About 50 percent of the country thinks that the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act and its individual mandate will be based mainly on the Justices’ partisan views, not the legal merits. From Washington Post:
More Americans think Supreme Court justices will be acting mainly on their partisan political views than on a neutral reading of the law when they decide the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care law, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Half of the public expects the justices to rule mainly based on their “partisan political views,” while fewer, 40 percent, expect their decisions to be rooted primarily “on the basis of the law.” The rest say both equally or do not have an opinion.
Even though the poll found the new health care law is not popular, 39% support – 53% opposed, and 67% want to see all or at least part of the law struck down, the American people are open to the argument that the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision will be politically motivated judicial overreach.
This is probably why you are seeing President Obama already describing a possible ruling against his signature law as “judicial activism” and “unprecedented.”
Obama has had a very tough time defending his unpopular health care law on its merits, so he would probably be on better political footing characterizing any adverse decision as about the Court’s partisan biases instead of the law. If the Court rules against the law, it’s in Obama’s interest to have the media conversation that week focus mainly on the misused power of a partisan Court majority, and not about the merits of this unpopular law.
Trying to turn the Court’s ruling on the ACA into a broader conversation involving other unpopular recent rulings like Citizen United is probably the Obama team’s best option for making the most of some possibly very bad news.




31 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Jill Stein 2012.
I still don’t think they will strike down the law. But either way or part way, O can’t lose on it. Asshole Supreme Court.
While ACA was still in Congress we did all we could to keep this law from becoming law. While it admittedly has some good points, overall it’s a piece of shit benefiting primarily the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Medicare-For-All.
“politically motivated judicial overreach”
I have a problem with this phrase. The first part is completely justified, it’s what the polls say. “Judicial overreach?” If 67% of those polled think at least part of the law should be struck down I have trouble believing most think of striking it down as “judicial overreach.”
Even if they do think that, I’d simply call it “being right for the wrong reason.”
The Supreme Conciet of the United States.
I’m with you SD!!!
I have problems with that as well. I for instance would poll that way in saying that I think the rulings are going to be partisan, but as far as “judicial overreach” goes, that is a criticism of Kagan and Sotomayor et al for not finding against the mandate.
In reading the oral arguments I was shocked how the Democratic justices were actually making arguments that could be used to privatize Social Security, etc. I categorically expect the ruling to be partisan, but I categorically don’t see striking the mandate down as judicial overreach. If 2/3rds of the population think the law is unconstitutional, Obama would probably just be preaching to the choir of hardcore partisan Democrats if he tries that strategy rather than actually winning anyone over. Actually with 2/3rds opposing, I’d say he’d risk losing voters who think SCOTUS is partisan but also think ACA is unconstitutional.
Crap EI.
So let me see if I have this straight… If you people don’t get the decision you want, you’re willing to drag the Supreme Court into the sewer?
Really? What is the matter with you people?
LOL.
(1) Not the institution of the Supreme Court, but some of the justices. Just as we may not like particular Presidents or Congresspeople, but we appreciate the institutions.
(2) You do know that a lot of us dislike the mandate, and wouldn’t be all that sad to see it shot down, don’t you?
I mean, this is like asking, “Why are you booing the play? Do you hate all drama?” :-P
I love the way the Administration was all confident (on the merits of the case) until oral arguments, then it suddenly dawned on them that at LEAST four justices don’t give a rip about the law, they are going to rule however they want.
Here’s a hint – when a judge uses the phrase “original intent” it means they are just planning to make it up as they go along.
I’ll ask you again: Do you get paid for parading your ignorance day after day?
x2
No, that’s not right.
We’re willing to drag the Supreme Court, this one at least, into the sewer no matter what.
Are we good now????
X3
Did I do that right????
It didn’t help that they sent the “Barney Fife” of consitional lawyers up there to argue their case.
Don Knotts, RIP.
This is just more Kabuki. The Supreme Corporate Court won’t rule against a law that is the epitome of a financial gift to the Health Insurance Industry at the expense of affordable health care for the masses.
x 3
and add to that it was O that argued to have it all struck down if the mandate goes. Also it is O that has given teh IRS more billions to enforce it should it go through. So in other words the tax payer through the IRS will pay for the IRS to force us to buy insurance from a private company
O also argued to make it legal for anyone arrested for anything to be stripped forced to bend over and let a policeman peer up their bottom.
Don’t know about you guys but that and not the mandate sounds unconstitutional to me.
See Citizens United. They’re already in the sewer.
Next question?
And, just to clarify, you mean the “sanitary sewer”, not the “storm sewer”..right?
No…I’m X3, you’re X4.
LOL we must have been responding at the same time, hence did not see your post
“O also argued to make it legal for anyone arrested for anything to be stripped forced to bend over and let a policeman peer up their bottom.”
Let me alleviate any doubt. THAT didn’t play well down at the local “cruise and booze” AT ALL. One guy pointed out that he was so busy looking UP for unmanned murderous drones that someone could easaily slip up his ….sorry I gotta go.
Me thinks you type slowwwwwwwwwwly
Guess I cleared up the matter for “shooter”.
@ SD, you’re welcome.
Yes!!
…and the other 50% think it’ll be a bi-partisan decision?
which proves (to me at least) that the validity of the bi-partisan (read: GOP designed) solutions this WH has foisted upon us, is usually only measured by the “progressive” defense of them by the Stepford Dems who tolerate no criticism of Obama’s treacherous presidency.
I.e. – either way, we’re screwed.
Seeing the poll numbers on ACA, looks like Obama will be rooting for the SCOTUS to strike down the law. Then he can campaign on it til election day.
But, come on, people think the SCOTUS is above politics? Bush v. Gore was a 2×4 to every American’s forehead on that issue.
Which they will react to, how exactly??
(I mean, if they got away with Bush v. Gore….why stop??)
-stewartm
“Original intent” means “I’ll make up stuff about history as I please to divine a long-dead legislator’s state of mind, but won’t pick up the phone and call Bernie Sanders to ask ‘What did you guys have in mind when you wrote this?’”
Dead guys’ opinions are morphable, I suppose.
-stewartm
America’s Progressive Community, get off “easy” with any version of the Affordable Care Act. As such, “medicare for all” or “the VA for all” or “the Indian Health Services for all” is just over the horizon, or perhaps, it’s hiding around the next bend in the ‘road never taken”?
WhY?
There was and has been no “progressive caucus” in the Senate. As such, there was no viable platform to take on Mssrs. Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Sherrod Brown for starters. Thus, the “progressives” in the House, and after transferring to the Senate, no longer call or see themselves as “progressive.” And in this act of “un-camouflaged” politics, the former Progressives are now “conservatives” and for all to see and hear.
Now, who in the Progressive Community is going to step forward and call for the creation of the Progressive Caucus in the Senate?
Perhaps, Schumer, Durbin and Brown? :-)
Jaango