I’m pretty sure that the Supreme Court is going to strike down the individual mandate because I happen to think these guys are a bunch of shameless hacks who basically do whatever they want and just contort the law to fit their political views. When the law doesn’t fit their views, then they just make shit up. Or tell us their decision can’t be used as precedent. Regardless, it still may go either way, because you can never tell what the swing vote sociopath Kennedy will do. It basically boils down to what kind of mood he is or which side of the argument bothers him the least.
But say SCOTUS does uphold the mandate by a 5-4 or a 6-3 (Roberts joining the majority), does that make things better? In the sense that the law has been upheld, yes. But not in the sense that our Supreme Court is still wholly, wholly dysfunctional. Even three or four votes to strike down the mandate is insane, because the entire argument to strike down the law was made up my some wingnut lawyer/blogger out of thin air. He literally just made it up, and the wurlitzer ran with it, and virtually no one in the legal community, except perhaps for four or five Justices, thing the argument makes any sense:
The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years.
Only eight of them predicted the court would do so.
This is nothing new and is consistent with what legal scholars have been saying all along- there is no reason anyone on the Supreme Court should be taking this argument seriously. And maybe I will be wrong, and they will rule 8-1 or 9-0 to uphold and all this was just me getting the vapors. But if they don’t, and they strike this down, we have an out of control court and there is literally no point in anyone even attempting to determine if legislation they are writing is constitutional, because you just don’t know until Roberts and Scalia get their instructions from the RNC and Fox news.
cathyx
You remind me of me being such a worry wart.
scottinnj
James Fallows (warning: link to the Atlantic follows) calls this by it’s correct name, which is that we have had a coup for all intents and purposes. More, please.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/scotus-update-la-loi-cest-moi/258900/
SamR
Ginsburg indicated that the law wasn’t getting fully upheld, that the only question was whether it’d be just the mandate or the whole thing.
Punchy
I hope everyone is celebrating their last full day under the oppresive and clearly unconstitutional ObamaCare. Tomorrow its back to pre-existing conditional rejection and health care companies pocketing 40% of the premiums as pure profit. Thank GOD the old system returns…
David Koch
no difference btwn Bush and Gore
Dee Loralei
You’d think someone like John Roberts, who has a legacy to consider would be a wee bit chagrined that none of the population thinks that this will be decided on merits, right or left, we all think the decision will be purely political. Methinks it’d behoove Roberts to make sure, no matter which way it goes, that it be at least 6-3.
Or as SocottinNJ and James Fallows say, there’s been a coup by the black robes.
And why the hell Roberts didn’t insist that Thomas recuse himself, I will never understand! History will not look kindly on any of these bastards on the right. Not at all in the way any of them have behaved since 1994.
kyle
That’s not how you felt about Gore v. Bush, if I remember correctly. It would be great if you could do a post recapping how and why your views on the SC have changed.
I mean, if you could swallow that ruling, why get upset about any?
Yutsano
The max is 7-2 to uphold. No way Fat Tony gives a Democrat a victory in an election year, and Thomas will follow like a good little puppet. Alito could follow law and precedent for once, but that would be the rare happening. I think 6-3 to uphold everything or 5-4 to kill it all. It will be one of those two.
Joseph Nobles
If they’re going to overturn the whole law, then they should overturn the mandatory emergency room service, I’d say. Why should your
inabilityfailure to buy insurance affect my prices at the hospital and doctor’s office?JGabriel
John Cole @ Top:
Of course we know. It can be taken as a given that any legislation written by a Democrat or supported by President Obama is unconstitutional by present SCOTUS standards.
.
Violet
@Dee Loralei:
A legacy doesn’t buy you a nice things. Being the RNC’s puppet does.
Coup is exactly the right word. More of this please.
MikeBoyScout
Judicial “restraint” is dead!
Long live Judicial Activism!
What? You wanted consistency from the Republican party?
ps. Forget ACA uphold/strike down. The Supremes may just proceed forward and name Rmoney the Prez right now. Why wait?
Punchy
@Dee Loralei: Legacy? They shredded that the minute Fat Tony mentioned broccoli in the courtroom. If youre a SC justice and shamelessly parroting fox news talking points during one of the most watched cases in history, you dont give a flying fuck about “legacy”…
mai naem
I don’t think the whole thing will be struck down partly because of Ginsburg’s little speech the other day. Also, the right wing hacks on the SC have to know that letting even part of it be upheld will energize their base so they’ll do it for political reasons.
Violet
@Joseph Nobles:
Is there any kind of lawsuit pending on this issue? There probably will be if they overturn ACA.
Xantar
But here’s what I don’t get: insurance companies and indeed most of corporate America WANTS the law upheld. Without the individual mandate, insurance companies are fucked. So how do you reconcile this as a good little Republican hack?
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
That wouldn’t be prudent, not at this particular juncture*—they’ll just find Obama guilty of treason for proposing this unconstitutional law and remove him from office.
*Yes, I’m old enough to remember Dana Carvey doing Pappy Bush.
SiubhanDuinne
@scottinnj: That’s a sad, but spot-on, analysis. I do wish Fallows and TNC would go somewhere else, though.
jl
Back in the day, US sailors would actively shoot their damn health insurance, with guns. Or beat it to death with spars.
I bet Cole didn’t know that.
That’s why a federal maritime hospital insurance mandate was OK back when the Holy Blissful Founding Fathers(TM) PBUT did things.
Valdivia
The Fallows piece is an extremely depressing read, but so spot on. I think I need to start drinking or taking something stronger for this cold. Ugh.
MikeBoyScout
@16 Xantar:
Logic? You want logic, from hacks?
Corner Stone
A little OT, but in the vein of systemic corruption of the system. I got a little woody every time I see our old friend Neel Kash N Kari mentioned:
Pimco’s Kashkari Buys Wal-Mart, Spirit on Volatility
For those who need a reminder, good friend Neel’s previous job was overseeing TARP, “he led the Office of Financial Stability, the office set up to buy troubled financial assets from U.S. financial firms under the $700 billion U.S. Government Troubled Asset Relief Program.”
He’s now PIMCO’s managing director.
Hate that fucking guy. Almost as much as Orszag.
superdestroyer
@Dee Loralei:
Why would any Supreme Court justice want to be remember as the Chief Justice who eliminate any restraint of the federal government?
I find it odd that there are two constitutional law professors who believe in restraining the government in any form considering that law school professors are, on average, extremely liberal, and constitutional law professors would be the most liberal.
Tehanu
Fallows calls it a “long-term coup.” That’s not accurate. The coup d’etat — or to call it by its true name, the act of treason — was Bush v. Gore; what came afterward has just been the fallout — the natural consequences. I wouldn’t spit on Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy if they were on fire … and hopefully they will be, permanently, about 2 seconds after they breathe their last.
Johannes
John, you’re right on this one; that’s why I so identified with the Amar quote posted a few days ago. After the Knox decision, CU, and the unilateral rewriting of the Federal Rules to make it harder to sue in federal court, I am beginning to think that the Englsh prof who was disappointed in me for wanting to go to law school back in 87 may have been right. For 20years now, I’ve been seeing the judiciary become, more and more openly, a part of the conservative movement. Now they raise claims not briefed by the parties, without giving the parties a chance to be heard, overrule decades of precedents with blithe unconcern, and expect us members of the bar to treat it as business as usual.
Corner Stone
@jl: I did not know that. With spars?
General Stuck
Yes, whatever happens with the ACA, the manic lurches to the right by the movement conservatives will continue on, to make hay while they have a court majority. So we are going to see more of this sort of thing into the foreseeable future, I think. And the only question is how dems react to it, and if they band together, and focus like a concentrated laser beam on right wing mischief. Hardy har har.
An amusing anecdote related to the court, from an article today by clueless Campbell Brown, has had me in stitches all day.
Seems she has the vapors that Planned Parenthood doesn’t give the GOP enough props, and that is just so wrong. She doesn’t mention that the right wing has been spending morning noon and night trying to destroy PP. And Campbell continues her pout over PP trying to unseat Susan Collins, cause Susan is one of the good gals, you see. Because she voted to affirm Justice Alito, since Alito had promised, like Roberts, to respect precedence and Stare Decisis. Idiot.
Brachiator
This may be a very momentous week. There could be decisions about the Arizona immigration law as well as health care reform.
This could lead to an interesting July 4 weekend, and lots of acrimonious discussions between family and friends as they throw hot dogs at each other.
Shalimar
@Xantar: What is the evidence insurance companies and other big businesses want the mandate upheld? I have heard lots of people say that it is in their best interest, but haven’t seen the chorus of CEOs saying that is what they want. Which means either they are acting against their self-interest, or they know something we don’t know about what will happen after the mandate is struck down.
Violet
@Xantar:
This is the wildcard for me too. Given that the Republicans are pawns of corporate American, and corporate America wants the law upheld, how’s it going to play out. The health insurance companies WANT that mandate. They want all the new customers. Is the SC going to kill the health insurance companies by striking down the mandate and keeping everything else? I don’t see that happening. They won’t be invited on fancy hunting trips or golf vacations if they do.
I see the pressure from corporate America, and the built in new customers for the health insurance industry as what might actually keep it upheld. Scalia and Thomas will vote against and that’ll keep them invited on those nice trips. Roberts…I dunno. Does he hunt?
General Stuck
Xantar has the Firedoglake Thousand Inch Stare.
gogol's wife
The front-page story in the NYTimes today is not about the coup the Supreme Court may be about to stage, but is about how stupid the Democrats were not to realize it was going to happen. (I don’t understand why there should be a front-page story analyzing something that hasn’t happened yet, but if there’s going to be one, you’d think it would be focused on the politicization of the Court.) My favorite quote from the part I had the stomach to read: “Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, scoffed when a reporter asked what part of the Constitution empowered Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. ‘Are you serious?” she asked with disdain. “Are you serious?'” I love the weasel phrasing “force Americans to buy health insurance.” GOD I HATE THAT NEWSPAPER
Brian S
@Dee Loralei:
He probably believes the old saw that history is written by the winners, and that they’re going to win in the long run.
shortstop
@Brachiator: Especially when my right-wing extended family members find out I won’t eat hot dogs, but will happily lob them. Hippie! Tree hugger! Snob!
gogol's wife
@Dee Loralei:
Does Roberts really have the power to make Thomas recuse himself? I think not.
NR
@gogol’s wife:
How is that weasel phrasing? That’s exactly what the ACA does. And that’s exactly why it’s unconstitutional.
The Dems could have and should have passed Medicare for all. If their health insurance bill gets tossed out because they didn’t, that’ll be their own fault.
General Stuck
As far as if the mandate is struck down, and the court leaves the rest, democrats will have to come up with another way to generate revenue to either replace the mandate, or to find cash to greatly expand the subsidies and medicaid expansion.
And there is only one way, and that is to pass regular tax increases. There is zero chance of that happening, which gives the republicans the upper hand to blame dems for bankrupting private insurers with an unfunded mandate of regulations. Forcing a repeal of the entire law, that dems will likely have to sign on to.
Kay
@Xantar:
I don’t really understand this argument. Insurance companies can get a much better deal with Romney. They can get sales across state lines and then virtually no state or federal regulation at all. Right now, even without the ACA, state law governs what they have to provide in a policy. If they manage to defeat this, they can go to race to the bottom, at the federal level, with the least restrictive state regulating insurance.
The death spiral theory of health insurance assumes that health insurance stays exactly the same as it now, with only prices going up and the pool of people covered shrinking. Why would we assume that? Why wouldn’t we assume they go on to knock down the rest of the regulations that are costing them money? Without regulation, they can write policies that cover less. Conservatives have been quite clear on what they want. They want bare-bones “health insurance”, like a catastrophic policy. How do you think they’re going to get there? The same way they do everything else, by deregulating.
NR
@Dee Loralei:
Actually, 72% of Americans think the mandate is unconstitutional. We’re pretty much right at the crazification factor for those who think otherwise.
Davis X. Machina
It took two and a half years, and some strange bedfellows, but we’re just hours away from a massive progressive victory.
It doesn’t matter who your allies are, so long as we get to, finally, and in an indirect way, to Kill the Bill.
Valdivia
@gogol’s wife:
ugh! if I received that paper at home I would have already burned it in my living room.
Bago
@Yutsano: Working the spread.
Face
Im amused by the fact the Roberts will stick with his side if he has Kennedy, but will bail to the Dems if he doesnt, so he can write the opinion. His whole vote rests not a whit on legal or statutory grounds, but on what Kennedy does. Im pretty sure thats the textbook defintion of unprincipled hack.
General Stuck
Americans want the mandate repealed. Americans want to keep all the neat new regulations, or most of them. Americans are spoiled brats, who want stuff, long as they don’t have to pay for it. It won’t matter what law gets passed, up to and including single payer. We will have the same polling, or even worse, under Giverment Health Care for single payer, or whatever. With cries by the right wing, and most citizens for the Supreme Court to strike it down as well, before the lengthy period to fully implement that. Best to just to go to your local Shaman, to chase away the evil spirits making you sick.
Kay
@Xantar:
I would just ask that before we confidently predict the death spiral of health insurance, we contemplate how health insurance could change to avoid that death spiral.
I feel like we already know this, because the health insurance we have now demands more and more out of pocket. This is happening. Now.
What, exactly, is stopping them from going further, besides state law that mandates they provide certain (required) services in return for a premium paid? What would a federal (conservative) health insurance law look like? Deregulatory, do ya think?
I hope we’re not relying on conservatives hewing to “deference to state law”, because we know that’s complete and utter bullshit. They’ll knock down any state regulation, law or court that gets in their way. We see that with federal “tort reform” proposals.
jl
@Valdivia:
“I would have already burned it in my living room.”
That kind of thing is going to happen pretty often for awhile. You have fireplace?
Kay
What we could have, with race to the bottom deregulation, is something like car insurance. The state isn’t protecting drivers with mandating bare bones minimum car insurance. They don’t really care if you’re unable to cover your personal losses. They’re protecting themselves, from losses caused by uninsured drivers. Health insurance could work like that, under a deregulatory scheme. They could mandate purchase of a catastrophic policy at the state level, “across state lines” and thereby cover their in-state losses caused by huge bills for uncompensated catastrophic care, without really covering ordinary health care at all.
gogol's wife
@NR:
So it’s okay to force ME to pay for your health care when you go to the emergency room?
And it’s been explained to you thousands of times on this very blog by better people than I am that you aren’t forced to buy health insurance. You’re just penalized if you don’t. And if you can’t afford it, you’re subsidized.
Chris
@Brachiator:
Tell me about it. I have to go visit family the weekend before the 4th and there’s a few relatives I’m kind of hoping I’ll miss. (Not over ACA specifically, just general wingnuttiness).
gogol's wife
@NR:
72% of Americans couldn’t find the Constitution with a flashlight. They’ve been brainwashed by the millions of dollars poured into advertising against the ACA.
WereBear
What planet are you from?
Because on this one, we barely got what we got.
Valdivia
@jl:
because I know my pyromaniac tendencies via a vis the NYT I stopped reading it in 2008 :)
gogol's wife
@Valdivia:
I’m getting there, but this blog doesn’t offer crossword puzzles.
burnspbesq
@Corner Stone:
Which proves yet again that you’re a moron. He did the job he was hired to do, did it well, and moved on when it was done.
Valdivia
@gogol’s wife:
I promise if I ever find a site that does I will post it here so you can stop torturing yourself reading it! :)
Elizabelle
Fallows’ update:
Here’s the Bloomberg story.
Anton Sirius
@NR:
Pathetic argument. Would that be the same Gallup poll that showed a majority of respondents liked all the other provisions of the law, and who are going to be mighty pissed off when those provisions get scuttled if SCOTUS boots the mandate?
CW in LA
I agree with Fallows that this is a coup, a subversion of our constitutional government. My question is, At what point does the Democratic party admit that’s what’s happening?
My read is that this process dates back to the ’92 Rethug convention, when they declared “cultural war” on everyone who doesn’t agree with them. And we all tut-tutted at their tone instead of taking them at their word and realizing they meant that shit.
NR
@gogol’s wife:
Duh. Penalties are how laws force you to do things. By your logic, you aren’t forced to live by any law. You’re just penalized if you don’t.
John Cole
@NR:
Oh, Jesus Christ:
Teabaggers aren’t the only ones creating their own reality.
NR
@WereBear:
The planet where the Democrats had the White House and a supermajority in Congress. They could have done anything they wanted. What they wanted was to force everyone to give money to private corporations.
WereBear
It’s always hard for the sane people to realize that fellow with the sharp implement is not here for the hedges.
General Stuck
False, but a great right wing talking point, nonetheless. Dems had 58 democratic votes in the senate. And one of them was Joe Lieberman, who gave the keynote speech at the 2008 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION.
I swear, if I end up in hell someday, there will be a neverending loopety loop playing this zombie meme from the firebagger pits. That is why I eat my peas, and luvs me some baby jeevus. every day. some days.
NR
@John Cole: Yeah, and the Democratic majority that Lieberman was part of just couldn’t have done anything to pressure him, could they? No, they were completely powerless.
Also, too, the filibuster can be done away with at any time by a simple majority vote. The only reason it was a problem was because the Democrats wanted it to be a problem.
FlipYrWhig
@WereBear: NR is more committed to that planet that anyone I have ever seen arguing about anything.
NR
@General Stuck: Nope, they had 60 votes. I was there. But in any case, they only needed 51.
FlipYrWhig
@NR: You are such a pain in the motherfucking ass. Some Democrats don’t like to do certain things, and they’re proud of it. And yet they get elected. And after being elected they continue to believe wholeheartedly in not doing them. It’s really not hard to understand. Yet you persist in pretending not to understand it, because, corporatists, that’s why. It’s an impressive record of ignorant purism.
Yutsano
@NR:
There were 67 reliable Democratic votes in 2009??
Mark B
It’s been pretty obvious that the Supreme Court has put political expediency above legal reasoning since Bush v. Gore. Citizen’s United was just icing on the cake. I expect them to bend the Constitution to whatever shape serves their purposes until Roberts, Scalia, Thomas at least get replaced.
shortstop
At this point, anyone still arguing with NR is as willfully blind to NR’s bad faith as NR is to facts.
FlipYrWhig
@NR: And they didn’t have 51, either, genius. Why do you think that was, because they all got together and decided to spite you personally, or because the more liberal of the two major parties includes a lot of scaredy-cats and flaccid moderates who get elected in places where liberals don’t have a chance in hell?
General Stuck
@NR:
You are a shameless liar, that sucks the life right out of every thread you comment in. With no capacity of will to be even the slightest bit honest. Pure grade troll,
There is only one group of folks in the political mix with that kind of mindless zealotry, and that would be the Paultards. Or, you could just be mentally ill.
NR
@shortstop: The fact is that the Democrats could have passed anything they wanted. And the fact is that they chose to pass a bill that improves the bottom line of private corporations instead of one that actually improves the health care system.
FlipYrWhig
@shortstop: I just can’t believe a person can honestly hold the views he purports to hold. I’ve argued with a lot of people about politics in my lifetime. I have never seen this phenomenon to this degree. Even trolls listen and adjust their rhetoric, even just to come up with new ways to antagonize people. This is like saying any time some topic comes up, “we’re a republic, not a democracy,” or “the hand is part of the ball,” or “but what we think of as reality is really an illusion.” It’s certainly well-designed to irritate the holy fuck out of me.
NR
@General Stuck: Okay, genius, what was the final vote count on the ACA? How many votes did it have in favor?
Yutsano
@shortstop: If I do so it’s out of mere boredom. NR hasn’t produced a viable solution here since I started posting. That was in 2008.
shortstop
@FlipYrWhig:
“I just can’t believe a person can honestly hold the views he purports to hold.”
He doesn’t.
Get it?
redheadedfemme
@Joseph Nobles: I’m sure repealing EMTALA will be one of President Romney’s priorities. It’d be good for business (after all, letting uninsured people die keeps hospitals from going bankrupt!), and would please his
investorsdonors.General Stuck
@NR:
It had 60 votes. Every other option had less than that. To include the public option, and on the medicare expansion, it was expressly Joe Lieberman that stopped that. Read Cole’s link. The ACA was the only thing that had the votes for passing some HCR. period.
FlipYrWhig
@shortstop: No, see, I think he actually does. He’s just dogmatic and supercilious about it. ETA: Everything reduces to “All Democrats are corporate, and everything they do is because they are corporate.”
NR
@FlipYrWhig: I’m talking about the actions of the party leadership. The leadership in Congress and the White House chose to advance a corporatist bill and strong-armed the progressive wing of the party into voting for it. They could have done the opposite–advanced a progressive bill and strong-armed the other side. The reason they didn’t is because they’re in the tank for the corporations. Plain and simple.
NR
@General Stuck:
Because there were 60 Democrats. Which is exactly what I said.
So since they had 60 votes, they could have passed anything they wanted. (Though, once again, they only needed 51).
Brachiator
@CW in LA:
Admiting it, unfortunately, is not the same thing as being able to do anything about it.
