Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Obama Wants Health Care Before the Supreme Court

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 06:11 AM
Original message
Why Obama Wants Health Care Before the Supreme Court
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/27/why_obama_...

September 27, 2011

Why Obama Wants Health Care Before the Supreme Court


Rick Hasen makes the political case for why President Obama wants the constitutionality of his health care law decided by the Supreme Court during the election.

"If the Court strikes down the law, Obama makes more of an issue of a Court out of control (think FDR) during the 2012 campaign... If the Court upholds the law, this takes some of the wind out of the argument likely to come from the Republican presidential nominee that the health care law is unconstitutional. No lose before the election. Sometimes, you can win by losing before the Roberts Court."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Democratic discussion forum
   Replies to this thread
  - With Clarence Thomas making the deciding vote against HCR . . . which might explain why  leveymg   Sep-28-11 06:14 AM   #1 
  - Thomas does not have any more of a deciding vote  Inuca   Sep-28-11 06:49 AM   #5 
     - Clarence will most certainly vote against. He is the 5th vote to kill HCR in SCOTUS.  leveymg   Sep-28-11 07:02 AM   #6 
        - Of course he will vote against  Inuca   Sep-28-11 07:16 AM   #8 
        - He's deciding if the usual conservative bloc (including Kennedy) goes against - by deciding, I mean  leveymg   Sep-28-11 07:19 AM   #9 
        - Weiner's actions would have led to same place even if he never mentioned the name "Thomas"  karynnj   Sep-28-11 07:28 AM   #11 
           - Thomas violated criminal law. He can & should be indicted. As for Weiner, they went after him  leveymg   Sep-28-11 09:16 AM   #13 
              - A la Monica??  karynnj   Sep-28-11 09:33 AM   #14 
  - I can assure you that the President does not want the SCOTUS to strike down mandate.  blueclown   Sep-28-11 06:15 AM   #2 
  - Well, there's a couple of flaws in that logic  customerserviceguy   Sep-28-11 06:25 AM   #3 
  - They need to get the uncertainty out of the way.  dkf   Sep-28-11 06:40 AM   #4 
  - I hear that there is a precedent for this healthcare law, and that Scalia may be obliged to vote  secondwind   Sep-28-11 07:11 AM   #7 
  - There's precedent for any way he wants to vote. That's true in almost all cases.  leveymg   Sep-28-11 07:22 AM   #10 
  - The HCR bill is unique.  former9thward   Sep-28-11 02:02 PM   #17 
  - It all depends, doesn't it?  Owlet   Sep-28-11 07:31 AM   #12 
  - I don't know about that...  GSLevel9   Sep-28-11 11:06 AM   #15 
  - The OTHER more important reason:  bvar22   Sep-28-11 11:40 AM   #16 
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. With Clarence Thomas making the deciding vote against HCR . . . which might explain why
the both political parties crucified Weiner and have let Clarence be Clarence. Maybe.

Makes more sense than the official explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Thomas does not have any more of a deciding vote
Edited on Wed Sep-28-11 06:49 AM by Inuca
that any other of the justices. If anything, he is the vote that there is the least uncertainty about. As for Weiner, he "crucified" himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Clarence will most certainly vote against. He is the 5th vote to kill HCR in SCOTUS.
Edited on Wed Sep-28-11 07:06 AM by leveymg
They did a job on Weiner, (who quite perversely opened himself up to it by using an easily-hacked "private" feature of a public messaging forum), after he drew public attention to Thomas' false statements and ethics violations. The Democratic leadership hung him out to dry. Please, see, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/574

#
leveymg's Journal - Is Clarence Thomas being protected by the ...
journals.democraticunderground.com Discuss Journals leveymgCached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jun 19, 2011 Is Clarence Thomas being protected by the leaders of both political parties? Here's why. Posted by leveymg in Editorials & Other Articles ...

#
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Of course he will vote against
That's a given and that's what I said above. And that's why he is not really the deciding vote. As so often, that honor will probably go to Kennedy, who's vote is in doubt. Though it seems that the votes of some of the other right wing justices may not be so decided in advance either. We'll see...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. He's deciding if the usual conservative bloc (including Kennedy) goes against - by deciding, I mean
the 5th vote. If he recuses himself, or is removed, then he can't be the deciding vote. QED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Weiner's actions would have led to same place even if he never mentioned the name "Thomas"
Edited on Wed Sep-28-11 07:32 AM by karynnj
As others said, his is one of certain "no" votes. The key is likely what Kennedy does.

Not to mention that even if Weiner's accusations were investigated and an impeachment launched, it is likely to come after a vote on this - and it is not as open and shut as you suggest. It is hard to see how Thomas could be impeached and a new person nominated and confirmed before this is heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top