• Comment (13)

What Obama's Attack on the Supreme Court Means

April 5, 2012 RSS Feed Print

In attacking the U.S. Supreme Court before it rules on his signature legislative achievement, President Barack Obama is telegraphing that he expects to lose.

There are lots of reason the nation's highest court may find that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. It may be that they find the individual mandate, which is the lynchpin of the new law, to be an overreach of federal power. They may determine the expansion of Medicaid is unconstitutional. They may even rule that that health insurance is an issue of intrastate commerce, which Congress may not regulate, rather than interstate commerce, which the U.S. Constitution says it may.

[Vote: Has Obama Gone Too Far in His Rhetoric About the Supreme Court?]

Regardless of the reason, Obama's attack on "unelected judges" is a political ploy designed to rally his base and prepare them to engage in the upcoming election. What he has not yet realized, apparently, is that a defeat by the judicial branch puts the ball firmly back in his court, to his profound disadvantage.

There are a number of commentators who have opined that an unfavorable ruling by the Supreme Court would be to the president's political advantage, but they are whistling past the graveyard. There are lots of ideas out there about how best to "fix" the nation's healthcare system, but relatively few of them are coming from the Obama administration. A ruling that finds the entire law to be unconstitutional takes everything back to "square one," meaning it will be incumbent on the president—not Congress and not the Republican running against him for the nation's highest office—to roll out a new proposal.

[See a collection of political cartoons on healthcare.]

Recall how contentious the debate over the law currently before the court was in the first place. The president managed to bob and weave, dodge the tough questions, and placate a substantial portion of the electorate with political slogans and platitudes that underscored the need for reform but were preciously short on details. He can't get away with that again. He is going to have to come up with specific proposals, possibly including how to pay for everything without an individual mandate.

The bottom line is that nothing Obama is likely to propose—and again the burden will be on him no matter how much his allies try to place it elsewhere—will be any more popular than the law now in place. In fact it's almost certain to be less popular. And that won't help the president win re-election one bit.

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

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

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

The NLRB's General Counsel (chief prosecutor) authorized a complaint against Boeing. I would say that complaint was based on standard grounds; others disagree. Either way, it made no difference. The complaint resulted in a settlement between Boeing and the IAM. Plus, the five member NLRB itself, never even saw the matter. So how could it have been renegade?

And the effect of the Boeing complaint and subsequent settlement on the economy? No one has ever shown any that I know about. If you are aware of any such study, you should point to it.

Minorkle of RI 4:22PM May 01, 2012

AreAllOkiesAsStupidAsInhofe of CO

You know so little that you don't even add "" around "deep fried". You were quoting from link.

We are in a heat cycle now. And naturally the re-occuring event you yell the sky is falling. RECORD TEMPERATURES HIGH AND LOW HAPPEN. Check the history.

Give me A BREAK. PROVE YOUR LONG HISTORY PROOF. NOT by decades...

Bill Hedges of MO 10:07PM April 09, 2012

2012 already brings record-breaking heat in U.S. April 09, 2012 by CBNews.com (AP) WASHINGTON - It's been so warm in the United States this year, especially in March, that national records weren't just broken, they were deep-fried. Temperatures in the lower 48 states were 8.6 degrees above normal for March and 6 degrees higher than average for the first three months of the year, according to calculations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That far exceeds the old records. The magnitude of how unusual the year has been in the U.S. has alarmed some meteorologists who have warned about global warming. One climate scientist said it's the weather equivalent of a baseball player on steroids, with old records oblit

AreAllOkiesAsStupidAsInhofe of CO 11:11AM April 09, 2012

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement