• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

Frolicking Dinosaurs

200M yrs of experience
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Southeastern USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
BBC News - White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law
The White House has asked the Supreme Court to uphold its healthcare law, inviting a possible high-stakes legal showdown just before the 2012 election. The administration's move came after a challenge to the reform from 26 states and small businesses.
The justice department asked the Supreme Court to declare the law's key provision, requiring everyone to buy health insurance, constitutional.

The legislation extended health coverage to an extra 32 million people.
 
Should be interesting if they take the case a ruling will come down in the middle of a presidential campaign.

I've read something today - I think it was on Politico - that Obama is requesting it to be reviewed now because he suspects that the SC will rule the individual mandate (possibly the entire bill) unconstituional and it will give him something to run on/against.
 
Kennedy will be the wildcard. I am willing to bet he will not support the notion Congress can tax people for not doing anything but breathing.
 
I've read something today - I think it was on Politico - that Obama is requesting it to be reviewed now because he suspects that the SC will rule the individual mandate (possibly the entire bill) unconstituional and it will give him something to run on/against.

I think it far more sinister. He knows that he will lose to the full 11th Circuit, and that such a ruling would be huge wood on the fire against him at the heighth of the campaign season. So the sending of it on to SCOTUS actually defers any next decision longer. It is also easier for them to stall leading up to SCOTUS, which they want to do any way that they can. This was all about keeping it out of the news as best as possible. Nothing more.
 
They elected not to appeal en banc to the 11th Cir. because the 11th is one of, if not the most, conservative circuits in the country. With more and more of the law phasing in over time it just makes sense to resolve this question ASAP. I think the mandate is clearly constitutional but given the makeup of this SC it would not surprise me at all if they ruled against it.
 
Amazing what a difference the letter in front of a the president's name makes, isn't it?

"ROMNEY: It was seen as a conservative idea to say, you know what? People have a responsibility for caring for themselves if they can. We’ll help people who can’t care for themselves, but if you can care for yourself, you gotta take care of yourself and pay your own bills.

In 2006, the Heritage Foundation — which attended the signing ceremony for the law — described Romney’s mandate as “not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values,” claiming that it would reduce “the total cost to taxpayers” by taking people out of the “uncompensated care pool.”

Gingrich also embraced the “ultimate conservative idea,” writing in a 2007 Des Moines Register op-ed, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” An “individual mandate,” he added, should be applied “when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed.”
 
I think it is wise to get the matter of constitutionality settled before the 2012 election. The reasons: It makes no sense whatsoever to waste time and money continuing to implement a program if it is unconstitutional. Also, I'd like to see both sides addressing the many pressing problems (including a different program for healthcare if the current program is unconstitutional) than listen to the right trumpet 'unconstitutional' regarding this program and the left defend the program during the election cycle.
 
Getting the supreme court to rule on this is a lose/lose crap for Obama.

If it's found constitutional, while Obama doesn't have to defend if it's constitutional, he has to defend it's continued existence.

If it's found unconstituitional, he has to defend that he signed off on a unconstitutional bill.

The second scenario is worse but the first is bad as well. As I said lose/lose for Obama.
 
Getting the supreme court to rule on this is a lose/lose crap for Obama.

If it's found constitutional, while Obama doesn't have to defend if it's constitutional, he has to defend it's continued existence.

If it's found unconstituitional, he has to defend that he signed off on a unconstitutional bill.

The second scenario is worse but the first is bad as well. As I said lose/lose for Obama.

I agree. Even if it is ruled Constitutional, that outcome will make it even more important to have BO removed next year so the new president can kill the law by simply ignoring it or having it repealed. A Constitutional ruling will trigger a massive surge in conservative voters next November.
 
Getting the supreme court to rule on this is a lose/lose crap for Obama.

If it's found constitutional, while Obama doesn't have to defend if it's constitutional, he has to defend it's continued existence.

If it's found unconstituitional, he has to defend that he signed off on a unconstitutional bill.

The second scenario is worse but the first is bad as well. As I said lose/lose for Obama.

I don't agree it's lose/lose.


If it's found unconstituitional, he has to defend that he signed off on a unconstitutional bill.

If it's not found unconstitutional, then the GOP is aligned against a constitutional bill. That's a win as far as I can see and defending it becomes more easy. The charge that's it's unconstitutional, a key talking point, is rendered moot.
 
Does anyone REALLY think that Scalia will allow the court to strike down a law requiring people to buy things? Seriously? It puts more money into the pockets of big business. This is right up his alley. And he usually gets what he wants.
 
I could not care less if it is a win or lose for Obama or the GOP nominee. I submit getting a ruling from the SCOTUS now is a win for taxpayers and voters.
 
