2012 Tuesday: A Supreme (Court) moment for the election
A key moment in the 2012 presidential campaign happened yesterday. If you blinked, you may have missed it.
Last month, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta, struck down Obamacare’s individual mandate as unconstitutional. Yesterday was the deadline for the Obama administration to ask the entire appeals court to rehear the case, which comes from a lawsuit filed by Florida and joined by Georgia and 24 other states. The administration did not do so.
Instead, the administration will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court — which most likely would take the case, hear it and issue a ruling by the end of the court’s term, around late June or early July.
As in, roughly four months before the general election.
Whoa, Nellie.
Whatever the outcome — and the Supreme Court could uphold the law entirely (as some other federal courts have done), strike it down entirely (as the District Court did in the Florida case) or strike down part(s) of it (as the 11th Circuit did) — it’s bound to have an effect on President Obama’s re-election bid.
But what kind of effect? If the justices strike down all of the law, or even just key parts of it like the individual mandate, I have a hard time imagining that being positive for Obama. It’s not as if Democrats are positioned anytime soon to recapture a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate (60 seats). So, passing a modified version of Obamacare to put the law back on the books is pretty much out of the question. And I don’t think he’ll be able to convince his base otherwise.
Republicans and Republican-leaners — especially the tea-party faction — might suffer a little deflation from seeing one of their main objectives achieved. But the argument over the size and scope of government will continue and, unlike Democrats, the GOP would get momentum from a court victory and might be able to build upon it.
If the court upholds Obamacare, I could see the effects reversed, up to a point. Democrats would likely get an enthusiasm boost from seeing one of the president’s signature legislative achievements confirmed by the high court. Republicans might slump somewhat, but a GOP president could still do a lot to halt, slow down or modify implementation of the law — that’s one of the problems congressional Democrats created for themselves by leaving so much of the rule-making and final shape of the law in the hands of the secretary of Health and Human Services, and putting off so much of that activity until after the 2012 elections. Plus, the GOP could still campaign on “repeal and replace” more credibly than Democrats could campaign on “pass it again.”
A more open question, however, may be the effect this judicial process will have on the Republican nomination.
Mitt Romney has survived Rick Perry’s entry into the race in part because of Perry’s debate stumbles. But he’s also benefited from the inability of Perry and other Republican candidates to make Romney pay a political price for Romneycare law in Massachusetts. I’ve been amazed that Romney has been able to get by so far with his nuanced — some would say empty — defense of the distinctions between his law and Obama’s.
Say the Supreme Court holds arguments for the Obamacare lawsuits (it’s probable that they’ll merge the 11th Circuit case with those from elsewhere around the country) in February. How could it possibly help Romney to have health reform back at the forefront of the national political dialogue right when the primaries are heating up?
On the other hand, there’s a chance the nomination fight drags on inconclusively well into the spring. And the 2012 GOP Convention isn’t until late August…which is well after the Supreme Court likely will have rendered its decision. If the law is struck down entirely or in large part, might that remove a big cloud hanging over Romney? I don’t think the nomination will still be in doubt by late June/early July. But you never know.
My bet would be that the court case will help a non-Romney Republican both get the nomination and defeat Obama. In any case, yesterday’s decision to tee up a Supreme Court ruling before the election added more drama to what’s shaping up as an all-timer in American politics.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
109 comments Add your comment
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:01 pm
“Tort reform would NOT work because it DENIES a person’s right to seek redress by a jury of his peers; the jury is the force that determines the probable judgment…and by limiting such judgments, you’re advocating the denial of due process!”
Wrong, tort reform does not DENY any rights. It just limits them to reasonable judgments.
“Pooling would work ONLY if the pool encompasses ALL probabilities; if you focus on pooling like-minded entities, the risk won’t be evenly spread..and costs would be prohibitive for those in “high risk” illnesses!!”
I suggest you read ALL of what I posted, HDB. Difficult for you to stray from the talking points I know, but try.
“Plans across state lines won’t work because the insurance companies WON’T cover! Example: person in NY buys a health insurance policy in Mississippi…and discovers cancer; person goes to Sloan-Kettering in NY for treatment. MS policy would only pay MS rate…which is 30% of NY…person either goes in bankruptcy or dies.”
Would they have gone to Sloan-Kettering today? No. Why would they try in the proposed change? They wouldn’t.
“Same person purchases multiple policies to cover to cost differential; isnurance cmopanies argue as to which policy is PRIMARY…and neither pays!!”
Fantasy.
“Another example: person in GA gets ill in IA, sees PCP in IA which accepts GA insurance. GA insurance won’t pay!!”
You don’t understand the whole “across state lines” thing, do you?
“BTW: Pre-existing rejection was eliminated under “ObamaCare”……”
And could well be overturned at the SCOTUS if the whole bill is struck down.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
1:02 pm
Ivan the terrible – nope, still here and with a functioning connection to the ‘internets’, to boot.
Politi Cal
September 27th, 2011
1:03 pm
Cert denied.
yuzeyurbrane
September 27th, 2011
1:09 pm
If the Supremes declare any part of the law unconstitutional, it is likely to only be the individual mandate; it is also just as likely they will uphold the law in its entirety. I disagree that Congress would not come up with a modification taking care of Supreme Court objections. There are traditional methods to encourage but not require the purchase of health insurance which would also meet the objections of many Republicans and independents.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:11 pm
“which of these is false and which true (both spoken by a typical doctor in the USA today):”
In the real world, 2 is the truthful answer (if they would answer truthfully in a public setting, which they will not).
They admit so.
Aurelius
September 27th, 2011
1:12 pm
“So, it seems that five people could actually decide who our next president will be? Hey, is this a great Country or what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Yes it is! See Bush v Gore.
The Court will NOT refuse to hear the Obamacare cases. The Circuit Courts have already determined that all plaintiffs have standing.
Now the Court must decide what the Constitution says in regard to the Commerce Clause and mandatory requirements to
buy into the system. We already have “mandatory” in our laws and have for decades. So mandatory on its own is Constitutional. The question is on connecting “mandatory” and the Commerce Clause.
So far the Roberts court has been a “big government” court. So one would expect them to uphold Obamacare based on their prior thinking.
But it is an election year. And the Bush v Gore decision removed any pretense that the Supreme Court was “aloof” from the demands of party politics.
Maintaining Sanity in Today's World
September 27th, 2011
1:18 pm
Tiberius
I don’t understand please explain.
Why is a mandate ok if the program is privatized? It remains a mandate.
In fact the program itself was mandated by the Pinochet government?
It does not seem to make sense? Seriously, can you please explain or point me to a source that will?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:19 pm
“And the Bush v Gore decision removed any pretense that the Supreme Court was “aloof” from the demands of party politics.”
Yeah, ’cause we wouldn’t want ALL ballots in a state counted using the SAME standards rather than cherry-picking the Democrat counties, now would we?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:20 pm
“Why is a mandate ok if the program is privatized?”
Because it’s a private company.
theTruth
September 27th, 2011
1:21 pm
Candidate Cain and free markets, now I don’t care who you are that’s funny
Ol' Timer
September 27th, 2011
1:22 pm
@KyleKyleGoAway — My friend, you have hit the nail on the head.
The Republican/Tea Party has no strategy other than the rehearsing of Reagan’s Supply Economics which George Bush, Sr. aptly referred to as “voodoo economics.”
It didn’t work for Reagan and it hasn’t worked for anyone who tried it, yet for the Republican/Tea Party it is the cure-all for our economic issues.
The GOTP is bereft of ideas, so they rehearse Reaganomics and oppose anything the President proposes which is beginning to wear thin with those who have suffered most during this crisis.
At a time when the middle class is stressed to the limits, the upper class — the gazillionaires and big businesses — are prospering thanks to the largesse of the GOTP who have taken care of their constinuency — which by the way, ain’t the middle class.
HDB
September 27th, 2011
1:22 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:01 pm
“Wrong, tort reform does not DENY any rights. It just limits them to reasonable judgments.”
It is the JURY that sets the judgment…AND to determine the reasonableness vs. the damage! If you LIMIT what the jury can do…you ARE denying due process for someone who seeks remedy from damages!!
““Pooling would work ONLY if the pool encompasses ALL probabilities; if you focus on pooling like-minded entities, the risk won’t be evenly spread..and costs would be prohibitive for those in “high risk” illnesses!!”
I suggest you read ALL of what I posted, HDB. Difficult for you to stray from the talking points I know, but try.”
I did….pooling, as advocated by Republicans, was to allow LIKE-MINDED entities to come together to purchase insurance. The problem is that by allowing ONLY pooling of like-minded entities, the costs of “high risk illnesses” won’t be evenly spread!! Not a talking point…but a systemic view!!
““Plans across state lines won’t work because the insurance companies WON’T cover! Example: person in NY buys a health insurance policy in Mississippi…and discovers cancer; person goes to Sloan-Kettering in NY for treatment. MS policy would only pay MS rate…which is 30% of NY…person either goes in bankruptcy or dies.”
Would they have gone to Sloan-Kettering today? No. Why would they try in the proposed change? They wouldn’t.” A person will seek the BEST MEDICAL ADVICE AVAILABLE; if that person deems Sloan-Kettering the best place to treat their affliction, don’t you thik that’s where that person would go!!?? If a MS policy only pays MS rates, that policy would be insufficient coverage for a NY situation!!
“Same person purchases multiple policies to cover to cost differential; isnurance cmopanies argue as to which policy is PRIMARY…and neither pays!!” Fantasy.” Not so!! This is PERSONAL experience!! I’ve WORKED in the insurance industry…and they will do everything to shift coverage to the other company!!
“Another example: person in GA gets ill in IA, sees PCP in IA which accepts GA insurance. GA insurance won’t pay!!” Another case from personal experience!!
What the GOP desires to do is to DENY due process by telling a jury what CAN’T be done rather than what the law should address!!
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
1:24 pm
@Aurelius – “the Roberts court has been a ‘big government’ court”? On a message board replete with almost nothing but complete factual inaccuracy and tautological scatology, you win the award for most boneheaded comment of the interwebs today. Two harrops and a hearty ‘good on ya’ for the effort.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:25 pm
“If you LIMIT what the jury can do…you ARE denying due process for someone who seeks remedy from damages!!”
No, it does not.
MrLiberty
September 27th, 2011
1:26 pm
Thankfully Ron Paul will be getting the republican nomination and he supports a truly free market in health care. While his plan first involves HSAs, tax credits, freedom for insurance sales accross state lines, he fully recognizes the role licensing restrictions, insurance mandates and the heavy and oppressive hand the FDA has played in destroying the system of health care delivery in this country. Since he is clearly the only candidate that truly understands what a free market is, and supports it, he is best poised to introduce legislation and support legislation that will return one to this country. That would clearly be the best solution to our health care crisis. A supreme court decision is immaterial to Ron Paul. He will be fighting to restore our freedoms, regardless of the outcome.
Ron Paul 2012.
Maintaining Sanity in Today's World
September 27th, 2011
1:28 pm
Tiberius
A private company running it? OK.
However isn’t it required for all Chilean citizens to enroll?
If so it becomes a mandate from a private company to the entire population to buy disability and life insurance. Why can a private company mandate the population to make a purchase but the government cannot?
ElephantWhip
September 27th, 2011
1:30 pm
Mi Aureli:
The 3rd, 4th, and 9th Circuits dismissed for lack of standing. Others did not. Thus, a conflict exists between circuits on this issue, so it should be addressed. Whether the Supreme Court finds standing or not is a different issue, but it should be reviewed due to the conflict.
Aurelius
September 27th, 2011
1:34 pm
“Yeah, ’cause we wouldn’t want ALL ballots in a state counted using the SAME standards rather than cherry-picking the Democrat counties, now would we?”
That is not what the Court ruled in Bush v Gore. See the Chief Justice’s majority decision and his footnote on stare decisis re the case.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:40 pm
“That is not what the Court ruled in Bush v Gore.”
The effective result is that they did.
Maintaining Sanity in Today's World
September 27th, 2011
1:53 pm
Tiberius?
DebbieDoRight
September 27th, 2011
2:02 pm
The effective result is that they did
Not it’s not. George Clooney/Ahnald/Clinton You might know civcs (sarc) but you don’t know anything about reading legal decisions.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
2:06 pm
“Not it’s not.”
Yeah, it was. They simply made sure that ALL the state was recounted in the same way. They didn’t rule that way, but the result was the same.
Maintaining Sanity in Today's World
September 27th, 2011
2:06 pm
Tiberius
I can only assume at this point you are not a good source on this issue and will attempt to find someone who knows what they are talking about.
ElephantWhip
September 27th, 2011
2:09 pm
Tiberius:
They STOPPED the recounting. They did not find that all precincts had counted in the same way or recounted the same way.
It’s not in the opinion, but, if you want to argue the ends justifies (and overlooks) the means on the ruling, it was this. The republican majority in the Supreme Court held that the republican secretary of state in Florida could shut the re-count down and send in the electoral votes to put a republican in office.
Ayn Rant
September 27th, 2011
2:24 pm
Can anyone explain why health care for all Americans is bad? The citizens of other developed countries have universal, no hassle health care coverage, and they live longer and are in better health at all stages of life. Why shouldn’t Americans? We can afford it: we’ve not a poor country; we’re just a poorly managed country.
Why do some Americans hate millions of other Americans they’ve never even met? Is it that many white Americans begrudge African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans the benefits of first class citizenship?
HDB
September 27th, 2011
2:27 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
1:25 pm
“If you LIMIT what the jury can do…you ARE denying due process for someone who seeks remedy from damages!!”
No, it does not.”
Actua;;y, it does……you are stating that a jury of your peers can not make a reasoned AND reasonable decision based on the preponderance of the evidence. THAT runs counter to every constitutional protection afforded in the legal system. If a jury makes a decision based on the evidence presented, who are we as someone not privy to the evidence presented to state that the jury was unreasonable! Unpopular…yes…but not unreasonable!!
Independent
September 27th, 2011
2:42 pm
Pete
11:44 am
“We are the only first world country in the world that does not have health care for all of its citizens.”
Health care is available to everyone here in the US. I’m not aware of any law that says only certain people are allowed or disallowed healthcare. I think what you meant to say was that we are the only first world country that allows the moochers to get free healthcare while the rest of us pay for it.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
2:53 pm
“I can only assume at this point you are not a good source on this issue and will attempt to find someone who knows what they are talking about.”
No, you may not assume anything, lest you wish to live the results of same, ’cause you know what assume means, don’t you?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
2:59 pm
“The republican majority in the Supreme Court held that the republican secretary of state in Florida could shut the re-count down and send in the electoral votes to put a republican in office.”
One, there was no Republican majority in the SCOTUS. Politics do not play in their decisions, no matter how much your conspiracy theory cries for it.
Two, their ruling allowed the SOS to shut down a recount of ONLY selected Democrat-majority counties who were using a counting standard that was not used equally across the state. You have heard of “equal protection under the law”, haven’t you?
Three, EVERY objective independent recount has ruled that if the same standard was used across the state, Bush STILL would have won.
Nice try, but you libs need something else to cry about with Bush out of office. That particular dog hasn’t hunted since 2002.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:01 pm
“Why do some Americans hate millions of other Americans they’ve never even met?’
Why do losers always paint people they’ve never met who want equal responsibility across all spectra as haters?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:03 pm
“you are stating that a jury of your peers can not make a reasoned AND reasonable decision based on the preponderance of the evidence.”
Correct. See McDonalds v. the idiot who put a cup of coffee between her legs.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:05 pm
“Thankfully Ron Paul will be getting the republican nomination . . . ”
I didn’t realize that pigs were scheduled to fly sometime in 2012.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
3:08 pm
Tiberius, sweetheart – so much hate today. Much more than usual. Insurance company refuse to refill your anti psychotic meds? Poor, poor hate-filled one.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:14 pm
Ahhhh. The “you must be taking drugs” response.
Overdue, but all too typical.
And as usual, you fail to realize that I do not generate hate, I am a conduit for the hate you libs eventually spew when you get caught in your phony arguments.
Just as you always are.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
3:22 pm
Tibby, dear – I see, no denial, but rather unable to afford. Too bad you wont suck on the govt teat, even if only ’till you got better. Oh well, more hate for the world.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
3:25 pm
Tubby, darling – one more thing: you don’t see the (logical) inconsistency between you ‘not generating’ hate but nonetheless being ‘a conduit for the hate’ spewed by liberals. See? You do in fact generate hate. Tsk tsk.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
3:29 pm
KyleKyle, you need to brush up on your English language skills.
A conduit does not generate, but rather channels that which is generated.
Nice try, but another fail.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
3:36 pm
Tibby the hatemonger – and who is generating the hate that is flowing through your conduit? Why, none other than tibby the hate filled one. (I’d love to see you in a debate with rick the oil slick perry. It’d make a great, unscripted skit on snl)
Skip
September 27th, 2011
4:26 pm
Health care for everyone is so un American.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
4:28 pm
KyleKyle, please detail any and all “hate” I have generated in my posts.
Please.
I need a laugh today.
KyleKyleGoAway
September 27th, 2011
4:42 pm
O tibster ye full of hate – sorry but there isn’t enough time in the day. I leave you with this as my parting thought of the day (from the book of job): with hate in your heart ye shall remain but a hate filled serf to the master of nothing.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
September 27th, 2011
4:43 pm
I accept your surrender, KyleKyle.
Come back when you can actually debate a valid point, rather than the drivel you so readily spew.
Jefferson
September 27th, 2011
5:15 pm
Health cost is not something that just came up since 2008. What was the GOP doing when they had all 3 branchs of the gov’t. (2000-2006) I know the part D medicare cost a lot and bought a lot of votes, but why didn’t they attack the problem? At least Romney sees a problem, but now he has to shut up and toe the line.
Gordon
September 27th, 2011
5:37 pm
I don’t normally agree with Jefferson, but his 11:10 is right on.
Gordon
September 27th, 2011
5:38 pm
…and his 5:15.
I don’t like most Democrat ideas, but Republicans spend too much time saying what they won’t do rather than what they will do.
CJ
September 27th, 2011
5:41 pm
RE: “My bet would be that the court case will help a non-Romney Republican both get the nomination and defeat Obama.”
Ppposition to the health care law is not as dominant as Republican critics would have us believe. Polls continue to show that supporters and critics are about evenly divided, and when drilling down into the data, a significant number of the critics don’t like the law because it’s not liberal enough (e.g., no option for non-seniors to buy into Medicare [aka: "Medicare for All"]).
In addition, when asked about the actual provisions of the health care law, its generally found that most people support these provisions–prevents personal bankruptcy caused by health care costs by eliminating coverage limits and capping out-of-pocket payments, eliminates ability to deny coverage or charge more due to pre-existing conditions, reduces the cost of Medicare (the main driver of long-term deficits) by eliminating waste,…
Hopefully these benefits will be reiterated during the election campaign, and I would suggest that Democrats run on passing Medicare for All. Health insurance is still unaffordable for millions, and Republican ideas for improving the system only improve the system for insurers and providers, but at the expense of you and me.
Jefferson
September 27th, 2011
5:51 pm
Thanks, Gordon. I wouldn’t expect many to agree with my posts and many times I’m just trying to provoke thought. If everyone was the same, the commies might have something, but because of that fact, it just don’t work and was destined to fail.
Mo'Nique
September 27th, 2011
5:53 pm
“Whatever the outcome … it’s bound to have an effect on President Obama’s re-election bid.”
Nah, at this point it’ll be like ObamaCare never even happened. Going into the next election with a 9%+ national unemployment rate and the U.S. economy on the ropes he’ll be history.
@@
September 27th, 2011
7:28 pm
Early in the health care debate, Republicans were asking Obama to slow down…there were things within the bill they could agree on and things they found unacceptable. They, too, saw room for reform but were opposed to a complete overhaul. They offered their own proposals…Obama and the dems would have none of them.
Talk about in over his head. Obama went for a watered down version of what his base wanted and is in the process of drowning in his mistakes.
Streetracer
September 27th, 2011
7:49 pm
Don’t know if many are still here, but I’ll offer a few comments.
1. To answer Ayn Rant @ 2:24 – Part of the reason that health care outcomes aren’t as good here as in Europe has to do with demographics. I have relatives that would have to drive about 8 miles to get to a county road (where their mailbox is), another 8 – 9 miles to a paved road 10 miles or so to a place where there are enough houses in sight of each other that one might call it a “town”, another 10 miles or so to a town big enough to have a doctor. So a trip to the doctor means pretty much all day (unless its winter, and there’s a foot and a half of snow, which would make the trip longer). So that is a day when the livestock doesn’t get fed, and the crops don’t get tended, and they are losing their livlyhood. One has to be pretty bad off before he does that. But many health conditions are easy to cure in early stages, but much harder later. The US has a lot more people in that situation than europe.
2. As far as the 2000 election, if Gore had won his home state, Florida would not have mattered. He is, I believe the Presidential candidate in my lifetime (fairly long) to not win his home state.