Tweet
If the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of President Obama’s signature health care law, some Democratic operatives appear to be hoping that outrage towards an out of control “activist” Supreme Court could be leveraged for politic advantage. However, polling to date shows that popular outrage over the Court’s potentialecision against the Act is not likely to materialize.
To begin with many people want the Court to strike down all or part of the law. A Quinnipiac poll from April found 49 percent thought the Court should throw out the law, while 38 percent thought it should uphold it. A Washington Post-ABC News poll from the same month found 67 percent wanted the Court to throw out part or all of the law. The Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll found 51 percent thought the Court should rule against the individual mandate, with just 26 percent thinking it should uphold it. If the Court does what most people want or expect it to do, it’s unlikely that action will be seen as a real overreach.
Perhaps more importantly, few seem heavily invested in maintaining the law, even though millions could be affected by the Court’s decision. A new NBC/WSJ poll found a plurality would have simply mixed feelings if the Court strikes down the whole law. Only 17 percent would be very disappointed by this outcome, with another 5 percent somewhat disappointed. Similarly, the poll found a majority, 55 percent, thought the Court striking down the mandate would make no difference to their family.
There is only a small base of strong supporters of the Affordable Care Act. They would likely see the Court ruling against it as an out of control act of judicial activism, but they will likely be in the minority. While the ruling could potentially energize them, I suspect this block nearly perfectly overlaps with Obama’s strongest backers, and they are already as energized at they are likely to get.
Anyone expecting or hoping a Court ruling against the health care law will created a popular backlash against the Court is likely to be very disappointed. Unlike the highly unpopular Citizens United decision, a ruling against the ACA would be relatively popular and expected, not exactly fertile ground for trying to generate popular outrage.
38 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
No there will not be a “backlash” however people do understand what political hacks sit on that supreme court and it is widely known that they are making decisions based on their own beliefs on how we should all live in this country. That institution needs to undergo a complete renovation and those justices should have to be elected by the people and should serve term limits.
Jon, you might want to fix “potentialecision” in the first paragraph.
Yesterday I read that voters don’t like “the law” but they like what’s in it. Apparently they have been told not to like it but when asked about the individual parts, they do like it. We’re all nuts now.
It would be sad if the Democrats try to rally their base around one of the biggest sellouts to corporate interests they’ve produced in a long time.
I think the only major objection people have is the mandate.
It makes sense to prefer the other provisions, which all benefit health, while disliking the mandate for purchase, right?
Don’t forget, when the scotus was making good, progressive decisions (even if forced, see FDR), we didn’t need to elect the judges, even though many people on the right thought that the justices were political hacks. I don’t like their decisions most of the time, but wanting to elect them is not always a cure. After all, Earl Warren was the CA atty gen who approved the removal of the Japanese citizens to the concentration camps so he was seen as a “good soldier” of the status quo. As he was appointed, he was able to make a decision that went totally against the status quo.
The best way to run this against the Court and Republicans would be to say “Republicans want to give insurance companies the right to deny you coverage” and “Republicans want insurance companies to have the final say on your health.” From what I understand insurers have unmoored themselves from Obama and are counting on Republicans eliminating the entire law because they don’t want the “no mandate but maintain regulations” outcome. I don’t give a damn if Obama or Democrats demagogue the issue and win in Nov. because of it; I’m simply stating that it’s not dead in the water as a political wedge. It’s going to be a HUGE IN YOUR FACE issue as of tomorrow, so it’s not like people are going to ho-hum the SC’s decision.
Remember, here at FDL, there was great antipathy to the aca bill because of the sellout by 0 through backdoor manuevering. he did not support any kind of better bill or earlier implimentation.
Actually I expect celebratory behviour here and among some othe liberal strongholds if obamaca or the mandate is struck down.
We are through the looking glass here folks.
If you want people to truly start to care about health care, just abolish employer coverage and all regulations pertaining to insurance companies! Just make this country a goddamn Wild West. Oh! And make sure Medicare becomes a total clusterf*ck too.
I give Americans less than 2 years after that to Grab Congress by the throat and force them to do the right things…or be choked into oblivion.
sCOTUS won’t strikes down nothing.
I agree.
Indeed,i will be one of them, i don’t like mnadates.
Let me get this straight. The same people that Obama told to go fuck themselves while he passed a Heritage Foundation Health Care Law that these people didn’t want are now supposed to be outraged that the right wing partisan jerks on the Supreme Court are going to undo this crappy bill. Sounds completely logical if you’re a corporate Democrat.
I think that about sums it up. Crazy, isn’t it? At this point I don’t much care what they do. (throwing up hands)
Well,wake up,in case you haven’t realized you are already sad from the very beginning of ACA,NO UNIVERSAL,NO SINGLE PAYER,NO MEDICARE FOR ALL,NO PO,no will whatsoever came from president Obama and DEMs for a true solution,instead a despicable mandate and sold out to rapacious insurers and Big Pharma,same insurers that make sure president Obama stays seated in his chair,i mean: MONEY(corporatist politicians).
I do remember rascal Pelosi changing her mind and her speech every single day trough negotiations of ACA.
TYPO ALERT:
As Bear Country noted, you might want to fix
You hit the nail on the head. I don’t know how an organization that ran such an effective campaign can be so out of touch with reality. And we’re supposed to get excited because the President took a brief break from giving special interests _______ (insert your favorite metaphor here) to spout some populist rhetoric?? Give me a break!
I am still going to be mildly surprised if they strike this down. The court is the corporatist supporter and the insurance companies stand to make a pile of bucks off this.
Yup. Don’t know why they call this Obamacare ’cause Obama didn’t care! Shut out all single payer advocates and listened to those slim bag Emmanuel brothers. It was all a Sturm and Drang with the ultimate goal of maintaining the status quo. Mission accomplished.
The individual private insurance mandate is constitutional, if precedent means anything. OTOH the mandate is a really bad idea that came from a right-wing think tank. I won’t be sorry to see it go, if our partisan Supreme Court decides to follow politics instead of the law.
“… justices should have to be elected by the people and should serve term limits.”
Then the SCOTUS could be just like the Supreme Court of Texas.
No Thanks.
Both the most ardent supporters and opponents of ACA might pick up a copy of Eric Hoffer’s “True Believer” and reread. Then, “The Ordeal of Change.”
Term/age limits, Yes. Elections, No.
That’s still the one BIG caveat in all this.
Stupid to have the law pass in 2010 and put off implementation of the biggest changes until 2014. I know that big changes take time but Medicare was up and running a year after it passed. If the law were totaly in effect, it is unlikely this lawsuit could have happened.
Lets see – the common citizen likes the benefits but doesn’t like paying for it in any way. Or even better, have it paid for by someone else.
I think Obama et. al. know all about their reality.
1. Obama sold “hope and change” to the voters.
2. It was all bullshit, because he serves moneyed interests.
3. Now that there is an upcoming election, he is selling “hope and change” again.
4. Guess what number four is.
Obama et. al. know the vast majority of voters will eat up any shit sandwich that is served in the run-up to the election. That is all the reality needed.
Yeah. By analogy, there were instances last summer in which some rural residents did not want to pay the county for fire services. When their home caught on fire, the county fire department made sure everyone was safe, but then let the home burn. Fighting the fire would have put department personnel at risk.
“…s but doesn’t like paying for it in any way..”
There is a big difference between being willing to pay for healthcare or insurance and not wanting to be forced to enrich for profit insurance companies.
Create a Medicare buy in for people between 50 and 65 and see how fast people sign up. Why do you think Lieberman was so opposed to this?
That seems to best fit the facts I’ve observed.
~
Exactly mr coach,you got a point there.
“likes the benefits but doesn’t like paying for it in any way. Or even better, have it paid for by someone else.”
Exactly. Such an attitude is only reasonable for bankers and other financiers who need many trillions of dollars, not citizens who want a few billion for health care. Better “Too Big to Fail” than “Too Small to Ail”.
” some Democratic operatives appear to be hoping that outrage towards an out of control “activist” Supreme Court could be leveraged for politic advantage.”
If true, it shows just how out of touch the democrats. Opposition to ACA does not easily bifurcate along conventional party lines. There are plenty of us lefties that hate all or parts of ACA just as much as the teabaggers. Add in a bunch of dem loyalists who support it just because Obama signed it and defend it as “the best he could do”.
Personally, I am still more outraged at Obama and the dems for legislating a Heritage Foundation plan than i will ever be at the court over this issue.
Well, this common citizen doesn’t like the “benefit” of being forced by the government to buy crap insurance. I don’t want the government to force me to buy a corporate product, so the industry can make even more money and wield even more power in Congress.
ok so if the SC upholds the ACA and you don’t buy the insurance what are the consequences for you?????
and apparently they all are all internet bloggers. no one I know gives two shits about this bill. only people who seem to care have always been dem blogger apparatchiks