If SCOTUS Kills ObamaCare Should Obama go After SCOTUS..... Again?

Forums: Legal, American-Politics, U S-Politics, Us-Politics, Opinion Piece
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

If the Supreme Court knocks out the guts of the Affordable Care Act — the individual mandate requiring people to purchase health insurance or pay a fine — the battle within the Obama campaign will be fierce. The president will be faced with two stark alternatives: launch the political equivalent of a drone strike on the Supreme Court and use the ruling to energize his base, or accept the decision and move on, hoping to neutralize the divisive law in the general election.

In the first scenario, President Obama would double down rather than back down. So far, he has shown no willingness to compromise on the individual mandate despite massive public opposition to the measure. In the face of a Supreme Court ruling against the law, a defiant president may seek to make an even more strident case for his vision for health care in America.

Already, the talking points for a war on the high court are being put in place by organizations such as the Center for American Progress. The story line is simple and potentially effective: From Bush v. Gore in 2000 to the Citizens United decision in 2010 to the possible Obamacare ruling, the Supreme Court puts politics above the people in the name of the Constitution.

This argument could play among an electorate predisposed to suspect the worst. A Bloomberg News survey taken shortly before the oral arguments found that 75 percent of Americans believe that politics will influence the justices’ decision on the health-care law. If the court kills the act, then Washington is reduced to a triple play of gridlock — between the president, Congress and the Supreme Court, nothing gets done.

The Obama campaign could paint the court as out of step with the modern world, in which the state needs to help redress the inadequacies of global and national markets. After all, the mandate is about everyone paying their fair share toward health care; it eliminates free-riders from the system

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/could-defeat-for-obamacare-mean-victory-for-obama/2012/03/30/gIQADM1llS_story.html

Obama would go after SCOTUS for killing this law even though the American people think that the law is wrong ???? Shocked

I dont see how this dog hunts for Obama....the point that gets forgotten is that in the Citizens United case the people believe that SCOTUS was wrong, and that is the only reason why Obama got away with attacking SCOTUS. Here Obama would been seen as a Anti Constitution would be tyrant.

What say you?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,347 • Replies: 27

No top replies

No matter WHAT,
obama will appoint as many marxists as possible to the USSC.

0 Replies

Don't be silly. I don't think there are any Marxists left in the US. He'll appoint another centrist, just as he's been doing so far, if he gets another chance. You're so far to the right you have no idea where the center is anymore. You think it's Newt Gingrich. You have so little idea what a Marxist actually is that you probably wouldn't recognize one if he came up and bit you on the leg. Which actually wouldn't be all that surprising, since Marxists in my experience have been nearly as rabid and nearly as fixed and rigid in their beliefs and in their inability to recognize actual reality as your average run-of-the-mill conservative. Time to get someone pragmatic on the Supreme Court who can actually look at the democratic way single payer health systems really do work in other countries, and can recognize the simple fact that the US ranks #1 in health care costs, by a wide, wide margin, and ranks #37 in quality of care, and the more that the special interests oppose it, the more money they pick out of the pocket of the American taxpayer. Money we would not have to pay had we a rational health care system and a rational Supreme Court. Some one of The 5 might still prove to be rational.I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.

2 Replies

regardless of the decision and on a daily basis, potus should kick scotus in their collective scrotus without any notice

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Time to get someone pragmatic on the Supreme Court who can actually look at the democratic way single payer health systems really do work in other countries, and can recognize the simple fact that the US ranks #1 in health care costs, by a wide, wide margin, and ranks #37 in quality of care, and the more that the special interests oppose it, the more money they pick out of the pocket of the American taxpayer.

That 'd be corruption.
The state of affairs in alien jurisdictions is completely irrelevant
to defending the individual freedom set forth in the Constitution.

Tolerating USURPATION of ultra vires power
is flushing the entire Republic down the toilet
into incremental despotism (which will happen anyway in a few decades).

Nothing else matters.

David

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

regardless of the decision and on a daily basis, potus should kick scotus in their collective scrotus without any notice

SCOTUS is eminently attackable, but not for becoming political. THe other two branches of government have insisted on politicizing SCOTUS through the selection process. Obama attacking SCOTUS for being political is the pot calling the kettle black, thus that dog dont hunt. Plus the court taking umbrage to Governments ever expansive claims of power over us citizens is the worst point possible to pick to go after SCOTUS on .