I don't agree it's lose/lose.




If it's not found unconstitutional, then the GOP is aligned against a constitutional bill. That's a win as far as I can see and defending it becomes more easy. The charge that's it's unconstitutional, a key talking point, is rendered moot.

That is a big 'if'....If you ask me, I think Obama believes that he has placed enough social justice libs on the court that he knows that this may be his last chance before getting the boot in the election, and he want's his legacy to be that he ruined America through this destructive bill.

j-mac
 
Getting the supreme court to rule on this is a lose/lose crap for Obama.

If it's found constitutional, while Obama doesn't have to defend if it's constitutional, he has to defend it's continued existence.

If it's found unconstituitional, he has to defend that he signed off on a unconstitutional bill.

The second scenario is worse but the first is bad as well. As I said lose/lose for Obama.

I've been trying to run this through my head and this seems to be the case to me also......so I figured there has to be something I'm missing. I have to think that Obama feels that if it's overturned it would charge up the base. He is hoping for a Citizens United reaction. He is hoping to then argue for government control of health care. Nothing to buy, you just pay your increased taxes.

I'm not sure how that is going to go for him but to me it means his internal advisors are telling him that he needs something to run on in 2012.

I support what he did in the end. It should be ruled on before the elections.
 
Getting the supreme court to rule on this is a lose/lose crap for Obama.

If it's found constitutional, while Obama doesn't have to defend if it's constitutional, he has to defend it's continued existence.

If it's found unconstituitional, he has to defend that he signed off on a unconstitutional bill.

The second scenario is worse but the first is bad as well. As I said lose/lose for Obama.

If it's found constitutional Obama wins. Period.

As a postscript, the American people also win, as it will discourage people who can afford insurance from freeloading on everyone else.
 
I could not care less if it is a win or lose for Obama or the GOP nominee. I submit getting a ruling from the SCOTUS now is a win for taxpayers and voters.

that is true. getting this thing tossed out would severely reduce much of the uncertainty in today's business climate.
 
I don't agree it's lose/lose.




If it's not found unconstitutional, then the GOP is aligned against a constitutional bill. That's a win as far as I can see and defending it becomes more easy. The charge that's it's unconstitutional, a key talking point, is rendered moot.

I disagree. I think it is lose/lose for Obama. The majority of Americans don't want Obamacare. No matter the outcome, making this headline news just before the election will polarize the nation even more. Voters, in return, will show their displeasure at the polls.
 
I don't agree it's lose/lose.


If it's not found unconstitutional, then the GOP is aligned against a constitutional bill. That's a win as far as I can see and defending it becomes more easy.

:confused: not politically - politically it just puts the energy back at the 2010 level. Either way, it's harder for him to get reelected.

which means ( and this i find interesting ) potentially, that's a secondary consideration.
 
Instant Reaction: the administration evidently thought that if this case didn't come up until 2013, there was a good chance a Republican Solicitor General would choose not to defend it.

I didn't think of that. Good point.
 
unconstitutional or not, it's a poor plan. the plan forces people into purchasing from for-profit companies when what we should really be doing is expanding medicare to include those who can't afford an expensive private plan. and we should also be working to bring down costs.

the plan does do some good things, but it's barely better than nothing and is certainly not a hill to die on politically. it should have been scrapped and started over at a time when the economy wasn't collapsing and with a more friendly congress. the beginning point of the debate was barely enough, and what it got compromised into is closer to useless than a national health plan should be.
 
unconstitutional or not, it's a poor plan. the plan forces people into purchasing from for-profit companies when what we should really be doing is expanding medicare to include those who can't afford an expensive private plan. and we should also be working to bring down costs.

the plan does do some good things, but it's barely better than nothing and is certainly not a hill to die on politically. it should have been scrapped and started over at a time when the economy wasn't collapsing and with a more friendly congress. the beginning point of the debate was barely enough, and what it got compromised into is closer to useless than a national health plan should be.

The act will provide 30 million people who presently lack health insurance with health insurance. I would hardly call that worthless.

In addition it will prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, it will prevent them from canceling insurance when it's needed most, it will eliminate lifetime limits, and it will require insurance companies to spend more of their premiums on health care. These are all very good things.

I think that single payer is the only way to contain costs, but it's not politically feasible at this time.
 
:confused: not politically - politically it just puts the energy back at the 2010 level. Either way, it's harder for him to get reelected.

which means ( and this i find interesting ) potentially, that's a secondary consideration.

For the GOP, Obama's election chances are of primary consideration. To the point where they will make every effort to destroy their own idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom