• Comment (10)

Killing Obamacare Would Show Supreme Court's Stripes, Analyst Says

March 27, 2012 RSS Feed Print

If the Supreme Court overturns key parts of President Obama's healthcare law, it will stigmatize the conservative majority of justices as "totally partisan" and will damage the court's credibility over the long term, says Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg.

[See a collection of political cartoons on healthcare.]

Greenberg, a former key adviser to President Bill Clinton who still counsels Democratic leaders in Congress and elsewhere, told me that overturning the law in full or in part would fit a pattern of high court over-reach from the right.

He said the court's earlier ruling that allowed unlimited political spending by corporations has already caused widespread consternation and opposition among Democrats and good-government reformers. They say the decision opened the way to political abuses and is leading to vast amounts of campaign spending by political action committees aligned with different candidates, with much of it going to negative advertising.

[Read Would Dick Cheney Get a Heart Under Obamacare?]

The court began hearing oral arguments Monday in a legal challenge to Obamacare, notably the provision that would require most Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Those arguments are scheduled to continue today. Conservatives say the provision is an unconstitutional expansion of federal power.

Tags:
Barack Obama,
Obama administration,
politics,
healthcare,
Supreme Court

Reader Comments Read all comments (10)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I do not want this healthcare.I do not want a chip inside my body.I am not a can of soup on a shelf at the market.I am a human being with a soul.If he thinks I am going to allow the governement to insert some crazy chip inside my body.He has another thing coming.The only way I will do it if his children,wife,mother-in-law and Oprah is forced to do it first and still I will refuse

Gail of PA 1:00AM December 08, 2012

Hopeof WA, what the hell are you talking about? It seems your comments are based on a belief that the court and THE Republicans are "out to get obama" and that the Constitution is irrelevant. What did your law school teach you about the role of the Supreme Court in our system of government?

Your comments on the judicial activism are in-line with the left-wing nuts that the Constitution is a living document that needs to be changed and molded to our time. Standing by what the Constitution actually states is NOT judicial activism. And by the way, if there has ever been a credibility issue with the court it happen with FDR and the country has been paying the price ever since.

A LITTLE REFRESHER,

In 1937 Roosevelt "Democrat "attempted to pack the Supreme Court with five more Justices who were amenable to his New Deal policies (eight New Deal statutes had been declared unconstitutional by the nine-man Supreme Court). Such blatant politicization of the Supreme Court was rejected by Congress.

This Supreme Court’s ability to act as the interpreter and arbiter of the Constitution. Neither the President nor Congress has the right to do this. The Supreme Court is the only body that has the right to interpret what the Constitution means and it is this right that gives it the power to scrutinize all aspects of government.

The Founding Fathers were determined to create a judicial system that was independent of political pressure. This was in keeping with their desire to keep a ‘checks and balance’ system by splitting government into three. They also had a desired to see America governed by the so-called Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law states categorically that:

all people are subject to the law of the land and shall be treated equally regardless of color, status or creed

the government is subject to the law

no-one is above the law

everybody should know how they will be treated by the law and this treatment shall be the same for everybody

America should have a "government of laws and not of men".

I don’t believe that forcing American citizen to purchase something against their will is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Do you even know what else is in the 2,700 pages of the bill? Do you have any idea how this could be used by future Presidents to control YOUR life? Your, or anyone else’s, short term desires should not and cannot impact the liberties and freedoms of future Americans if we expect this country to survive.

Of course, if I follow Occam’s Razor, I might believe that you just want free stuff that others have to work to pay for.

Larry of CA 12:18PM March 30, 2012

In law school, my Con Law assured us that regardless of the election case in 2000, that the court is a body that is above politics. That premise is shot to hell if the court reverses health care. Alito, Roberts, and Scalia, in particular have taken the court to new lows and although conservatives will crow because they feel that Obama will suffer the consequences, the effects will be wide ranging. Citizens United has weakened the credibility of the court and a decision in this case will cause an even further erosion of credibility. It's hysterical that conservatives have been whining about judicial activism for decades but when it's their guys activism isn't a bad thing. The fact that so many Republicans cannot get over Obama winning that they are willing to one by one destroy the pillars of this nation is troubling and sad.

Hope of WA 1:23AM March 29, 2012

Ken Walsh's Washington

A longtime chief White House correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, Kenneth T. Walsh has covered five presidents beginning with Ronald Reagan. Along with other U.S. News writers, he continues to provide insight into the White House of Barack Obama and the world of presidential campaigns.

advertisement

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos