That really should be the argument that this is more tax policy versus commerce. Its clearly established that the government can tax and it can institute tax credits.
Do what? Have you even paid attention to this subject? Thats what this mandate is all about. It requires you to buy this product from "the filthy greedy profit-w**** system". You of all people should be against Obamacare.
IT would be pretty dishonest for Obama to make this argument since he claimed numerous times the mandate was not a tax. "I absolutely reject that notion"
Yes it is problematic because of prior rhetoric but from a legal standpoint that is the one that should be brought up. If I recall the previous ruling that said the mandate was constitutional did mention it in regard to the government's ability to tax.
Obama was approached by the people you speak of and was told they would not spend millions lobbying against his bill if he included the mandate. He was against a mandate before this deal.
Republicans were also for an individual mandate for the last 15 years until Democrats adopted the idea. Now they feel it's unconstitutional.
interesting developments I'd always assumed the administration would let the normal course of events unfold as the law heads to the supreme court. Obama Administration Moves Aggressively To Defend Health Care Law Before Supreme Court The Obama administration has taken its aggressive legal defense of the new health care law to a new level. In an unexpected twist, the Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to swiftly overturn an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the law's mandate requiring people to buy insurance is unconstitutional -- the only Circuit Court to rule this way so far. "[T]oday, the Obama Administration will ask the Supreme Court to hear this case, so that we can put these challenges to rest and continue moving forward implementing the law," wrote Stephanie Cutter, a senior Obama adviser, on the White House blog. "We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree." Here's how the Justice Department explains the development. "The Department has consistently and successfully defended this law in several court of appeals, and only the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional. We believe the question is appropriate for review by the Supreme Court. Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed. We believe the challenges to Affordable Care Act -- like the one in the 11th Circuit -- will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law." A three judge panel on the 11th Circuit found the individual mandate -- a key prong of the health care reform law -- unconstitutional. Earlier this week the administration declined to seek a review that ruling by the full circuit -- they've chosen instead to go straight to the top. It's a gamble that nearly guarantees the Supreme Court will decide the matter once and for all before the 2012 elections -- though some observers expected it would reach that point next summer regardless. It's a sign that the administration feels the existing circuit court rulings -- including favorable opinions by some conservative judges -- mean they'll likely prevail before the Supreme Court. Or, perhaps, that they want to make sure their own Solicitor General argues the case rather than risk handing the suit over to a potential Republican administration in 2013.
That makes sense, especially considering this Admin's defense of DOMA. Even though I think Obama's done quite a few worthwhile things, if all we end up getting is a single-term presidency and an intact national health insurance policy, it'll be worthwhile.
He thinks they can win it with the Supremes. It would be a nice consitutional club to bludgeon the GOP with during the campaign.
Or if they lose, it's a rallying cry/cautionary tale about 4 more years of wingnut judges making stuff up.
I don't see it as a win-win. A loss on Obamacare in the Supreme Court would destroy his candidacy. Not even I would vote for him at that point.
Why not base it on November 2012 powerball #'s as long as we're basing it on things he has no control over.
He had some control over what was in the bill. He took the strategy of an individual mandate (and of letting Congress write the thing). He could have done a tax and a single-payer system or some other scheme that would get different treatment in review. A defeat in the Supreme Court is in some part a reflection on his strategy in writing (or not writing) the bill. I wouldn't say it was random. But that's beside the point. Rightly or wrongly, Obamacare is the flagship of Obama's first term. Symbolically, a SC defeat for it is a backbreaker. It would be like the Democrats can't win anything -- even the things they already won. Liberals wouldn't rally against those evil SC justices; we'd slink into our caves and cry like little emo boys. I think it's a high-stakes game: winning in the SC would help some in the election, but losing would be the end.
LOL - so you would take what prttty much every veteran court watcher thinks is not even a rclose issue, watch the Republicans engage in what nakedly partisan commerce-clause destroying judicial shenanigans of pretty much unprecedented vintage (at least since the 1930's) to destroy it that nobody would have previously believed possible....and decide "well, it must be his fault!" Or you could just be dead wrong.
Yeah I really don't get why people who support Obama would think that a USSC defeat would be a good thing.
Well, yes. It's a "the buck stops here" kinda thing. If Obama doesn't get what he wants, he went after it the wrong way. Or, if it was impossible to achieve, he shouldn't have tried. You want me to blame the Republicans? They are doing just what they do -- oppose Democrats. As for the Slate article, I read it, but I'm not having a conversation with Slate. Why don't you tell me why I'm wrong. That a politcal commentator disagrees with me isn't a very persuasive argument.
