Taking it to the SCOTUS

Posted on September 29, 2011 by ashot

It looks like the SCOTUS will be weighing in on the Constitutionality of the ACA sooner rather than later. The Obama administration could have tried to delay the issue but they went the other route
. The administration has said they are confident they will win but there has to be a political reason they are choosing to have the fight during the election season rather than attempt to delay a decision until after next November.

On one hand, it makes sense for Obama to stand up for what is widely seen as his signature piece of legislation. If he tried to delay a decision, it seems likely his opponents would point to it as weakness and liberals may see it as yet another sign of poor leadership. On the other hand, the law is unpopular among liberals and conservatives so I am not sure appearing to strongly support the bill does Obama a whole lot of good.

Is it possible that Obama may actually be better off if the SCOTUS finds the mandate unconstitutional and the ACA begins to unravel? That may motivate the liberal base a bit because a Republican plan signed by a Republican President would scare the bejesus out of them. Such a ruling may also force Obama to come out with a plan that includes a public option.

I’m headed for a babymoon with my wife and am swamped at work the rest of the day. Then I have a firm retreat Monday and Tuesday, so I may be scarce until later next week. I promise to put up a tort reform post next week though.

Filed under: healthcare, law, Supreme Court |

« »

7 Responses

  1. Unknown's avatar
    Taroya, on September 29, 2011 at 2:41 pm said:

    I am not quite sure what to think.That SCOTUS will inevatibly be part of the picture is a given, but do I want it to be during the elections?For what point? What good will it do to point out the obvious fact that SCOTUS is packed by the rightwing? (personal opinion: they were the beginning of the tparty). We can't get rid of them even if public sentiment wants them hanged, drawn and quartered, so what political points could be scored here?If it is a case of just get it over with, I would think that would be best done after the elections.If the Obama admin thinks that the SCOTUS actually can be swayed by public opinion, again, elections aren't the time to do it. (hmmm…)However, if they are going to use it to lay groundwork for getting the public option after ACA is appealed, that is an awful shaky tightrope. But, the election results overall MIGHT be dem-domination in both houses, in which case the gamble will pay off.And if SCOTUS does uphold it (they might), then the new admin will not have that hanging over them anymore, which is about the only thing I can think of as to why Obama wants to push this now.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Unknown's avatar
    Mark in Austin, on September 29, 2011 at 2:57 pm said:

    Speculation only: on the real chance that pursuing all en banc proceedings first would push the SCOTUS appeal to 2013 there are two reasons of legal strategy to deal with it sooner.1] If the next Admin is R it's AG may not treat the defense of the statute with VIGAH; and2] The statute is fully effective in 2014 and needs prep time to be in place. Remove the uncertainty in 2012.The risk of loss [from Admin perspective] is far greater in 2013 than 2012 because of the possibility of a R Admin and because winning or losing late creates a mountain of problems for either rectifying the statute or creating its operational regulatory framework.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Unknown's avatar
    lmsinca, on September 29, 2011 at 3:28 pm said:

    Personally, I think the whole thing's a mess. Mark what does VIGAH mean? And I think it's better to resolve the issue sooner rather than later whatever the political ramifications are, which I can't get my head around as there are too many "what if" scenarios involved.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Unknown's avatar
    Taroya, on September 29, 2011 at 3:33 pm said:

    VIGAH, the boston accent of vigor.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Unknown's avatar
    lmsinca, on September 29, 2011 at 3:36 pm said:

    Yeah, that must be it Taroya. Mark sometimes forgets we're not all Bostonians.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Unknown's avatar
    lmsinca, on September 29, 2011 at 4:21 pm said:

    NoVA, we're trying here in CA also. I'm part of a group advocating for single payer but it's a climb.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Taroya Cancel reply