FlipYrWhig
@NR: They had 60 votes for what passed, and less for the things that didn’t pass, which is why they didn’t pass. Christ. All of the “strong arming” was required to run the weaker, less progressive bill through the gauntlet. Sometimes people don’t budge even when they’re wrong. I know this is hard for you to accept. Which is more than a little ironic, isn’t it?
General Stuck
@NR:
I’ve never once called for a boycott against a commenter on this blog. Even for trolls, that I can remember. But am with you, for myself, at least. So goodbye, I hope your broken thinker fixes itself. But have low expectations.
CW in LA
@Brachiator: Sure, but it’s a step away from pretending everything’s normal, and that the other party are reasonable and honorable people with whom you simply disagree.
It’s a necessary precursor to thinking what to do about it. Instead, they’ve chosen to hope things will work themselves out somehow (also known as the James Buchanan Approach).
gian
So. If the ACA is unconstitutional under the new old constitution of the right wing hacks, how do oasdi and Medicare survive?
Donut
@Dee Loralei:
Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito – they don’t care about the probable judgment and derision that they will face from future studies of their behavior. Historians bother them not one whit. They are deep-Red conservative activists. All of them have strong ties, to put it mildly, to the conservative movement. They believe in the end justifying the means, that they are the ones who will write history.
Kind of hard to shame someone who believes the normal rules of human behavior do not apply to the chosen.
WereBear
And I believe that is its sole purpose.
Scott P.
How do you strong-arm Lieberman and Bayh, who weren´t running for re-election?
WereBear
@General Stuck: If I ever meet Joe Lieberman… it will be… interesting.
There was a book about the Vietnam War, focusing on five veterans, one of which was John McCain (who was treated rather kindly in it, history has shown.) I have been unable to google up the title, but what stood out was an incident in the first chapter, where McNamara was attacked by someone who was simply overcome with outrage.
I fear it will go something like that.
Davis X. Machina
@gian: The over-65 vote went 20+ R in the mid-terms. McCain is the only candidate in 40 years to carry the 60+ vote and not win an election.
They’re constitutional, all right.
slightly-peeved
@NR:
Paying more tax does not equal forcing. If that were the case, the mortgage rebates would be a house purchase mandate. Or family tax rebates would force people to have kids.
Australia has the same thing – buy private insurance, pay less tax. Not everyone buys private insurance, so no-one calls it a mandate. The actual mechanism which forces Americans to buy health insurance is the lack of affordable care without it . I’d love it if the Dems respond to a ruling against the ‘mandate’ by increasing taxes, then introducing a rebate for private health insurance, and pretend (like NR and The Supreme Court) that this is an entirely different thing.
Mnemosyne
@NR:
Please provide us with a few statistics:
How many Democratic senators were there in June of 2009 when PPACA talks began?
When was Al Franken was sworn in as senator from Minnesota?
When was Paul Kirk was appointed to temporarily fill Ted Kennedy’s seat?
I have a feeling the answers will shock you since you seem totally ignorant of what the actual makeup of the Senate was while the PPACA was being written.
kay
What is going to make me sick is what I anticipate will be a rush by conservatives and media to protect the Court.
I feel as if it’s already happening.
The NYTimes has a piece where they charge that Obama and Democrats “failed to anticipate” this because they were relying on precedent.
WTF else were they supposed to rely on?
Mind reading?
I think it’s too scary to contemplate a Court completely unbound, so they will simply deny it happened, and bury the key fact in reams of bullshit and opinion.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Brian S:
You know who else thought that they would be able to write history as the victors?
Yeah, I went there. :)
I wish I could retire with enough money to go on a cross country trip pissing on the graves of any of these assholes who pass before I do.
Sadly, ’tis only a dream…
General Stuck
@kay:
I am sure that parts of the media will attempt this, initially. But if the SCOTUS strikes down the individual mandate, I don’t think the larger implications will stay on the sidelines for very long. Of casting a pall and huge question mark over many other pieces of legislation that are beloved by the public.
Nor will the wingnuts out there, be able to control themselves with such a slapdown of the commerce clause, in attempting to stretch that over the rest of the new deal, then to environmental laws they hate. These things may take some time to ripen for our national dialogue, but they will come with such a monumental reversal of massive consequence.
For the short term, in the heat of a likewise monumental election, I am going to take it as a big test for the center left coalition, and for Obama to repackage the rebuff of HCR, and turn it back on the right wing/media. If anything can unite the dems and light a fire under their individualistic arses, a political action by the high court knocking down their marquee issue should be it. We shall see if they are up to it.
Baud
@General Stuck:
This!
And spot on regarding the assault on environmental laws that is coming.
rikyrah
I won’t give a shyt about the numbers if they choose to uphold the ACA. it will matter not to me.
Ruckus
@gogol’s wife:
Why do people keep trying to have a discussion with NR? It’s an utter waste of time and electrons.
tom
Wouldn’t they really have to strike down the entire law? Then those deeply buried, diabolically evil Democratic plots to take over the world such as President Obama’s personal slush fund and (evil music here) death panels are extinguished forever.
Or maybe they’ll just strike down the mandate, the only
half-assed contribution from the repub’s. Repeat after me, “repubs are never correct or competent or helpful on anything!”
Ruckus
@General Stuck:
I don’t understand why anyone tries to have a discussion with NR. (Nothing Remaining, No Ram, Not Responsible, Not Responsive, Not Realistic, Not Real, No Reward, OK I’m out)
Heliopause
I live on the left coast. By the time I get up tomorrow, piss, shower, eat my haggis, and masturbate (not necessarily in that order) you all will be 800 comments deep in dissecting the decision. Fuck the east coast.
lacp
So if ACA is deep-sixed tomorrow…what? Drone strike on SCOTUS chamber?
lacp
@Heliopause: I don’t see anything mutually exclusive there – can’t you piss, shower ,eat haggis, et. al. simultaneously? WTF kind of multi-tasker are you, anyway?
Heliopause
@lacp:
As a good American I only hold one idea in my head at a time. What are you, a communist?
shortstop
@Heliopause: TMI! TMI! I refer to the haggis, of course.
GxB
@Heliopause: Course if you’re eating haggis tomorrow don’t forget to add a few hours for the gastric lavage.
gopher2b
Because I like irony, I’m hoping the mandate is struck down and the rest of the law is upheld. I really want to see what the most dysfunctional Congress in history will do when they are faced with (1) fixing healthcare in this country, or (2) watching the health insurance industry crumble under the weight of everyone gaming the system.
David Koch
@NR:
If?
Every time there’s a thread on ACA you run in like a troll to say it will never be overturned because it’s a corporatist bill and the corrupt-corporatist Roberts Court will never go against corporations.
Now you’re saying “if”.
I knew you’d puss out, but I thought you’d wait until it was overturned before you turned tail.
You’re a bigger retard than most trolls.
TenguPhule
Commerce Clause says you’re full of shit.
Also, Car Insurance.
TenguPhule
Considering how Haggis tastes, all at once explains the cooking.
TenguPhule
Fortunately their days are numbered. Hopefully even more after tomorrow.
NR
@TenguPhule:
Commerce clause says nothing about Congress having the power to force people to give money to private corporations.
Fail. Car insurance is only mandatory if you choose to drive.
James
How on earth do you think that law is constitutional? Forcing Americans to engage in commerce? By not doing anything, the govt is saying that people are engaging in commerce, so then the govt can force them to engage in commerce.
What will you say when the force you to buy health food, or join a gym, or buy other insurances, or buy a GM vehicle because GM is suffering?
Oh yeah, that’s just cray talk, right? The govt would never go that far. We should just trust the govt not to abuse its power.
If they are permitted to force us to buy health insurance, then there’s no end to the things the govt can force us to do.
But the president already thinks he has the power to kill citizens at will, without any constitutional due process. And you’re fine with that too I suppose.
You’re such a hack. I hope at least your door is one of the first they knock on after you’ve supported erosion of all our freedoms.
James
@Dee Loralei: What about Kagan, should’t she have recused herself??
Applejinx
@TenguPhule: In all seriousness, they and the conservatives are literally leaving few other options.
The thing about making fringe elements and loonies desperate is that they can’t plan, and are emotion-driven: for that reason, they can be spotted and controlled.
When you wage basically civil/class war on essentially everybody, it’s only logical that you will make intelligent people desperate. Intelligent, self-sacrificing people with less and less reason to play by the rules. If you are going to die anyhow because of the concerted civil/class war attack, you have been drafted. You’re a soldier, whatever you thought you wanted to be.
People will be realizing this. My hope is that intelligent, reasonable people join those who are realizing this, because reasonable people make better plans.