Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Correct. It would indeed be the best of both worlds: a campaign promise fulfilled and then capriciously taken away by a partisan, activist Court legislating from the bench.
Most people are saying that obama will use a loss to attack the Supreme Court and ask for 4 more years so he could appoint new Justices.
Except for one thing. The health care bill was hugely, hugely unpopular. If obama says that if he gets four more years he'd pack the court, that may be a signal to a lot of people to vote against him.
He already looks like he's going to blame their lawyer for the loss. As much responsiblity as he's run from so far, this might be the last straw.
There were only parts of the bill that were unpopular. If the whole bill goes down, how many thousands of American will have something taken away from them that they've gotten from the bill?
Most people are saying that obama will use a loss to attack the Supreme Court and ask for 4 more years so he could appoint new Justices.
Except for one thing. The health care bill was hugely, hugely unpopular. If obama says that if he gets four more years he'd pack the court, that may be a signal to a lot of people to vote against him.
He already looks like he's going to blame their lawyer for the loss. As much responsiblity as he's run from so far, this might be the last straw.
There were only parts of the bill that were unpopular. If the whole bill goes down, how many thousands of American will have something taken away from them that they've gotten from the bill?
Funny thing is that the parts of the bill that were unpopular were the Republican ideas...like the mandate.
Know what WAS popular? A Public Option...
Hey dopey, it's an obvious observation. Conservative court takes away health care for children 26 and under and preexisting conditions as Tea Party Lunatics cheer?
mana from heaven
Colonel CueBall Speaks....telegraphs Democrat plans.
(CNN) - While the Obama administration fights to protect the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said a Supreme Court overruling may not be such a bad thing for the president, politically.
"I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party," Carville said Tuesday on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."
He added: "You know, what the Democrats are going to say, and it is completely justified, 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority'."
LINK With Video
There were only parts of the bill that were unpopular. If the whole bill goes down, how many thousands of American will have something taken away from them that they've gotten from the bill?
Funny thing is that the parts of the bill that were unpopular were the Republican ideas...like the mandate.
Know what WAS popular? A Public Option...
If that was so? Why then did zero Republicans vote for it in either chamber of the Congress? And why did they take it to court for Constitutionality?
Dammit. I hate it when I have to agree with Carville. It makes him so damn IRRITATING!Colonel CueBall Speaks....telegraphs Democrat plans.
(CNN) - While the Obama administration fights to protect the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said a Supreme Court overruling may not be such a bad thing for the president, politically.
"I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party," Carville said Tuesday on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."
He added: "You know, what the Democrats are going to say, and it is completely justified, 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority'."
LINK With Video
Funny thing is that the parts of the bill that were unpopular were the Republican ideas...like the mandate.
Know what WAS popular? A Public Option...
If that was so? Why then did zero Republicans vote for it in either chamber of the Congress? And why did they take it to court for Constitutionality?
Because the Republicans decided that no matter what, anything that President Obama proposed, they would oppose it. Before he even had a meeting with them, they were dismissing anything he had to say. Remember Yertle the Turtle (Mitch McChinless) saying that their number one goal was to ensure the President's failure? They decided from the get-go...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0"]I'm Against It[/ame]
THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. Souter is most likely going to stay left on it as well because political ideology guides them more than actual law, but he's not as tightly tied to this. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think. 3 of the justices are pretty much in the tank for it already looking at their past public comments and activities.What kind of spin will the Dem's have if the Court votes 9-0 on the mandate?
THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think.What kind of spin will the Dem's have if the Court votes 9-0 on the mandate?
I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.
I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.
THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think.What kind of spin will the Dem's have if the Court votes 9-0 on the mandate?
I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.
I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.
And why Kagan didn't recuse herself as she was Obama's SG arguing this crap is beyond me...
Why do you think she was appointed in the first place? Ringer. that's why. Solely for this kind of decision. She owes P-BO everything and is smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds her.THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think.What kind of spin will the Dem's have if the Court votes 9-0 on the mandate?
I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.
I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.
And why Kagan didn't recuse herself as she was Obama's SG arguing this crap is beyond me...
Obvious poster is poster.THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think.
I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.
I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.
And why Kagan didn't recuse herself as she was Obama's SG arguing this crap is beyond me...
Possibly, she's just fundamentally dishonest?
Yet, the Democrats pushed this forward.Most people are saying that obama will use a loss to attack the Supreme Court and ask for 4 more years so he could appoint new Justices.
Except for one thing. The health care bill was hugely, hugely unpopular. If obama says that if he gets four more years he'd pack the court, that may be a signal to a lot of people to vote against him.
He already looks like he's going to blame their lawyer for the loss. As much responsiblity as he's run from so far, this might be the last straw.
We'll see. If it is in it's entirety struck down due to 'severability'...
Obamacare suffers a severability trainwreck at the Supreme Court
IF the Madate is found unConstitutional? (That is the funding mechanism for Ocare...), then the Statist Democrats will still run with it and it's Medicare for everyone.
Watch them try it.
Yet, the Democrats pushed this forward.Most people are saying that obama will use a loss to attack the Supreme Court and ask for 4 more years so he could appoint new Justices.
Except for one thing. The health care bill was hugely, hugely unpopular. If obama says that if he gets four more years he'd pack the court, that may be a signal to a lot of people to vote against him.
He already looks like he's going to blame their lawyer for the loss. As much responsiblity as he's run from so far, this might be the last straw.
We'll see. If it is in it's entirety struck down due to 'severability'...
Obamacare suffers a severability trainwreck at the Supreme Court
Not as if they weren't warned by those evil righties about constitutionality.
And Carville must be getting senile.
THey'll never get that. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg will never go against their party and the fact that Kagan helped WRITE the argument for the government to defend this legislation.... well, no. The best we can hope for is a 6-3 I think.
I find it funny that there is a rumor out there that the law will be found constitutional by 6-3 because some radicals think Kennedy will go for it, and then Roberts in an effort to limit it's damage will vote for it so he can write the Majority Opinion and add a limiting clause to it.
I find this massively dubious and desperate straw clinging. I'm still under the impression it's going to be a near party line '5-4' vote with Kennedy going for unconstitutionality because the power grab is so big it will give him agida.
And why Kagan didn't recuse herself as she was Obama's SG arguing this crap is beyond me...
Possibly, she's just fundamentally dishonest?