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Mouthing off is NOT "attacking"

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

i was suggesting he attack them simply for being, not for being anything in particular, that would be bullying

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Do u suggest that he use the Air Force in his attack ?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Sounds right to me. After all they dont mind ******* the 99%.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

The liberal justices on the Court are not Marxists but centrists?

Kennedy is the closest thing to a centrist on the Court and I wouldn't use the word to describe him.

Quote:

Time to get someone pragmatic on the Supreme Court who can actually look at the democratic way single payer health systems really do work in other countries, and can recognize the simple fact that the US ranks #1 in health care costs, by a wide, wide margin, and ranks #37 in quality of care, and the more that the special interests oppose it, the more money they pick out of the pocket of the American taxpayer.

This, however, is not the role of the Court. They are not charged with forming policy or making judgments on the efficacy of legislation.

Any number of tyrannical polices might be quite effective in providing short term solutions to acute and serious problems. A pragmatist could very easily decide that the solution to a serious problem is worth a loss of liberty.

As for the question posed by this thread, the answer is that Obama will, of course, scold the Court if it rules that the mandate is unconstitutional. I don't see how such a response will help him much, except to the extent that it gins up a slumping base, but he'll do it.

1 Reply

Finn says:

Quote:

The liberal justices on the Court are not Marxists but centrists?

sure are. That shoulde be apparent to anyone who actually knows anything about Marxism, other than that it's the tagline that the right always uses to demonize anyone they disagree with. As anyone would know who is not so far right he needs a high-powered telescope to actually see all the way to the center.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The liberal justices on the Court are not Marxists but centrists?

Kennedy is the closest thing to a centrist on the Court and I wouldn't use the word to describe him.

Quote:
Time to get someone pragmatic on the Supreme Court who can actually look at the democratic way single payer health systems really do work in other countries, and can recognize the simple fact that the US ranks #1 in health care costs, by a wide, wide margin, and ranks #37 in quality of care, and the more that the special interests oppose it, the more money they pick out of the pocket of the American taxpayer.

This, however, is not the role of the Court. They are not charged with forming policy or making judgments on the efficacy of legislation.

Any number of tyrannical polices might be quite effective in providing short term solutions to acute and serious problems. A pragmatist could very easily decide that the solution to a serious problem is worth a loss of liberty.

Thay used to say that "Hitler made the trains run on time."

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I agree they are not Marxists.

I disagree that they are centrists.

0 Replies

Finn says:

Quote:

@MontereyJack,

I agree they are not Marxists.

I disagree that they are centrists.

As far as I can see from reading your posts for years, Finn, that's largely because the impression you convey is that you think somebody like Newt Gingrich is a centrist.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Finn says:

Quote:
@MontereyJack,

I agree they are not Marxists.

I disagree that they are centrists.

you think somebody like Newt Gingrich is a centrist.

I do; yes.

David

0 Replies

Which pretty much confirms that your view of reality is only from a distance.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

The difference between you and I is clearly demonstrated by the fact that I do not consider Gingrich, Alito, Thomas and Scalia to be centrists while you belive that folks like Sotomoyer, Ginsberg, Kagan and Obama reside in the middle.

Another difference is that although the positions you take and the rhetoric you post are clearly left-wing you believe that being a moderate or centrist is something of which to be proud.

Be proud of your ideology and the ideology of your heroes and stop trying to distort reality.

0 Replies

Wise of you to not regard Gingrich et al as centrists, Finn. They clearly are not. Which has absolutely no bearing on whether Sotomayor et al are centrists. They are. The right in general these days seems to think the political spectrum has only two categories: conservatives, and dangerous radical socialist Marxists. I exaggerate only slightly. They seem completely unable to discern any further range of belief, but that range exists and has always existed. Sotomayor et al are centrists. I'm not particularly one, they only share some of my beliefs. But I find them far, far better than the bulk (a small bulk, since conservativism as currently defined represents only a small percentage of the country)of conservatives who are apparently determined to somehow read the vast majority of Americans as really unAmerican because we have a far purer idea of what it is to be American than they do.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I do my best to remain intransigently, resolutely in support & defense of the Original vu of the Constitution
-- that of the Founders-- as amended, as per Article 5.

David

0 Replies

If SCOTUS Kills ObamaCare Should Obama go After SCOTUS..... Again?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know