How Obama could win if Obamacare loses

Washington Examiner ^ | Sept. 29, 2011 | Stephen G. Smith

[COUNTrecount]

It may sound counterintuitive, but here’s betting that President Obama wouldn’t be at all upset if the high court rules that his health plan is unconstitutional.

By urging an expedited review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the president knows that the politics cuts his way. If the court strikes down the plan, then Obama won’t have to defend it in the fall campaign, robbing the Republicans of one of their two lines of attack, the other being the moribund economy. He could rally his base by arguing that he had pushed through a great “progressive” reform only to be foiled by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. People, like markets, hate uncertainty, and the presumed swing vote by Justice Kennedy could settle the issue.

If Obama wins the judicial appeal, it will still be a win for him along the lines of today’s conventional thinking. He will be able to argue that the Administration always knew Obamacare was constitutional, and the expedited review will muffle the issue in the general-election campaign.

The one nightmare scenario for Obama is if the Supremes hear arguments before the election and decide the case after the voting. In that event, the briefs and oral arguments could well inflame the political debate. By asking for a speedy review, the President is evidently hoping to avoid this awkward straddle.

[DeaconRed]

Say What?
That sounds like something that idiot Bob Beckel would say.
OK strike that I have only listened to about 30 seconds total to that idiot. That is TOTAL. I am 65 years old. I can't stand him, but I have accidentally gone to FOX at 5 PM.
Two liberals I will never listen to. Bob Beckel & Alan Combs.

[DanMiller]

There is another possibility, not mentioned in the article. The Supreme Court could strike down the insurance mandate but leave most of the rest of the statute standing, finding the insurance mandate severable from the rest. Only one judge has thus far stricken the entire statute.

That would oblige President Obama to urge the Congress to do something to salvage the monster, with his characteristic lack of precision as to exactly what. Coming just before the elections, that could hurt him badly.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

If Obama tries to run on a failed health program, I think the response is all the more powerful:

Obama spent fours years, billions of dollars, and wrecked the economy on a program that isn't even legal! We can't afford whatever he might have in mind for the next four years!

[COUNTrecount]

So if Hillary! is asked to step in if Barry steps down, her history of HillaryKare is only better than his because hers never happened.

This weakens a Hillary presidency push, IMHO.

[COUNTrecount]

Totally agree with your assessment of those two Demo wind-up wind bags.

I can't imagine spewing the irrational garbage they do and believing it.

What a way to earn a paycheck.

It's like this job; well at least they're in show business.

[brownsfan]

“The Supreme Court could strike down the insurance mandate but leave most of the rest of the statute standing ... “

I’ve heard from more than one source that the way the bill was written, the mandate is not severable. I’m not expert, but I believe it to be true, I think I heard it on Mark Levin’s show, to cite one source.

[boop]

I thought originally that Obama WOULD try to use this as a club if the SCOTUS strikes it down. But I think that the response of "what a WASTE of trillions of dollars this whole thing was" would be very effective.

[ConjunctionJunction]

The law does not have a severability clause, but it is possible that SCOTUS could sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law anyway. Can’t predict what SCOTUS might do.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

So the Supreme Court strikes down BarryKare and the Republican candidate never mentions that it was an illegal piece of legislation, indicative of the entire Barry presidency? And the voters ignore this decision?

This idea has failed already.

It's a campaign issue!

Ignored?!! HA HA HA!! Right!

[DeaconRed]

Thant would be a good job for Beckel & Combs, they could be a tag team. . . . .

[Maryhere]

This Examiner article is written to “stupid conservatives”, at least the liberals think we are so stupid we would buy this “logic”. BO is scared to death of the Supremes spoiling his great Obamacare Plan. Next Obama plan will be to try to “pack the Court” as FDR tried.

[DanMiller]

The way the bill is written it is indeed unworkable without the healthcare mandate. That's why Judge Vinson refused to sever the mandate and killed the whole thing.

However, all of the other judges who have considered the matter have felt bound by judicial precedent to sever it, let the rest stand, and to let the Congress figure out what to do. An alternative would have been for a judge to try to rewrite it, but that would have exceeded the recognized powers of the judiciary.

Although I think the whole bill stinks, some parts are not clearly unconstitutional. Without the mandate, it will be necessary for the Congress to start again, possibly from scratch. That would be distracting to say the least to President Obama during his campaign and would bring ObamaCare to the forefront of the debate. That's where, in my view, it should be.

[Lmo56]

I’ve heard from more than one source that the way the bill was written, the mandate is not severable.

Not that it is prohibited from severability, but the whole house of cards is predicated on the fact that the mandate [assuming most people buy the insurance] pays for the rest of the program.

Remove the mandate and the whole thing falls apart ...

BTW: The assumption that most people are gonna purchase the insurance is a fallacy. IF [and that is a BIG if] the mandate is ruled constitutional - I suspect that MOST people are gonna pay the fine [which is about 1/10th the cost].

If that happens - same outcome, the whole thing falls apart [lack of money] ...

[Lmo56]

The economy is still in the tank and even if by some miracle there did start to be hiring in the 100,000+ a month range it would take 3-4 years for all of those who are unemployed to get work.

Don't forget, there are about 250K of new people trying to enter the workforce each month ...

100K of new hires doesn't even keep you treading water. The only reason that the unemployment figures don't keep going up right now is that the LOW new hire figures are offset by the people who drop out of the UE rolls [due to limits on their UE]. Since they are off the rolls, they don't get counted - but they are STILL unemployed ...