Having already written about the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, what about the politics of the decision?
I have argued before that while overturning the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be a debilitating blow to the president, upholding it would create problems of its own. And that’s certainly the case.
For one thing, as others at ”Contentions” have pointed out, the president is now saddled with a huge middle class tax increase. Anchoring the Affordable Care Act in the Tax Clause is the only way it passed constitutional muster—and Republicans will do everything in their power to tether Obama to his tax increase. It doesn’t help the president that the argument that saved ObamaCare contradicted what Obama himself repeatedly said, which is (a) the individual mandate is “absolutely not a tax increase” and (b) he would never in a thousand years raise taxes on the middle class.
It was, and he has.
In addition, the decision by the Court to uphold the Affordable Care Act has once again thrust to center stage a historically unpopular law (one that is particularly unpopular in swing states).
The Supreme Court, then, has succeeded in once again inflaming the passions of the GOP base while reminding independents why they despise the ACA. The 2012 election may now take on a 2010 feel. And for those who might have forgotten, Democrats—thanks in large part to Obama’s health care law—sustained an epic defeat in that mid-term election.
As it was, so may it be.
It would be interesting to see how those running for congress this election feel right about now. I wonder what they are silently tweeting. n n n
Senator McCaskill–who backed ObamaCare–is refusing comment on the Roberts decision. Local news outlets in MO have tried to contact her, without success.
This is no doubt true; however, the tax increases won't kick in until well AFTER the November elections (the way the liberals planned it). So most of the "sheep" who never bother to examine the issues/facts will buy into the wonderful promises fed to them by the leftist media & the talking heads. Romney & the GOP should hammer every Democrat (even those were not not in office yet) who voted for this. Hang it around their neck and we'll see a repeat of the 2010 election. Remember, the landslide of 2010 was due in large measure to ObamaCare (as well as the bail outs, "stimulus")…
too early to see SCOUS impact
5 points (not percent) is almost within the margin of error. in my state of Michigan, Obama was up something like 14 points a few weeks ago. it's down to 4 now. those are perfectly acceptable numbers for Romney at this point. n nI expect Obama to get a nice Roberts bounce out of this, but that'll even out as soon as people remember what an abysmal job he's doing on the economy. n nthe fact is, the world is really volatile right now, and nobody knows who's going to win what will probably be a squeaker. but Romney's got a good shot. if the MSM could be depended upon to do some objective reporting that would certainly be helpful. and if the American people's attention span wasn't 12 seconds long, that would also be good. but you play the hand you are dealt.
I don't agree. n nThere was one positive–but not for the upcoming election. n nThe fact that Roberts ruled that the Commerce Clause cannot compel a citizen to enter into new behavior and new markets is a major restriction on the power of the government. n nBecause in the past, laws passed under the Commerce Clause involved JAIL penalties for noncompliance. n nAnd even in the Wickard case, that farmer didn't just have to pay a penalty; the government ordered him to destroy all his crops.
You're getting dinged, I expect, not because people disagree with you so much as the reasoning behind your conclusions – which appear to be way off for Gallup, at any rate. It is way too early to be looking for the results of the Sup Ct decision. Everybody take a deep breath. I'm traveling across country right now and was lucky enough to find myself unable to access Wi-fi for a couple of days. It was a nice break. I recommend it – it gives us political junkies a sense of what the vast majority of the population experiences. They aren't inhaling this stuff every minute of the day. I was stunned, for example, as I sat fixated on Scotusblog Thursday morning, that people in the hotel (Kemmerer, WY) were ACTUALLY LEAVING, driving off, minutes before the decision was announced. These folks need time to process – they aren't stupid; they jus have different priorities. Come back in a month and see what it looks like.
There is no huge middle class tax increase. There is a tax on individuals who choose not to carry health insurance coverage. What percentage of the middle class does not want any health insurance coverage? Not a huge amount. I thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility. Why are they standing up for slackers who shift the cost of their health care to those who have coverage?
