The Republics don’t want to repeal it, really. They want to use the idea of repeal as a political tool. Making abortion illegal has been a similar and long lasting tool.

Republics showed that they never intended to do anything more than talk about abortion when they had total control of the government. With Bush pretending to be a Christian and never vetoing anything, the Republics could have blanketed the country with laws on abortion. However, they did nothing but fundraise. Health care repeal will be the same.

Now, Lamar Smith (R-TX), who himself signed on to the REPEALgasm, admits it’s all just kabuki.

Of course it’s all just kabuki, layers of kabuki. Let’s have a look at that headline again.

Texas Congressman Latest Republican to Admit Repealing Health Care Reform is Just a Right-Wing Fantasy That’s Become Reality

That’s better.

The entire world view of the right wing is a fantasy.

If the Health Insurance Company and Pharmaceutical Welfare Act of 2010 had failed, Lamar Smith and the entire rest of the Republican Party would be promising to revive it when THEY take over congress. I’m with aoyama, it’s kabuki on top of kabuki.

It would be unnatural for the Repubs to reverse a Heritage Foundation policy. That’s the sort of thing Democrats are supposed to do.

Uh, 50/50, assuming that is the odds, is far from a crap-shoot, let alone a fantasy.

With this Supreme Court, I think the chances are more 60/40. Especially considering that if this is given the OK, then, Congress can mandate, under threat of jail, that people must buy ANY product. Before you get all slap happy about that, imagine what a Republican Congress might mandate that YOU buy.

I would bet they will find some way to carve some exception which makes this mandate unconstitutional. Because of the practical implications of ruling in the mandate’s favor, I don’t care what the prior rulings have been.

They will never repeal the mandate but I can see a lot of the other parts getting axed.

It is not 50/50.

“…..I think the chances are more 60/40….”

The portion of the HCR bill most likely to be nullified is any portion imposing a regulatory burdan on the states. Isn’t that what they did with the Brady Bill?

“In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose. The vast majority continued to do so[17]. This issue later became moot when NICS came online in 1998 and the waiting period requirement sunsetted.”

Obama has veto power, unless the Reps think they can get 60 Sens.

There never was a chance before 2012.

That’s what I said, it is more like 60/40. The idea that THIS Supreme Court will rubber stamp the ability of the government to mandate people must buy any product is laughable.

They won’t do it.

Lower courts may very well rule in favor of the mandate. But, the Supreme’s won’t. And, as I said, I don’t care what past rulings have been made. They won’t do it.

If the health insurance bill is what we think it is, the Rs might be better off to leave it in place. It’s probably going to be very unpopular by 2012.

“….unless the Reps think they can get 60 Sens…”

That should be 67. It takes 2/3 of both houses to override a veto.

Well said. (or written).

The government has that power. It’s constitutional.

Section 8 Article 1.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Notice “Power to lay & collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises”
Notice “General Walfare of the United States”

Congress has laid a tax. The HCR penalties. These taxes are waived if you can prove you have bought health insurance.

My bad, I knew it was super, but not that super.

I think that the question of a S.Ct. challenge is fascinating. Given that Justice Kennedy seems to have gone to the Scalia side, how would this play out?

The Court, as it stands, is leaning Republican. Given that the bill benefits traditional R interests (big business, screw the little guy), it seems to me that the Court will be stuck with a decision over whether to screw Obama and Democrats, or to feign blindness and let it slide.

The bill is obviously everything the insurance companies want. I don’t see the Supremes upsetting that particular apple cart merely for the sake of making Obama look bad.

fwiw, I believe that the individual mandate is completely unconstituional.

not that that matters anymore….

never before has a tax been laid to the benefit of private corporations.

Nor has there ever been a measure which taxes the fact that one is alive.

I thought Republican fantasies centered around bondage or diapers or bathroom stalls.

HCR passed after maniac kitchen-sink opposition = Monster wedge issue for the failed GOP. Real shame, that!

Gingrich however, is amongst the worst RWNJ’s. He cannot erase his past.

Balkingpoints / www

I can see them overruling it on three grounds, 1. as noted above, the Brady bill-like “commandeering of state governments” to enforce the law; 2. putting citizen inactivity (i.e. not purchasing insurance) into the realm of “interstate commerce”, since the penalty is a flat sum ($695) unless 2% of income would be greater (and that amount is taxed), its an unconstitutional “direct tax”. 3. Taxes paid on income earned are constitutional (per 16th Amendment), a flat fee “direct tax” is not unless its apportioned among the states on a per capita basis.

