Scary SCOTUS

[pappy]

TPM points oout in this story about the court that Justice Ginsburg is predicting a court session with "sharp disagreement" in the weeks ahead as many important decision are handed down.

TPM quotes Ginsburg:

Quote:“The term has been more than usually taxing, some have called it the term of the century,” Ginsburg said. In the next few weeks, the court must decide around 15 cases, including the high profile cases over health care and Arizona’s controversial immigration law. Ginsburg called it “flood season.”

“As one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remain pending,” she said. “So it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after.”

With so much at stake in this Presidential election year and the current makeup of the corporate Roberts Court I do not see this as a good sign for decisions on the side of progress.

Ginsburg doesn't do much to ease my mind:

Quote:Ginsburg also spent time talking about the importance of dissents, causing Court-watchers to perk up. “I have spoken on more than one occasion about the utility of dissenting opinions, noting in particular that they can reach audiences outside the court and can propel legislative or executive change,” Ginsburg said.

It certainly sounds as if she is hoping she can spur action with weighty and sharp descents in upcoming decisions.

[Drunken Irishman]

It certainly seems like it's a given the SC will rule to strike down the mandate. In fact, I'd wager that is the expectation now. My guess is the White House probably already knows this and it's why they've come out in the last few weeks saying they have a Plan B in place just in case the court rules against the mandate, which appears they will. Granted, it could all be theatrics, but the language the President uses, especially privately, seems to suggest their confidence isn't high.

We'll see, though. My guess is that the court strikes it down 5-4 and then we find ourselves in a tricky situation where the whole bill is either scrapped because it loses its effectiveness without a mandate, or they compromise it down to what Rahm Emanuel was pushing in the early days of 2010 when it looked like the whole bill might die - basically, just bits and pieces of popular legislation.

I did have to laugh that Robert Reich, who really isn't that well versed on this subject, has written articles making predictions and his latest kind of suggests striking down the mandate would benefit the whole deal because it will lead to a public option. I disagree completely. It won't lead to a public option. Reich is great on some issues, awful on others - like when he suggested the court might rule in favor of the mandate solely to save their public image. A) that's ridiculous, the court that gave us Citizen United doesn't give two shits about its public image and B) that idea is laughable when you realize most Americans want it overturned - or at least a split of the country wants it overturned. It was just a funny comment coming from someone who doesn't know much about the Court (he also said two weeks ago that a decision would be handed down within the day and nothing came of it).

[There Is No Spoon]

(06-16-2012 07:19 PM)Drunken Irishman Wrote:  It certainly seems like it's a given the SC will rule to strike down the mandate. In fact, I'd wager that is the expectation now. My guess is the White House probably already knows this and it's why they've come out in the last few weeks saying they have a Plan B in place just in case the court rules against the mandate, which appears they will. Granted, it could all be theatrics, but the language the President uses, especially privately, seems to suggest their confidence isn't high.

We'll see, though. My guess is that the court strikes it down 5-4 and then we find ourselves in a tricky situation where the whole bill is either scrapped because it loses its effectiveness without a mandate, or they compromise it down to what Rahm Emanuel was pushing in the early days of 2010 when it looked like the whole bill might die - basically, just bits and pieces of popular legislation.

I did have to laugh that Robert Reich, who really isn't that well versed on this subject, has written articles making predictions and his latest kind of suggests striking down the mandate would benefit the whole deal because it will lead to a public option. I disagree completely. It won't lead to a public option. Reich is great on some issues, awful on others - like when he suggested the court might rule in favor of the mandate solely to save their public image. A) that's ridiculous, the court that gave us Citizen United doesn't give two shits about its public image and B) that idea is laughable when you realize most Americans want it overturned - or at least a split of the country wants it overturned. It was just a funny comment coming from someone who doesn't know much about the Court (he also said two weeks ago that a decision would be handed down within the day and nothing came of it).

Yes, this article that I found interesting actually:

Quote:...

Most high-court observers think it will strike down the individual mandate in the Act that requires almost everyone to buy health insurance, as violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution -- but will leave the rest of the new health care law intact.

But the individual mandate is so essential to spreading the risk and cost of health care over the whole population, including younger and healthier people, that some analysts believe a Court decision that nixes the mandate will effectively spell the end of the Act anyway.

Yet it could have exactly the opposite effect. If the Court strikes down the individual mandate, health insurance company lobbyists and executives will swarm Capitol Hill seeking to have the Act amended to remove the requirement that they insure people with preexisting medical conditions. They'll argue that without the mandate they can't afford to cover preexisting conditions.

But the requirement to cover preexisting conditions has proven to be so popular with the public that Congress will be reluctant to scrap it.

This opens the way to a political bargain. Insurers might be let off the hook, for example, only if they support allowing every American, including those with preexisting conditions, to choose Medicare, or something very much like Medicare. In effect, what was known during the debate over the bill as the "public option."

... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-rei...f=politics

____________________________________

I think what Reich is doing is pretty damned clever actually. Why wait until after the decision to start seeding the debate with a progressive compromise?

[Drunken Irishman]

That's the one. I just don't see it happening that way. It would require legislation and no way are Republicans going to hop on board with the idea of a public option. They would soon the whole bill collapse than do a compromise like that. Reich is being way too optimistic.

You know what? This issue has become so toxic over the last three years that I doubt Democrats, or Republicans, would even want to touch it. It was that way in '93. People forget that when Democrats & Clinton rolled out healthcare reform, it received extremely positive ratings and there was a point where it was almost a forgone conclusion that the bill would pass. But politics got in the way, misinformation was pushed, the Clinton campaign bungled the roll out (using Hillary was a huge mistake) and it became so politically divisive, that within months, the bill was on life support and it eventually died.

This issue is just too damn big to do again. It crippled the Democrats, hurt Obama politically and still remains pretty unpopular, even if individual parts of it remain popular. What Reich is suggesting just doesn't match reality. Like I said, if the SC overturns the mandate, and I hope they don't but I see no indication they won't, Congress will act to keep the more popular things but move to dwindle the healthcare bill down to a shell of what it was.

So, unless somehow Obama can circumvent the Congress, which he won't be able to do on this issue, what Reich is saying just won't happen. It's not realistic. Even if the Democrats WIN in November, and regain the House, I'd still be surprised, after the '10 debacle, if any moderate Democrat in a swing district dare touch this one.

[There Is No Spoon]

(06-16-2012 08:01 PM)Drunken Irishman Wrote:  That's the one. I just don't see it happening that way. It would require legislation and no way are Republicans going to hop on board with the idea of a public option. They would soon the whole bill collapse than do a compromise like that. Reich is being way too optimistic.

You know what? This issue has become so toxic over the last three years that I doubt Democrats, or Republicans, would even want to touch it. It was that way in '93. People forget that when Democrats & Clinton rolled out healthcare reform, it received extremely positive ratings and there was a point where it was almost a forgone conclusion that the bill would pass. But politics got in the way, misinformation was pushed, the Clinton campaign bungled the roll out (using Hillary was a huge mistake) and it became so politically divisive, that within months, the bill was on life support and it eventually died.

This issue is just too damn big to do again. It crippled the Democrats, hurt Obama politically and still remains pretty unpopular, even if individual parts of it remain popular. What Reich is suggesting just doesn't match reality. Like I said, if the SC overturns the mandate, and I hope they don't but I see no indication they won't, Congress will act to keep the more popular things but move to dwindle the healthcare bill down to a shell of what it was.

So, unless somehow Obama can circumvent the Congress, which he won't be able to do on this issue, what Reich is saying just won't happen. It's not realistic. Even if the Democrats WIN in November, and regain the House, I'd still be surprised, after the '10 debacle, if any moderate Democrat in a swing district dare touch this one.

Given a choice between no pre-existing conditions coverage (which would hurt the Republicans pretty bad if they seem to be killing this provision) and a compromise, the compromise is the better choice (that's Reich's view). How can critical parts of the bill survive without the foundation? They can't, since costs will go through the roof. It's risky to blow up the whole bill don't you think?

[Drunken Irishman]

(06-16-2012 08:10 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(06-16-2012 08:01 PM)Drunken Irishman Wrote:  That's the one. I just don't see it happening that way. It would require legislation and no way are Republicans going to hop on board with the idea of a public option. They would soon the whole bill collapse than do a compromise like that. Reich is being way too optimistic.

You know what? This issue has become so toxic over the last three years that I doubt Democrats, or Republicans, would even want to touch it. It was that way in '93. People forget that when Democrats & Clinton rolled out healthcare reform, it received extremely positive ratings and there was a point where it was almost a forgone conclusion that the bill would pass. But politics got in the way, misinformation was pushed, the Clinton campaign bungled the roll out (using Hillary was a huge mistake) and it became so politically divisive, that within months, the bill was on life support and it eventually died.

This issue is just too damn big to do again. It crippled the Democrats, hurt Obama politically and still remains pretty unpopular, even if individual parts of it remain popular. What Reich is suggesting just doesn't match reality. Like I said, if the SC overturns the mandate, and I hope they don't but I see no indication they won't, Congress will act to keep the more popular things but move to dwindle the healthcare bill down to a shell of what it was.

So, unless somehow Obama can circumvent the Congress, which he won't be able to do on this issue, what Reich is saying just won't happen. It's not realistic. Even if the Democrats WIN in November, and regain the House, I'd still be surprised, after the '10 debacle, if any moderate Democrat in a swing district dare touch this one.

Given a choice between no pre-existing conditions coverage (which would hurt the Republicans pretty bad if they seem to be killing this provision) and a compromise, the compromise is the better choice (that's Reich's view). How can critical parts of the bill survive without the foundation? They can't, since costs will go through the roof. It's risky to blow up the whole bill don't you think?

Sadly, with Republicans, I wouldn't put anything past 'em. They'll say 'repeal & replace'.

[jaxx]

It does sound ominous. But it ain't over till the fat lady sings.