The central issue of our times: n nThe power to tax is the power to enslave. n nFor what are you willing to be a slave? n nFor what are you willing to enslave others? n nPass it on. Claim it as your own.
So quit bellyaching, conservatives, Roberts handed u the 2012 election (as if I ever dreamt u r talking in good faith). Celebrate!!! due to Roberts' idiocy, u get the White House! nanswer: because u r LIARS! the middle class is finally understanding that removing "pre-existing conditions" and "waiting periods" a GOOD thing!! I will bet that 80% of your writers, and Johnny Pod-am-ho'retz himself, r dying for ACA-style coverage! Americans r no longer scared that undesirables will be covered, which conservatives cover-up with the word "costs." nDeal with it, Baby! The "revolution" is here! n
You liberals persist in your delusion that you can erase the law of supply and demand with an edict. n nBring millions of uninsured into the system and costs are going to go up, not down. You can't increase demand for services and expect the price of said services to go down. n nI live in MA, where we have RomneyCare (which Obama scaled up to ObamaCare). Costs are rising sharply. My own health insurance premiums rose 40% in just a few years. n nBut you liberals don't really care. nTo you, universal coverage is a moral imperative, costs be damned. n nLiberals have NEVER cared about the dollar cost of ANY of their programs. nNot ever.
You're projecting, Lenewyorkais. No conservative I know even thinks of terms of "undesirables." That's a word invented by "progressives" and liberal fascists. n nACA means UNaffordable care for all but the rich, who can afford anything. Small insurance companies such as the one I'm insured with will be killed financially and go out of business, while the big mega-companies, which are friends of Obama, will prosper. That's how fascism works. Middle-class folks such as me will lose our insurance — neither the insurance companies nor the employers will be able to afford it anymore — and we'll be forced to go on the government plan… which was, of course, the leftists' goal all along. Single-payer, i.e., socialized medicine. Look at England and Holland: socialized medicine ALWAYS involves rationing, and eventually involuntary euthanasia. The "costs" you characterize so erroneously will be born by older people and the handicapped, who will be exterminated. That is exactly what is happening in England and Holland. n nYou're obviously very gullible, haven't studied history or economics or other countries' healthcare systems, and have fallen hook, line and sinker for leftist propaganda. You'll learn the hard way, I guess.
That poll was taken just before the Supreme Court ruling.
On Election Day, the unemployment rate will be at least 8%. (Federal Reserve latest projection) n nAnd that's all that is going to matter. nNo incumbent since FDR has EVER been re-elected with an unemployment rate of 8% or higher. n n(And the only reason FDR got re-elected was that he came into office with an unemployment rate nearly double that.)
The American Tax payer can't wait for November nRemember its land of the Free nNot land of the Freeloader
Perhaps I am wrong or simply do not understand economics, but I see this whole equation as more complex than what meets the eye. What troubles me is a combo of:
1] of the sheer magnitude of people coming into this country, both legal and illegal and the preference they seem to enjoy in terms of employment and low interest loans to start businesses.
2] of the trends in corporate automation and the exporting of jobs outside of The United States. Not all jobs are created equal. Does anyone believe that the loss of 10,000 engineering jobs to India, for instance can be counterbalanced by 10,000 new jobs created at Staples.
3]The trends in extensions of unemployment insurance compensation requests and welfare applications.
4]The national debt and our dependance upon our enemy China. A country which kills it’s own people in order to harvest their organs for profit.
If anyone can be an American who can sneak in or get a corporate waiver, while our good jobs are being exported and the employer not only permits but actually encourages abuse of American workers by hostile foreigners, right here in America, then what is there to feel patriotic about. What idiot would enlist in the armed forces and get killed or screwed, let their mercenaries go fight for Saudi.
The Danage is done.
There has been much discussion since the decision regarding the constitutional aspects. That must virtually stop by tomorrow morning! It bores the heck out of the typical voter. We must instead focus on the tax increases. Obama will lose on Election Day if he is stuck with the tax raiser label.