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

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

109 comments Add your comment

Jefferson

September 27th, 2011
9:10 pm

Whoever is the president in Jan 2013 will have a 9% unemployment number likely and to blame them would be just wrong, but it incites.

buck@gon

September 27th, 2011
10:24 pm

Kyle,

If the Court upholds the law, I think you’re wrong Kyle. There will be one enormous bunch of pissed-off people (including me), and I think it goes against Obama, and against Congress like some sort of amplified blowback.

Besides, before the law passed, Obama didn’t make the case. He simply bullied and threatened enough people to pass it as obliquely as he seemed to do in public. Since it has passed, no one has even wanted to go to bat for it and defend it, except Obama himself and Pelosi. So many egg-on-the-face incidents occured in the struggle to get it passed, (eg., “we’ll have to pass it to find out what’s in it”; “bending the cost curve”; and “healthcare issues are economic issues”) that I think it would be far better for all liberals and Obama supporters if the whole healthcare thing just disappeared behind a magician’s curtain until full implementation in 2014. I think bringing this up reminds the country who the president is, and it reinforces the final Republican candidates pledge to rid us not just of the bill, but the stink of it too.

It won’t go away now; it’s Obama’s “quagmire”, and that’s what makes me say, Oh Yeah baby!

buck@gon

September 27th, 2011
10:40 pm

Jefferson,
Why not write of improvements that could be made to the health care systems instead of gutter politics? Where are the GOP ideas , other than let the costs skyrocket and too bad if you can’t afford health care. Where is the effort?

I could make a great “effort” to build a bridge, but if it collapses and kills someone, I’m not going to get much credit for my “effort.”

Congress and the federal government have many problems to address. At the top of their list are constitutionally mandated duties long neglected by Democrats especially. The Congress and Obama, in fact, have not passed a budget since Obama was elected.

That’s embarassing and plainly wrong.

As for healthcare, there have been many proposals by Republicans that include removing federal and state mandates to care to open the markets for private innovation. But if your desired solution is of the federal one-size-fits-all healthcare plan., ie., Britain, Canada or some other socialized command healthcare economy, those plans WILL NOT be offered by conservatives, and ONLY those kinds of plans will be offered by Democrats.

That is why, when it comes to healthcare solutions, the only real debate has gone on along the right side of the aisle since all of this mess started. As for the solution, are you really giving Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama credit for “passing something,” or more explicitly the we’ll-know-what’s-in-it-after-we-pass-it bill?

Given Congress’ constitutional duties, and despite the “effort”, their “accomplishment” sounds pretty rash and foolish to me, does it to you, Jefferson?

Somehow I wonder how much we appreciate their “effort” while we are all applying our own efforts earnestly to stay gainfully employed under increasing costs, creeping government influence, an over-regulating EPA.

Tell us, if the oceans do rise anyway, will you give Obama credit for his “effort” once again?

Lil' Barry Bailout

September 28th, 2011
6:13 am

Your Idiot Messiah didn’t inherit 9% unemployment. He created it and implemented policies that kept it there going on three years. Our next president will likely inherit 9% but, assuming it’s an American, er, Republican (same thing), he will naturally favor policies that will correct the mistakes of the past three years.

HDB

September 28th, 2011
7:28 am

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.”

So does this also mean that anyone who is sentenced to DEATH by a jury of his peers did not make a reasoned and reasonable decision from the evidence presented?? You CAN extrapolate your reasoning to include this also!!!

As I said…the ruling may be UNPOPULAR…but it IS reasonable to a jury under the scope of the evidence presented!! Can’t have it both ways, T!!

HDB

September 28th, 2011
7:30 am

Lil’ Barry Bailout

September 28th, 2011
6:13 am
“Your Idiot Messiah didn’t inherit 9% unemployment….”

Actually, he DID!! The recession of 2007-8 was the genesis of 9% unemployment…..lest you forget that unemployment is a LAGGING indicator of the economy!!

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

September 28th, 2011
8:17 am

“So does this also mean that anyone who is sentenced to DEATH by a jury of his peers did not make a reasoned and reasonable decision from the evidence presented??”

Possibly. Your point being . . .?

One difference is that criminal trials for murder require unanimous agreement, while civil trials do not, meaning that criminal juries usually get it right.

Now with Ten Percent More Flavor

September 28th, 2011
8:30 am

Will it not be a glorious day for us all once the key provision of the healthcare legislation is smitten by the conservative supremes. Finally, insurance companies will be freed to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions and to rescind insurance policies on a whim and to increase premiums more frequently and to increase premiums for whatever reason without needing to worry about how much of a policyholder’s premium is actually used to provide insurance. Free market capitalism shall once again rule over healthcare as it was intended per our great constitution. Rejoice brethren.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

September 28th, 2011
8:44 am

Ah, I see the rhetorical flowers are in full bloom this morning . . . :roll: