• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

What is the most likely SCOTUS outcome on ObamaCare?

  • They do nothing and leave the entire law intact.

    Votes: 23 21.3%

  • They sever the mandate but leave most other parts alone.

    Votes: 32 29.6%

  • They strike down the entire act.

    Votes: 36 33.3%

  • Planet X: I like frogs.

    Votes: 24 22.2%
  • Total voters
    108

Dumb All Over

A Little Ugly on the Side
Dumb All Over
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
6,844
Location
They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name
I posted this in another thread and someone there suggested I repost it with the inclusion of a poll. Sounded good to me, so here it is.

Oral arguments concluded yesterday and the matter is now in the hands of the court. I am very interested to know what people here think is the most likely outcome based on the pointed questions of the Justices. Let's assume the court has three choices:
  1. They do nothing and leave the entire law intact.
  2. They sever the mandate but leave most other parts alone.
  3. They strike down the entire act.
What do you think?
 
Striking down the entire law seems unlikely, but I'm not about to second guess. With the Supremes, it's foolish to even try to guess.
 
If they strike down the parts being contested doesn't it effectively kill the whole law by making it unworkable and make choices 2 & 3 the same thing at the end of the day?
 
If they do not strike it all down, it can limp along until after the elections. Maybe by then some grown-ups will have replaced the whiney babies who produced this weak substitute for a real health care system and we will get a public option. The court is only dealing with the funding, when it all comes down to the wire.
 
It's looking like they are not only going to strike down this law, but also Medicaid. The 'pubs really do want the poor to "just die and get out of the road".

And the 'pubs whine about "legislating from the bench".
 
jj said:
It's looking like they are not only going to strike down this law, but also Medicaid. The 'pubs really do want the poor to "just die and get out of the road".

And the 'pubs whine about "legislating from the bench".
Click to expand...

Noticed those activist judges, did you?
Where have you been?:)
 
If Medicaid gets struck down because of this I'd lay the accountability squarely at the feet of Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress who wrote and passed that abortion of a bill in the first place. They let the minority Republicans screw it up while they held all three of the big chairs (House, Senate and Executive) and didn't stand up to them when it mattered. Compromise is a good thing but you have to know when to do it and if you can't do it right then you shouldn't be in a position of leadership in the first place.

If any bill fails to get passed but it's written the way it needs to be in order for it to work as intended then you can point out to your constituents that you did the right thing but failed because of obstructionism and you should keep your job. If it passes but failed to work (and broke other stuff in the process) because you compromised too much to get it passed then it's your own damn fault for both compromising too much on it and then voting for it anyway and you need to be fired for exercising poor judgement if nothing else.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
If Medicaid gets struck down because of this I'd lay the accountability squarely at the feet of Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress who wrote and passed that abortion of a bill in the first place. They let the minority Republicans screw it up while they held all three of the big chairs (House, Senate and Executive) and didn't stand up to them when it mattered. Compromise is a good thing but you have to know when to do it and if you can't do it right then you shouldn't be in a position of leadership in the first place.
Click to expand...
Saying the Dems controlled the big chairs is true but misleading to the point of untruth. Many of the Dems in the Senate are very conservative. They did not vote with the Dems on this issue and, in effect, worked to make the bill one giant ***************. I don't know if that was the explicit goal but that was the net effect.
 
SezMe said:
Saying the Dems controlled the big chairs is true but misleading to the point of untruth. Many of the Dems in the Senate are very conservative. They did not vote with the Dems on this issue and, in effect, worked to make the bill one giant ***************. I don't know if that was the explicit goal but that was the net effect.
Click to expand...

And that was the fault of the Democratic leadership both for allowing people who weren't in line with their party principals to run for office under their umbrella of power and of the Executive for signing it into law. That's why I also said:

If any bill fails to get passed but it's written the way it needs to be in order for it to work as intended then you can point out to your constituents that you did the right thing but failed because of obstructionism and you should keep your job. If it passes but failed to work (and broke other stuff in the process) because you compromised too much to get it passed then it's your own damn fault for both compromising too much on it and then voting for it anyway and you need to be fired for exercising poor judgement if nothing else.
Click to expand...

Note that I didn't mention either party in the second paragraph because I do realize that the Democratic party is fractured much more so than the Republicans who seem to be able to pull together on issues core to their stated party platform. That the Democrats willingly include those conservative Democrats in their party even though they are not in agreement on such a large issue as health care is a result of wanting to hold power at any cost including compromising on what are supposed to be their core principles.

Of course that's just my opinion based solely upon what I've observed over the years and if I'm missing something I'm more than willing to listen to what I've overlooked.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
And that was the fault of the Democratic leadership both for allowing people who weren't in line with their party principals to run for office under their umbrella of power and of the Executive for signing it into law.
Click to expand...
There is simply no way the party leadership can prevent someone like, say, Baucus from Montana from running.


Sam.I.Am said:
Note that I didn't mention either party in the second paragraph because I do realize that the Democratic party is fractured much more so than the Republicans who seem to be able to pull together on issues core to their stated party platform. That the Democrats willingly include those conservative Democrats in their party even though they are not in agreement on such a large issue as health care is a result of wanting to hold power at any cost including compromising on what are supposed to be their core principles.
Click to expand...
No disagreement on my part. It's an interesting political strategy question. Throw your tent too broadly and you get mish mash. Too narrowly and you're a united minority.
 
SezMe said:
There is simply no way the party leadership can prevent someone like, say, Baucus from Montana from running.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. They can refuse to let him run as the Democratic candidate. You cannot run as a candidate of any party without their endorsement. Look at Leiberman for an example. They may get the same result with Baucus running as an independent but they don't have to endorse him, they endorse him for the power that his seat holds in allowing them to pick the leadership.

No disagreement on my part. It's an interesting political strategy question. Throw your tent too broadly and you get mish mash. Too narrowly and you're a united minority.
Click to expand...

It's certainly a balancing act, no doubt about it.
 
I voted to uphold based on the previous ruling by Lawrence Silberman, a very conservative judge. I don't think that a portion of the law that two years ago was uncontroversial would justify striking down such major legislation in its entirety. I think if they did, a huge part of American law would go down with it. I think that the act of writing new laws would be sent into a partisan spiral where the only calculus would be whether or not the SCOTUS would be inclined, for political reasons, to rewrite jurisprudence in order to hurt the "other side". I think this would be such a disruptive, destabilizing action that I can't even imagine Scalia going there.

But what the hell do I know?

I, for one, welcome our new Mayan overlords.
 
In terms of likelihood: 2, 1, 3.

I still think #1 has a fair likelihood. I think #3 is very unlikely.
 
If they do strike down the law I want President Obama to start his second term by saying,

"We tried the conservative idea of a mandate and that turned out to be unconstitutional. Now lets work towards universal healthcare."

One can hope...
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Yes there is. They can refuse to let him run as the Democratic candidate. You cannot run as a candidate of any party without their endorsement. Look at Leiberman for an example. They may get the same result with Baucus running as an independent but they don't have to endorse him, they endorse him for the power that his seat holds in allowing them to pick the leadership.
Click to expand...
Not to go too far afield here, but the party can refuse to let a person run under their banner but that is not the same as preventing him/her from running at all - which is what you said. But leiberman is not an example of this. He ran as a Dem and lost his primary. He then decided to run as an independent. IOW, the party didn't give him the boot, he abandoned the party. He basically won the final election as a Republican - just not in name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom