In the wake of the Supreme Court’s hearings on the constitutionality of ObamaCare this week, speculation is now rife about the impact of a defeat for the president’s signature legislative achievement. Arguments are being marshaled that claim an overturning of the legislation will help the Republicans, while others insist it will rally the Democrats. That all of this is a bit premature is a given. No matter how the question and answer session with the justices went, we still don’t know for sure how they will vote. But even if we are to assume, as panicky liberals and triumphant conservatives are saying today, that the bill is headed to the dustbin of history, the ultimate impact of such a decision can only be guessed at.
The issue can help and hurt both the Republicans and the Democrats. Each party has something to gain and something to lose from the outcome. Nevertheless, the two main points to be derived from a defeat is that it will diminish President Obama and get Mitt Romney off the hook for his own Massachusetts health care bill. Seen in that light, if the judges vote the way so many people seem to think they will, the decision may well be a harbinger of defeat in November for the president.
There is a good deal of merit to the point of view that a defeat will energize Democrats. If there is a narrow 5-4 conservative majority against ObamaCare, it will allow the president and his party to go on the offensive against the GOP rather than having to play defense, as they would have, as their opponents pointed out the cost and the shortcomings of their healthcare regime. Railing against the conservatives on the court would, along with the Democrats’ Mediscare tactics in which they will try to demonize Rep. Paul Ryan’s efforts to reform entitlements, be part of a holistic strategy which would try to portray the election as a battle between the forces of GOP greed and Democrats resolved to soak the rich.
It should also be conceded that striking down the bill would remove the one issue that was the impetus of the Republicans’ historic midterm victory in 2010. Without ObamaCare to kick around, some of the steam comes out of a Tea Party movement that had already begun to diminish during last summer’s debt-ceiling crisis.
But the defeat of ObamaCare would also remove the main item on the president’s already small list of achievements. While it is already clear Obama cannot run on his record, the defeat of ObamaCare would remind the electorate he had shoved it down the throats of an unwilling public despite widespread concerns about its legitimacy. Though the president wants the election to be about what he considers the radicalism of his opponents, a Supreme Court defeat for his health care plan would effectively put that label on him rather than the GOP. While he had hoped his election would signal a revival for liberalism, the end to the centerpiece of the left’s wish list will make clear America is not “evolving” toward European-style social democracy.
The defeat of ObamaCare would also free up Romney from the burden of trying to prove why his bill was not the spiritual father of Obama’s. That would help him with the GOP base as well as give him space to concentrate on his economic expertise and to flay the president’s record on employment.
If one adds up all these factors, it is difficult to understand how a defeat for ObamaCare would not be a problem for Obama. On the other hand, should the court somehow defy current expectations, there is just as little doubt that it would be a major boost for the president.
Thus, while the court will not by any stretch of the imagination decide the November election, a lot is on the line for both parties. Just as the resolution of the dispute about Obamacare’s constitutionality will have an enormous impact on the power of the government to intervene in the economy, it will also play a not insignificant role in deciding who sits in the White House next year.
If the ACA is overturned, it will be incumbent upon the republicans to put forth an affirmative defense in the presidential campaign. They will have to posit what they are going to replace it with. The Obama campaign will no doubt claim that they need more democrats in congress to repass the monstrosity, tweaked for SCOTUS approval by calling the penalty a tax. Without a positive response to that, the Romney campaign will have a real vulnerability with voters in the middle, who want some of the program to stay.
Anything the GOP/Romney approve to replace it with that is Centralized Govt Medical, will destroy the GOP entirely.
Why replace Obamacare at all? More than any other recent case, this one has highlighted the reasons why America doesn't want a federal government powerful enough to mandate individual capital allocations – spend your paycheck for you – in the name of economic regulation. Health care, like government, is best where it's closest to the parties involved. Why anyone in Washington, D.C. should be involved in the health care requisitioned and provided by parties in Texas is simply beyond justification.
The question of whether a Court defeat would hurt or help the Democrats is intriguing, even if premature, and I certainly hope we get to find out – and I suspect the vast majority of conservatives would agree. But I'm not so sure that Mr. Tobin is correct to see so many benefits for the Democrats if Obamacare is defeated. nThe question in March is purely academic, but if, in a couple of months, the liberal dream is humiliatingly brushed aside, the recriminations withing the Democratic Party could be severe. Imagine the reaction of moderate Democrats to such a Court decision – Obama and his left-wing minions, from their perspective, will have squandered incredible opportunity and goodwill for…nothing. Rather, Obamacare's greatest legacy will have been the phoenix-like revival of conservatism. In addition, the scenario presented by Mr. Tobin would require significant cooperation between the various factions of the Party, and assumes that nervous reps and senators wouldn't use the Supreme Court's decision to escape the clutches of the radical left once and for all. We're already seeing cracks in the liberal facade. A defeat of this magnitude might result in those divisions increasing.
From your lips to God's ears.
I think the most important point is missed here: the Democrats will be forced by the left to campaign as if the loss of Obamacare is a great tragedy and that it must be restored. That, I believe, would be hari-kari.
Carville sees tons of benefits for the Dims – I want to find out. n nBetter for Obamacare to go down than for the Constitution of the United States of America to get its last coffin nails. n nEither way – interesting to see if this Nation has any Fight FOR survival in itself at all! Something besides gathering to mill about talking, then going home to sleep on it.
Patrick Henry: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!
Good analysis but I have a different feeling about all this, that, apart from all the finely honed weighing of competing considerations, it's virtually incontrovertible in some gross way that the striking down of the mandates and at least those parts of ACA integrally connected to them will be politically terrible for Obama. That would be a neon light screaming out "FAILURE." "FAILURE" will stigmatize Obama throughout the campaign, all other things being whatever they are. n nCarville is dreaming in technicolour to say SCOTUS rejecting the mandates will be a win in energizing the Democrats. I can't see that at all. Besides wearing the stigma of "FAILURE," the Democrats, pols and supporters all, will, I'd bet, be so dispirited as to be dragging themselves through the campaign. "FAILURE" will attach to them all like a terrible kind of stench that they can't wash off. n nObama needs to pray that the mandates hold. That judicial outcome will be, I should think, decisive in making or breaking him politically.
I agree with you except that Obama does NOT need to pray something so destructive over America – he needs to get lost down a long black hole in the ground like Korah did in Numbers 16. nNumbers 16 was God Jehovah's vote between Korah and Moses, after Korah challenged Moses' right to be the mouthpiece for God Jehovah without seeking God Jehovah's favor, first!
From Obama's point of view, the likely worst-case scenario is the individual mandate is declared "unconstitutional" by a narrow 5-4 conservative majority of "unelected judicial activists." but the rest of ACA is not overruled. The net impact of this decision on the 2012 elections is difficult to estimate, but I am not convinced this will make life harder for Obama than if the Supremes dismiss the entire case. If that happens, the GOP will still be furious while the Dems have little reason to cheer. n nI agree the immediate defeat of ObamaCare would hurt Obama. But there are few obvious winners. The reputation of the Supreme Court would take a massive hit as well … this decision will be regarded as ten times more controversial and partisan than Bush vs. Gore was. The likelihood of Republicans and Democrats agreeing on anything in 2013 and beyond will be even smaller. n nMARCU$
Carville couldn’t care less about PO. But here’s what he does know: Obama is the Democratic Reagan. And the idea that progressive doggedness will pine and wither is fancy. Marshalling it will depend on Obama. Think of the rally to GW if something similar happened to a piece of his legislation. What’s an important factor here is SC ruling number. n nAmericans are not infatuated –Ryan’s plan is unlikely to woo as he doesn’t have enough strength even in his own state to give the Senate a try- with Tea Party conservatism. It’s more Randian, helter-skelter community and not Reaganesque (at least in tone) at all. n nWe’re a perfectly divided Nation, and I think what we’re witnessing is foundational for fracturing of the Union.
Off topic, or maybe not, but Federalist 38 is a must read. n nWe need a strong, loving and attached executive more than ever, but he's just not to be found. n nI'm just thinking out loud here. I would listen to or consider a sober plan to split apart the Union. n nThe South could take the Constitution as its own and East Coast governors (I’m pretty happy w/Andrew Cuomo and his LG, both Eisenhower Repubs) could develop another one. n nIt would be much better to divorce amicably.
The most important thing regarding the unconstitutional act is the fact that progressives would be defeated and, not try this chit ever again; think how many democrats were voted out of office due to this boondagle. The overreach is tremendous and, hopefully teaches progressives a lesson. n
Everyone seems to believe that it will be a 5-4 decision, but this underestimates Roberts, and his recent history. He is a consensus seeker. The libs, especially Ginsburg, were so vociferous in their appeals to retain most of the bill even if the mandate is struck down, and the majority was so determined (if one can divine someone's intentions from his questions) to strike down the mandate, that it is not impossible to see a decision of a greater majority striking down the mandate alone, along with dicta asking the congress to do their job, and fix what is left. n nTHAT would be the non-political result that will make all the "pundits" look silly – again.
I agree with Mr. Tobin that Obama's biggest political problem is the perception that he has no regard for the unique sentiments of the American people. Americans are not subjects of an all-powerful central government whose unilateral policy initiatives transcend the rule of law. And while elections may provide periodic protection against tyranny, our constitution embodies our spiritual yearning to remain free from tyranny. That is why a judicial ruling that the Obama regime has acted in violation of our constitution carries more weight than the losses it suffered in the mid-term elections.