The justices announced they will hear an extraordinary five-and-a-half hours of arguments from lawyers on the constitutionality of a provision at the heart of the law and three other related questions about the act. The central provision in question is the requirement that individuals buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.
In the modern era, the last time the court allotted anywhere near this much time for arguments was in 2003 for consideration of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. That case consumed four hours of argument. This argument may spread over two days, as the justices rarely hear more than two or three hours a day.
If indeed the SCOTUS strikes down the individual mandates as unconstitutional, it would create quite a political circus a mere four months ahead of the general election. Many would surmise that would sink the Obama re-election campaign, but is that truly the case? As we've heard in several debates over the past few months, the top issue of many (if not all) of the GOP Presidential hopefuls is repealing Obamacare. Well if the SCOTUS takes that off the table by striking down the law as unconstitutional, what then? Obviously President Obama will still have a record of poor economic policies and thus there will remain a strong case to vote him out of office. Either way, the law being struck down would be an embarrassment to the current administration.
On the flip side, all hope would not be lost if the Supreme Court upholds the law. If the Republicans can win the White House (50-50 right now, in my opinion) and regain control of the Senate (need to flip four seats), the Republican-controlled Congress could pass a repeal measure for the GOP President to sign it. Of course, that in and of itself would be a bitter fight in the likely event Republicans do not have a "Super Majority" (60-40) in the Senate. But with a simple 51-49 majority, the GOP could use the reconciliation process (i.e. the "Nuclear Option") to ram a repeal bill through. Oh, and if some squishy Republicans start to become concerned with any political fallout? Just remind everyone that the Democrats were never afraid to use such a process while controlling the Senate.
-------------------------------------------
12 comments:
the GOP wont use the nuke option. they just want their base always needing 'just one or two more seats' til judgement day.
it keeps the base voting, the money rolling, and the party and their cronies in (or near) power.
Yeah, I know. It would be the veritable land of milk and honey if we would all just wise up and elect Ron Paul as President. Sorry, I don't know what I was thinkin'.
he wouldnt accomplish much either. gotta have a party behind him first.
i support Ron Paul because its the message i want to send, not because i think it does any good.
but i'd have to register with the party first...
You mean a President can't legalize drugs and enact unilateral surrender via executive fiat???
typical GOPer response.
say Hi to sean hannity for me.
Just havin' fun, my brutha!
I think in a perfect world (I.e. a place where the rest of the world truly would leave us alone) Ron Paul would be an ideal President. But the idea that we up and pull out of every foreign endeavor (I agree there's too many) and expect other countries to let us be is complete and utter nonsense.
And for the record, I'm not even a Hannity fan.
"But the idea that we up and pull out of every foreign endeavor (I agree there's too many) and expect other countries to let us be is complete and utter nonsense."
and herein lies the debate.
IF that is what you want, to ultimately steer a course of of nonintervention, how would take us there?
even Paul, and other noninterventionists like me, know that you need to back out of fight you had no business in. to abruptly turn and run leaves your back exposed to the same guys you just threw a punch at.
but you gotta start the process, and neither party has anybody willing to start that process, cept for the GOP who has Paul, who is consatntly attacked with straw man arguments instead of debate, much like the liberals to to conservatives every time they cant win the discussion.
the conservative party has forgotten what conservative means in regards to foreign policy as well as everything else.
at least there is one man who is willing to keep the ideal alive.
the conservative party has forgotten what conservative means in regards to foreign policy as well as everything else.
I wish I could disagree, but that's spot on. While the conservative philosophy is sound, the execution of said principles has been sorely lacking for some time.
While I don't think isolationism is the way to go, I do believe what our pal Mr. D believes when he says we need to re-calibrate our response to other countries. What should that response entail? Definitely another debate topic.
if we are to have a conversation, we need to be speaking the same language.
'isolationism' and 'noninterventionism' are NOT the same word. to call the conservative views of Ron Paul and others 'isolationist' is once again, a straw man more worthy of the hannity kool aid crowd, or the liberals, since that is a favorite debating tactic generally used by them when appraoching conservatives.
'isolationism' and 'noninterventionism' are NOT the same word.
Yep, you're right. My bad.
You understand the distinctions, Gino, but I'm not sure some of the Paul supporters I encounter do. There's too much true believerism in some of those folks.
just like those who don't know what 'conservatism' means and vote for the same foreign policy attitudes that the democrats got smart and (largely) rejected back in the 60's, realizing it wasnt working/worth it.
crazy is doing the same thing expecting different results.
crazier is picking up somebody elses failure ideas as your own.
Post a Comment