The Supreme Court will hear arguments on President Obama’s health care law next week, and still an overwhelming majority of Americans say that the court should either scrap the mandate or the entire law:
This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage.
The high court opens hearings on the law’s constitutionality a week from today.
The law has never earned majority support in ABC/Post polls – and this update, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds a strong sense its critics are dominating the debate. Seventy percent of Americans report hearing mainly negative things about the law lately; just 19 percent say the buzz has been positive. Even among its supporters, 53 percent are hearing more negatives than positives. Among opponents this soars to 88 percent.
As Chris Cillizza reports, Americans are set in their opinions on ObamaCare, which may be the big reason why Obama rarely talks about it in the context of his reelection.
Since the law was passed, opposition has remained near the low 50s, while support has remained near the low 40s. And of course the opposition climbs higher when you specifically ask about the individual mandate.
What’s interesting is that while Obama’s most significant legislative achievement provides him with little-to-no political advantage on the campaign trail, Republicans will be able to benefit from it no matter how the Supreme Court rules. If the Court deems the law, or parts of the law, unconstitutional, then the GOP will have that as a bludgeon. And even if the Court upholds the law in its current form, there’s still widespread public opposition to the mandate. The only way to get rid of it at that point would be to replace Obama with a Republican, which would be an added incentive to vote GOP.
What if it's only partially unConstitutional. Say, just the mandate?
Well, it is plain as day it AIN'T "only partially UnConstitutional" – plain as day we never gave the Govt the authority for Socialized Medicine. n nVladimir Lenin: “Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.” n nThe Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto – Karl Marx n1. Eliminate private property ownership n2. A heavy progressive tax n3. Abolish the right of inheritance n4. Confiscate all properties owned by emigrants and rebels n5. Establish a central bank n6. Government control of communications and transportation n7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture n8. Government control of all labor n9. Combine agriculture and manufacturing n10. Government controlled free public education n nCURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS n As Ordered Composed in 1950's by Joseph Stalin n For the Destruction of America From the Inside n Published in the Congressional Record, January 10, 1963. n Appendix pages A34 & A35 n Joseph Stalin: America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. n… n32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. n 33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. n 34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. n … n 36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. n 37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business. n 38. … Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat]. n 39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. n
SCOTUS has a long history of avoiding answering questions if at all possible — and it will be interesting to see if they simply rule that the manner in which it was passed was in violation of some provision of Article I and thus toss it on a procedural ground saying that if Congress was to decide to pass it correctly, eg. the House passes it and then the Senate and not this reconciliation stuff, then they would have to actually rule on the scope of the Commerce clause, but that is moot because of the procedural question. n nThis may be the easiest way out for all the justices because the other thing no one (but Ron Paul) is talking about is that there are real questions about some of the Civil Rights stuff (an interstate trade in catchup?!?) and also an implication for an expansion of the commerce clause into the area of abortion. Upholding Obamacare is going to allow a conservative Congress to regulate abortion (now regulated under *state* law) in a way it can't now — the VA ultrasound law, which passed in PA, being imposed on all states, etc. Ginsburg is not going to want that. n nSo both the right and left have a lot to loose with a greatly expanded commerce clause while they still would dearly love to give their personal opinions on the wisdom of NoBamaNoCare. Concurring with the majority with license to editorialize is a way they can all do this…. n nSo you could have a 9-0 decision that the current law is unconstitutional on procedural grounds and heaven knows how many concurring opinions, including those arguing that NoBama NoCare is actually Constitutional, but that Congress has to follow the procedures outlined in Article I of the Constitution to pass it. This is what Powell did with the Baake case, which is what gave us this "affirmative action but not quotas" stuff which is what led to another case that is going to SCOTUS this year on that. n nNow if SCOTUS doesn't toss NoBamaNoCare, and we have a population opposed to it and we have a simple majority in the House, we can still win by simply refusing to pass appropriations and shut down the government, like Newt did with Clinton. It won't be like back then because (a) we have the public already understanding what the issue is, (b) not wanting this stuff, and (c) we have people like Ms. Goodman — which we didn't have back in the '90s. n nBut my gut feeling is that SCOTUS is going to toss this back to Congress and say "your mess."
I am not one whit content to settle for dropping only the mandate. That shall not suffice. n At this point, I don't think anything short of lots of trials for abuse of power will BEGIN to suffice.
Rose, I will be happy with my various doctors being able to keep handwritten notes that don;t wind up on the internet or in Obama's hands — and did I mention that I am paying cash for this presumption of privacy in the first place? n nWhat are the implications of a national database of every woman who has ever had an abortion? I mention this only because the left will freak when they realize that such lists (a) will exist and (b) likely be hacked by some high school student who will (c) sell it to name-your-bogeyman right-winger-par-excellence who will do whatever evil things that right wing guys can do with such info. (Acutally, it is far more likely that the left would publish the names as supporters of abortion. n nSee Abortion-Annie — you, too, don;t want NoBama NoCare….