this but the best possible outcome for Obama and his re-election chances. I think that our nation full of low-information voters are going to, in large part, see this as a vindication of what Obama did.

Low-information voters vote Republican.

1 Reply

@revelette,

He didn't come up with it out of the blue. He sided against the conservative wing of the court who wanted to determine it unconstitutional based on commerce laws. He chose to side with the liberal wing and characterize it as a tax within the taxing powers of Congress.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

That bears no resemblance to reality. Every time the SC has struck down abortion regulations, for instance, the right wing gets more energized, not less.

I think this sounds nice to say, but isn't necessarily a reflection of reality in the voting booth.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The bottom line is that if the mandate was struck down, democrats myself included, would have tried out best to spin it as "justice roberts court" but now we don't have to. It is a win for democrats and Obama and a lose for Romney and republicans. Whether it changes any votes, too soon to know. I think it just might for those who don't really follow these things and just kinda go by the big head lines in the news.

0 Replies

The other big decisions by SCOTUS today have been buried by the ACA decision.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-holds-stolen-valor-act-unconstitutional-dismisses-first-american-financial-v-edwards/

Quote:

Court Holds Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, dismisses First American Financial v. Edwards
In addition to its landmark ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court dealt with two other cases today—affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision striking down the Stolen Valor Act in one, and dismissing First American Financial v. Edwards without issuing a decision, thus leaving the Ninth Circuit’s decision intact.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't think the negative effects of the ACA or mandate being struck down would have been very problematic for Obama?

No, I don't think that. As joefromchicago points, lost Supreme-Court battles have frequently energized the losers in a remember-the-Alamo kind of way. Of course there are problematic effects too, but I expect the overall effect to be negligible.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You don't think the negative effects of the ACA or mandate being struck down would have been very problematic for Obama?

No, I don't think that. As joefromchicago points, lost Supreme-Court battles have frequently energized the losers in a remember-the-Alamo kind of way. Of course there are problematic effects too, but I expect the overall effect to be negligible.

Okay, serious question: are there historical examples of this happening? Within the last 20 years, can you point to any SC decision that actually and definably 'energized' the base of the side who lost? And which then led to electoral victories afterward?

I sure as hell can't. I think what you are positing sounds nice, but is light on evidence.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okay, serious question: are there historical examples of this happening? Within the last 20 years, can you point to any SC decision that actually and definably 'energized' the base of the side who lost?

Your 20-year time frame conveniently rules out the Supreme Court's important abortion cases. Bur I think they qualify. If Roberts wanted to do something really nasty to the Republican Party, he would overrule Roe v Wade, overrule Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and let the party explain to female voters why it wants to criminalize the abortions they had.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

That would be nasty for them.

In terms of electoral outcomes, I believe that if a simple question were asked: 'would Obama's re-election chances improve if the ACA and mandate were upheld, or if the ACA and mandate were struck down?' The answer is clearly that they would improve if it were upheld.

I find no credence to the opposite position, in large part b/c the Dem party is rather tired of arguing over health care. It was a draining 18 month period to pass the ACA and I don't see many people relishing re-fighting that battle. Congress certainly wouldn't be willing to - there's about a zero percent chance that anything even approaching it would be doable in the next congressional cycle. That tiredness led in large part to depressed Dem turnout in 2010 - I just can't see a rejection of all that work leading to increased Dem turnout in 2012.

Now, voters and congress-critters don't have to do so, and can vote Obama in to do other important things - while protecting and enshrining the ACA into standing law and policy. It's a win-win for Obama.

The attitudes on various right-wing blogs today totally contradict the idea that they are super pumped up now, due to this decision.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

The right wing bloggers are not pumped up because of the role John Roberts played. He is persona non grata big time.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If you can convince Conservatives that voting in Romney won't overturn the law because it will require 60 votes in the Senate to do so then it could be a win for Obama simply because they could stay home.

Otherwise, it has little effect because the most partisan won't change their vote and it will be a non issue for the moderate swing voters.

There may be a lot of conservatives in for a surprise when they realize that they won't be able to overturn the law even if they vote in Romney.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

If you can convince Conservatives that voting in Romney won't overturn the law because it will require 60 votes in the Senate to do so then it could be a win for Obama simply because they could stay home.

I do believe that the Obama team realizes this and will make exactly that case, in ads and the debates. Not only that, but Romney has said that there are several parts of the law that he does want to keep (though he has never really gotten around to explaining how that would be funded). Romney's position on this is rather muddied, and convincing his base that the guy is never, ever going to simply fully repeal the law shouldn't be difficult - he's said as much.

Quote:

Otherwise, it has little effect because the most partisan won't change their vote and it will be a non issue for the moderate swing voters.

I don't believe it will add votes for Obama, but a loss at the SC probably would have subtracted votes from his total.

Quote:

There may be a lot of conservatives in for a surprise when they realize that they won't be able to overturn the law even if they vote in Romney.

Indeed. Many of their base are convinced that the bill was passed via reconciliation and can be undone the same way. Of course, it was not - the bill passed with 60 votes in the Senate, not 51. I've had a good deal of fun reminding people of that today.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

If you can convince Conservatives that voting in Romney won't overturn the law because it will require 60 votes in the Senate to do so then it could be a win for Obama simply because they could stay home.

They can, however, completely de-fund Obamacare through the budget reconciliation process. That requires only 50 votes, with vice president Bachman breaking the tie, and amounts to the same in the end.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

parados wrote:
If you can convince Conservatives that voting in Romney won't overturn the law because it will require 60 votes in the Senate to do so then it could be a win for Obama simply because they could stay home.

They can, however, completely de-fund Obamacare through the budget reconciliation process. That requires only 50 votes, with vice president Bachman breaking the tie, and amounts to the same in the end.

That leaves them with all the parts of the law that they say they want to keep, but no way to pay for them, which would be a huge ******* mess. I highly doubt they want to go that route.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Thomas,

And once again, they don't pass a law unless they can pay for it. It would add to the deficit and once again show their hypocrisy.

1 Reply

The U.S. National Elections For President, The Senate And The House Of Representatives.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know