Republicans are backing down from their call to repeal the law because the insurance industry is threatening to turn off the campaign funding tap if the GOP keeps trying to wreck their new source of rent-seeking profits. They’re idiots of course, they’d do better to pivot and counterattack against the insurance companies. To quote Frank Luntz’s memo from last year…

We suggest ratcheting up the rhetoric against insurance companies to almost the same degree as you do against Washington bureaucracy. Call the Democratic plan a “bailout for the insurance industry” – both because it is, and because it will build lasting credibility by going after the two things the American people hate most: Washington bureaucracy and insurer greed. (p. 7)
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf

In the unlikely event that the Supremes find the “individual mandate”, as currently written, unconstitutional, that ruling would not affect the remaining provisions of the law, and it could be remedied with an alternative provision that had been previously considered by Senate drafters when they were drafting the bill. Apparently, the Senate drafters and their Wellpoint lobbyist on loan to Max Baucus to draft the bill, believed that they could achieve the same “mandate” effect by making the subsidies in the exchanges available only to those who could prove that they were purchasing at least a minimum set level of coverage. No coverage, no soup for you!! I’m still trying to figure out how this alternative provision would work, but I suppose that it is only really applicable and impacting on those in the individual market for insurance coverage, and would not really affect those covered through their employment, much like the “individual mandate”.

Actually, that’s 67 Senators to vote for repeal.

Veto overrides require 2/3 supermajorities in both houses.

And apparently large-breasted females simulating homosexual acts…

Without passing judgment on your 3 possible grounds for overturning, I will note that your number 2, citizen inactivity being part of interstate commerce:

Back in the 1930 – 40′s, there was a wheat price support case that made it to the U.S. SupCt. The farmer in question said the wheat he was growing for just for family use (his wheat acreage made the claim plausible). (Very roughly:) for that reason he didn’t have to value the wheat at such-and-so level or somesuch, arguing the personal use meant Commerce Clause’s interstate power did not give Congress power to pass a law controlling his behavior in the matter.

Court said, Wrong, you’re withholding of wheat from the interstate market makes your action part of interstate commerce cuz it causes supply-diminution/price-pressure.

The question isn’t whether they can repeal healthcare bill. It’s whether they can organize and mobilize their troops. That’s the real game.

It’s too much of a gravy train for their corporate masters, both D’s and R’s that is. I never expected the repeal efforts to amount to anything.

ALL Republics LOVE this legislation to pieces because it gives them ample ammunition to toss out to their ever more victimizing base. Other posts have said it better than me, but yes: it’s all and only one big old Kabuki show on both branches of our one-party Republican gov’t.

Make no mistake, these good old boys and girls are rubbing their hands with glee dreaming about all the money they can rake in from their base by riling up the base and telling the base just how horrible those dreaded socialistcommunistnazifeministhomosexualgodless Dimorats are. Why this legislation is the best thing that’s happened to the Republicans in a long while… not to mention all the kickbacks and bribes from Big Ins, etc.

Spare me. Kabuki.

It’s the flip side of using health reform to get elected and then do a phony kabuki act and pass a reform that just further enriches the same gang your running against. Now it’s the Gop’s turn. It’s like the game of rotating villains some have mentioned here.

We don’t have a Republic government, nor a Democratic government.

We have a corporatist government, with Republic and Democratic wings of the Corporatist Party.

fwiw, I believe that the individual mandate is completely unconstituional.

not that that matters anymore…

I think what you and others are saying, in essence, is that the mandate is unconstitutional, but whether you can get this court to declare it so, is what matters [and has always been determinative of what's "unconstitutional." But when was the last time we had a rogue court like this one?]

Good analogy.

ALL Republics LOVE this legislation to pieces because it gives them ample ammunition to toss out to their ever more victimizing base.

This gives them some verbal ammunition to toss to their troops, in additional to the actual stuff those troops have been using of late.

Repubs don’t just love this bill because it gives them ammunition for their faux political battles with the Dems. They love this bill because it’s their kind of private sector loving bill. The Senate bill was drafted by a Wellpoint VP based on a Heritage Foundation template endorsed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. The Republicans are laughing all the way to the bank. Jesus. When will progressives ever wake up. It is truly sad to watch our party being fooled like this and taken down the drain. Why don’t we call ourselves the Gullible Party, because that’s how we’re behaving. We can decide to either think for ourselves or be used as political tools by both parties in government.