Despite the massive protests and attention paid to the issue, the American people don’t really understand what is contained in the law — a sign the White House has not done a good job of messaging.
Perhaps all the months of coverage of “grassroots” town halls with people screaming that “Obamacare = Socialism”, endlessly covered by networks like CNN, had something to do with the message being muddled. Then when White House officials go out to correct the narrative, they get shouted down by Village types who say “But clearly the people are against this, so why are you doing it?”
The whole Fast and Furious thing is rapidly devolving into “Both sides do it, Washington is broken” stupidity when Eric Holder dares to defend himself from Issa’s impeachment by proxy maneuver. I am but a humble observer.
I’m thinking today is not going to be a good day by the time the sun finally sets. I’ll update this with any SCOTUS decision news as our new overlords tell us plebes how we’re doing it wrong expecting
the government Democrats anybody to actually do something about health care costs, should a decision come down this morning.
Overlooked in all the health care sturm und drang is the Arizona immigration case, which is pretty much just as important. If SCOTUS really wanted to blow a hole in the presidency, this would be the case to do it. After the last 12 years, I refuse to call this one a slam dunk either.
All this of course is a set up to completely prevent or if still necessary, de-legitimize a second term for President Obama as much as possible.
Mondays suck.[UPDATE] No health care decision today, but most of Arizona’s immigration law has been invalidated (but not all of it). Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the law go bye-bye. Also, 5-4 decision that juveniles convicted of murder cannot be sentenced to life without parole. Apparently Justice Alito had to rail against that reading his dissent. [UPDATE 2] the “papers, please” part of the law stays, 8-0, as there’s no reason apparently to overturn it on Supremacy Clause reasons. However, the decision does say that the provision can still be challenged in the future on other grounds, like, say, counting as racial profiling. Hint, hint.