Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act

The opinion is here.

Here'a a new thread to discuss the Supreme Court decision and related topics. (I haven't read it yet, I just got out of court. I'll chime in later, I'm sure.)

BTD - Radio most of the day but I promise to discuss ACA here at Talk Left tomorrow if anyone is still interested.

< NZ Court Rules Kim DotCom Search Warrants Illegal | Eric Holder on Contempt Vote: I'm Getting Back to Work, Republicans Should Too >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    hopefully (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by CST on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    This is just the beginning.  A few more elections and maybe we'll even get the public option.  Feeling optimistic.  Taking off now.  I trust the rest of you to keep jb in check while I'm gone :)

    Just kidding.  Have a great summer everyone!

    Enjoy your trip! And keep us posted. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    oh, and i predict (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:01:54 PM EST
    The sky will not fall.

    Saw somewhere that the dissent referred... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:48:40 PM EST
    ... to the majority opinion as the "dissent". Does that mean Roberts changed his opinion in the 11th hour? Did Scalia's unhinged moment and the WashPo's call for Scalia to resign prompt Roberts to be concerned about his historical legacy as a Chief Justice and not being inextricably intertwined with an insane justice?

    And, the Obamacare is a tax meme has begun in earnest. Roberts is kind of shrewd and calculating if you ask me.

    I was just reading that theory, (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:55:50 PM EST

    Was there a late-game shift in the thinking of the Supreme Court on their Affordable Care Act ruling? That's certainly the implication from this catch by Brad DeLong. Repeatedly in his opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as a "dissent." An example, which is littered throughout the text:

    Our test's premise of regulated activity is not invented out of whole cloth, but rests upon the Constitution's requirement that it be commerce which is regulated. If all inactivity affecting commerce is commerce, commerce is everything. Ultimately the dissent is driven to saying that there is really no difference between action and inaction, ante, at 26, a proposition that has never recommended itself, neither to the law nor to common sense...

    As I said, this happens over and over, nine times in the text. Now maybe this is just typical Scalia dismissiveness, but it's also completely plausible that Ginsburg's opinion WAS a dissent at one point, and Scalia's concurring dissent originally the majority opinion.

    Dayen quotes David Bernstein:

    Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.

    Interesting theory...


    It is interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:01:24 PM EST
    ... the "chief" in front of "justice" really put a different kind of pressure on Roberts.

    I don't buy it. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 10:12:11 PM EST
    I think the "dissent" he is referring to is the dissent on the commerce clause. Otherwise, it is quite sloppy to leave that in there for a formal decision.

    The Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas (none / 0) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:48:37 PM EST
    and Scalia dissent does often refer to the Court opinion as "the dissent", but I think that is aimed at Justice Ginsberg's dissent. The denotation seems to be a Scalia chiding, perhaps mollified by Kennedy since this dissent lacks the customary Scalia edge, of the four members of the Court majority that held that the Commerce Clause applies to the mandate, while the fifth vote, that of Roberts, does not.  But that was not controlling, for the five votes held in common the applicability of the tax clause.  A way to separate the Chief Justice from much of their screed.

    And, speaking of severable, the real dissenters appeared to find the Act to not be severable (i.e, that once the mandate fell, all the rest went out the window), but not for reasons of jurisprudence as much as for their grand understanding of health care and the interrelationships between the Acts components.


    Funny stuff from Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    In the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the decision offers no endorsement of the law's wisdom, and that letting it survive reflects
    "a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the nation's elected leaders."

    "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices," he wrote.

    In other words, it's our doing.We chose these guys. It is we who wanted a mandate, not a public option. It is we who wanted to be forced to deal with these for-profit insurance companies.

    We elected these folks, and now we can live with the results.
    We made the bed. Now we can lie in it.

    Quite an endorsement for the legislation from the Chief Justice.

    Balls and Strikes (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    He lived up to his word.

    He is not as many thought a legislator from the bench.

    He knows the law stinks but it's not his job to fix it by changing the law.

    Wish he would have.


    He's not legislating (none / 0) (#116)
    by coigue on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 10:14:05 PM EST
    in this decision. That doesn't mean he hasn't in the past.

    I'm surprised no one wants to talk about (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dk on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    the fact that Breyer and Kagan agreed on the limitation to the Medicaid expansion.  What's up with that?

    Interesting theory by Kos diarist... (none / 0) (#61)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:05:01 PM EST
    ...(and not sure if I buy it BTW) that this might be a political gift, since the Medicaid funds that would be rejected by a republican governor could really make that governor vulnerable to electoral backlash.

    Well, Walker refused $38 million from the feds (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:15:09 PM EST
    for it already in Wisconsin, and won the recall, so that he today could reiterate that he refuses to do a thing to implement the law -- and will refuse more funds, in his run for president in 2016.  (Yes, he noted his prezzie plans yesterday.)

    That "political gift" is not playing well, so far.


    Well, too much weak beer and cheese... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:18:54 PM EST
    the other Republican governed states will punish their governors.

    Seriously, don't recall Barrett making this an issue, and even if he did, the procedure of the recall and the non-support of the national Dems did not give him much an opportunity to make this an issue.


    Barrett made an issue (none / 0) (#82)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:01:09 PM EST
    far more of the far more in fed funding -- $800 million -- refused by Walker for transit, of course, but added in this $38 million and other funds refused for quite a grand total of $$$ that went to other states, courtesy of Walker. . . .

    But, yeh, with Obama's refusal to do a thing for the Wisconsin recall, it didn't matter.  


    You think this is a win? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lobo58 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:54:17 PM EST
    Enjoy the celebration. Roberts set a parameter to the commerce clause (something he's always wanted to do) and handed Obama the largest tax increase in history five months before an election. You think he did the left a favor?

    In about a week the hangover is going to kick in.

    How is this (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by MarvinM on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:11:21 AM EST
    a tax increase?  

    For whom, specifically?  

    Anyone who already has insurance does not pay a 'tax'.

    So, I really want to understand, how is this the 'largest tax increase in history"?

    Those were your words.  Please explain, 'cause I don't see it.


    And the voters (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:03:25 PM EST
    are going to see the same amount of money in their paycheck. The GOP can say this but nobody believes them anymore. They said this was a government takeover of healthcare for about a year now and then they have a CONSERVATIVE justice uphold the law. I have no doubt that they will say this because they will yell and scream and say anything and just see what sticks. They have been just that stupid for he last few years.

    Technically (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 06:39:33 AM EST
    And the voters (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:03:25 PM EST

    are going to see the same amount of money in their paycheck

    People who are currently not covered (and are currently paying $0) will now have to purchase insurance or pay the penalty. Either way, they will now be putting more money out than they are now (even if they have assistance from the exchanges).

    If they choose to pay the penalty, that may be a bigger shock to them as they will not see a change in their week to week paycheck, but may be seeing a bill for $700 or more (especially shocking if they generally expect a refund).


    I know (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:03:57 AM EST
    but this isn't going to happen for 2 years. I'm talking about the GOP screaming about it RIGHT NOW when nothing has happened to people's paychecks.

    I see Denial (none / 0) (#104)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:06:08 PM EST
    Isn't just a river in Egypt.

    Seriously, what I'm seeing on things such as Free Republic , Conservative Treehouse, NeoNeocon for instance isn't so much despair as defiance. And anger. Lots and lots of anger and people claiming to have donated money.

    I think this hurts Obama, not helps him. The Republicans have had 20 plus years worth of a head start on demonizing "socialized medicine" and they've been calling this poor sister of it that Obama has passed that for 4 years now.

    I predict a Romney win, and repeal of most if not all of it.

    It sucks. Republicans are in denial about the health care crises and Democrats are in denial about the insufficiency and unpopularity of this purported solution.


    Too bad this isn't socialized medicine, (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:11:26 PM EST
    though I guess a little thing like the facts won't stop the GOP from saying it is.

    Correct, Anne (none / 0) (#109)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:35:38 PM EST
    You got that right.

    Much as I often hate the "progressive" label and other misuses of language by people largely of the left, what the right these days considers "socialism" (which they interchange with communism and totalitarianism) is amazing. Stuff that every other country in the world does; stuff our own country has already done in the past in some instances are rhetorically treated as if they were the very essence of tyranny.

    Then there's the deification of certain types of economic theory.


    I am (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:24:34 PM EST
    not a fan of this. I'm just saying that the tax angle is just more junk from the GOP.

    The people that are angry now are the SAME people who have been angry ever since 2008.

    Let's see I guess according to GOP rationalization they now support "socialized medicine" because the person that they wanted on the court, the Supreme Justice no less, is the one responsible for upholding "socialized medicine" for the country. I'm sure that they can sell this to their own crazed base out there but they're going to have a hard time explaining how their own guy held up what they are calling "socialized medicine" to the general voting public.


    Along the same lines as your statement... (none / 0) (#108)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:34:35 PM EST
    "the person that they wanted on the court, the Supreme Justice no less, is the one responsible for upholding "socialized medicine" for the country" ... did you see the Americablog post pointing out that on Romney's website, he cites Roberts as exactly the kind of person he'd appoint to the court?

    Etch a sketch time.

    Nobody can say today was boring.


    Actually (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 09:17:52 PM EST
    today was one of the best days to discuss politics in a loonng time. I have had so much fun with conservatives poking them with the fact that their own CONSERVATIVE supreme justice is the one that upheld the ACA.

    The conversation goes like this: the country is ruined because the supreme court upheld Obamacare. Then I point out that conservatives should love this policy because it's their own policy, the fact that a conservative was the one responsible for holding it up. They end up being backed into a corner and then declaring that they don't like either party or the liberals are worse blah, blah, blah. They have absolutely not defense for this. It's hysterical.


    And, Ga6th, add to that (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 03:05:50 PM EST
    one of the most ironic aspects: CJ Roberts employed a tried & trud conservative jurisprudential approach to reach a conclusion that saved our legislation...ala the long ago Conservative SCt giants, Frankfurter and Jackson, he cited then followed the principle that the SCt should strive to uphold federal legislation as Constitutional if it can reasonably read to do so. Ergo, the tax approach.

    BTW, much as I totally disagree with his reading of the Commerce Clause as to "activity" va "inactivity" coverage/non-coverage, I do applaud his step yesterday--pragmatic as it was also--to act in such a way to rescue his Court from laughing-stock ignominy that the politicized earlier decisions in the past 12 or so years have caused.  He could have gone for the quick political/judicial kill, as it were. He held back--bringing a measure of respect for himself and keeping his Court from the brink. Ah, the eventual legacy path may have some twists & turns after all. (Though I completely agree with BTD as to the very real need now to ensure that the next vacancy goes to a liberal/progressive. That means: President Obama's reelection rises to the level of an imperative in the context of the Supreme Court.)


    According to Thom Hartmann (none / 0) (#102)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:06:44 PM EST
    the tax is for people making over $250,000 not the middle class, and the Medicare cuts are to Medicare Advantage aka private corporations with no cuts in services or $$ to Medicare recipients.

    I have no citations, just my little ears as I was driving home from a work errand earlier today.


    Here's a link ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:54:10 PM EST
    ... that says otherwise.

    Sivacek household partying (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:06:52 PM EST
    now since ACA was upheld.  I made lemon drop martinis because I had to take care of Josh today and didn't want to run him to the store with me for liquor.  They are ummmmm....a youthful drink.  It just seems like a cheap thing to do to him though making him take a liquor run so we made do.  Made shrimp scampi, his sister came home by herself (almost like she lives her again when the stress was the worst for the family) and she's playing lead guitar, her dad is bass, Josh is drums and they are rocking out to White Wedding.

    It's a nice day to start again!!!!!

    I am listening to DKos radio (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:00:12 AM EST
    David Waldman has a great radio voice.  I am impressed!  Armando, your call of the decision, if you will, was good too.

    Looking forward to discussing this here tomorrow.  A lot to take in today.

    it is just the beginning... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Tov on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:57:42 AM EST
    As the late Senator Kennedy said...you take what you can get and move forward to achieve more later. Victory for many...even now.

    This is good news.... (4.75 / 4) (#25)
    by redwolf on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    For insurance companies.  Screw universal healthcare, lets have universal forced insurance with ever expanding rates.  Good job Dems, you played right into what big insurance wants and you can bet the Romney administration will expand Obama care to make sure people are robbed to the max by their HMOs.

    So which party isn't owned by the banks and corporations?  I can't tell.

    Priceless (none / 0) (#110)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 09:11:25 PM EST
    The court upholds the transfer of wealth portion to the insurance cartel and pharma and then blocks the expansion of actual medical care (medicaid.)  I couldn't have hoped for better for the cynics.

    At this end, we are also having cocktails but in grief not celebration.


    When this truly starts to be implemented (4.20 / 5) (#2)
    by BTAL on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:10:11 PM EST
    all the rosy projections will slam against the reality wall.

    •  Premiums will continue to significantly increase before any subsidies kick in.

    •  People will fall into the coverage donut hole of earning too much for medicaid (even where expanded) but will not have sufficient discretionary income to pay for insurance and/or deductibles & co-pays.

    •  Health care costs (not insurance costs) will not be lowered impacting premiums and actual costs for both uninsured and govt budgets.

    •  Employers will bail on providing coverage and will pay the $2000 fine dumping millions into the individual market (see above results impacts)

    •  Drs. will stop taking medicaid and medicare patients due to lower reimbursement rates, so some individuals may be covered but won't receive care.

    All politics aside, this is a cr@p sandwich any way you slice it or super-size its condiments.

    Your Forgot.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:17:47 PM EST
    ...the sleazy insurance industry using the confusion to jack up rates which has already started.  It will be interesting to see their bottom lines in 5 years.  

    I predict record profits.


    I don't (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    Indeed... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    I can testify...my outfits rate goes up every year, the last few years they downgraded the plan in lieu of raising our worker contributions, but there was no place left to downgrade this year.  Weekly payment went from 22 bucks for single to 27, over 10%...not sure how much the bossman's end went up.  

    Yep, Obamacare has already given (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:37:38 PM EST
    waivers for hundreds of companies from the regs.  Furthermore, in Mass., they have already exempted a big % of people from the penalty because they do not qualify for medicaid but cannot afford insurance.  Expect more of the same for Obamacare.  People and businesses are going to keep clamoring to government looking for waivers/exemptions.

    Bad day.


    I really (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    don't think you're going ot find too many people around here that ever thought this was that great of a policy. I mean it was Bob Dole's HCR in the beginning.

    The thing I don't understand is why conservatives don't like it. This seems like something that would be right up their alley.

    I really wonder about the employers getting rid of insurance. There's a lot of them that ALREADY don't offer any insurance to their employees or ones like Wal-Mart that pay so little the employees can't afford to get purchase coverage through the company.


    Three reasons... (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:48:50 PM EST
    most conservatives don't like it...conservatives have moved further right the last 15 years, the bill contains "regulations", and the president who signed it has a "D" after his name.

    There are certainly things that will (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:52:55 PM EST
    come up, that will need to be addressed.  I don't think that anybody seriously thinks that the exchanges are going to provide enough cost control.

    What this does do though, it returns sanity to enough people that I think we will fight now.  We have a platform to fight for accountability from all players from.

    I know there are more people out there that the insurance industry damaged, tried to set on fire.  Why don't these people speak out?  Is it because for some reason they all accepted that this was their due?  I experienced some relief from the constant insane worry that even though a caring doctor could be standing right before my eyes with a caring nursing staff and all the equipment necessary, someone shielded behind a curtain and insurance industry bureaucracy was going to make fight for my child's life every step of the way.  I never want to go back there again.  I was ready to fight though and I was going to really take the gloves off.  I was going to post all of my denials online.  If they were going to make us pay for Josh's last surgery like they threatened, I was going to do that all online too.  It has been fight fight fight until healthcare reform, I've had a respite, I've had moment of clarity and sanity and maybe even a little peace visited upon my soul, I don't think I can ever accept again that denial of services is my due!


    We're not happy that it was not overturned (none / 0) (#18)
    by BTAL on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:47:16 PM EST
    What we are happy about is the very very bright line Roberts drew regarding the Commerce and Necessary clauses.

    That will reap benefits for years to come.

    We know how to deal with tax arguments.


    I know (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    this Roberts thing is the new talking point but I just think it's wishful thinking from the GOP trying to buck up the masses after a big loss. It's a big loss for the GOP simply because the GOP made this whole thing into such a BFD and now that has come back to bite them. They are the ones that have been screaming it was "unconstitutional" and are now sitting with egg on their face because they are too freaking stupid to keep their mouth shut in the first place.

    If Roberts was the friend that they think he is, why did he not overturn it? You want to know why? Because overturning it would have invalidated a bunch of conservative sacred cows like vouchers. It has nothing to do with this whole "tax" thing.


    The Commerce and N&P (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BTAL on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    position will last for years.

    This just ensures that this november will be a repeat of the 2010 mid-terms.

    As to the tax portion of the ruling, preventing repeat of such an overreach can be dealt with legislatively.


    Why not (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    overturn it then? He could have overturned it.

    And in case you have forgotten, Romney signed similar legislation in MA when he was governor.

    There's not going to be a repeat of 2010. The tea party has shown themselves to be a bunch of fundamentalist radicals and have brought congress the lowest rating ever recorded. You think Nancy Pelosi's 19% was bad? Your tea party idiots are about what? 9% approval rating in congress?

    2012 is going to be close because of a couple of reasons:

    1. People have an negative view of the GOP and the tea party has only made that impression worse.
    2. The republican base is dying off and demographics are not in their favor.
    3. Obama has done a bad job with the economy but Romney offers nothing but more failed supply side solutions.
    4. The GOP base apparently is not wild about Romney. I imagine they will show up for him but I wouldn't expect them to go the extra mile for him.
    5. If anything i see this decision demoralizing the GOP more than anything else.

    Do you believe (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:01:42 PM EST
    The Tea Party is all there is to the Republican Party? You keep commenting like they really aren't but a fraction of the party, but instead make up the entire party.

    Do you believe there aren't many, many more Republicans out there who are not Tea Partiers, but are just as likely to come out an vote for Romney in November?  Do you believe that there are many independents who do not care for the Tea Party and will vote for Romney anyway because a) he's NOT a Tea Partier and b) they don't like Obama?


    No (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:36:03 PM EST
    I know the tea party isn't the entire GOP but they are the squeaky wheel that gets the grease and their so called representatives have been the ones making all the noise and are also the ones that are most disliked by the general public. They get a lot of face time which hurts the GOP.

    Actually I would think that the fact that Romney is not a tea party darling actually helps him in the general election but he still has to deal with the negative branding that they are producing for the GOP.

    Heck those non tea party Republicans should LOVE Obama. He's done what a ton of Republicans could NEVER do: passed HCR that came out of a conservative think thank.


    You need to research (none / 0) (#63)
    by BTAL on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:06:50 PM EST
    what Romney tried to change and vetoed under "Romneycare".  Significantly different than what the Dem "Romneycare" talking point want to present.


    Your demographic analysis is comical.

    Finally, it won't be just the GOP base that will impact the nov. results.  There are many 2008 Obama voters, both Dems and Independents who will not be voting for him this time around - and you know that.


    The demographic (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:29:22 PM EST
    information has been backed up by research by the Pew Organization. Most of the GOP is elderly and as you go down the age scale, there are less and less Republicans. You can thank the GOP's reliance on the culture wars for much of that.

    Do you think that Hispanics don't get the message that the GOP is sending out to them? Or women? Or Asians? Or African Americans? You add all those groups up and they considerably outweigh the elderly segregationists that make up the majority of the GOP base.

    Yes, I know that there will be many former Obama voters that are not voting for him another reason it is going to be close.


    And do you have that Pew link? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:35:10 PM EST
    the last one I can find is from 2011 and says this:

    As the country enters into the 2012 presidential election cycle, the electorate's partisan affiliations have shifted significantly since Obama won office nearly three years ago. In particular, the Democrats hold a much narrower edge than they did in 2008, particularly when the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account.

    Notably, the GOP gains have occurred only among white voters; a two-point Republican edge among whites in 2008 (46% to 44%) has widened to a 13-point lead today (52% to 39%). In sharp contrast, the partisan attachments of black and Hispanic voters have remained consistently Democratic.

    While Republican gains in leaned party identification span nearly all subgroups of whites, they are particularly pronounced among the young and poor. A seven-point Democratic advantage among whites younger than age 30 three years ago has turned into an 11-point GOP advantage today. And a 15-point Democratic advantage among whites earning less than $30,000 annually has swung to a slim four-point Republican edge today.

    Yet, the Republican Party's growth has been limited in two important ways. First, the steep gains in GOP leaning that helped the party in the 2010 midterms have not continued, as the overall balance of partisan attachments has held steady in the first half of 2011. Second, while more independents say they "lean" toward the Republican Party, the GOP has not gained in actual party affiliation since 2008 -- just 28% of registered voters, in both years, call themselves Republicans. Instead, the growth category continues to be political independents

    It's from (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:39:26 PM EST
    March 2012



    Thanks (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:44:18 PM EST
    But that doesn't talk about party affiliation.

    Also, I think it's kind of hard to extrapolate data from that survey, since Romney wasn't yet the nominee and the Republicans still had the crazies (Newt, Santorum, etc.) in the news every day.  Add to that, job numbers have gotten worse since then.

    You may be right, but I think that data is too old(much like my previous post) to have any real meaning.  Too much has changed since March.

    But thanks for getting it.


    I (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:02:27 PM EST
    seriously doubt much has changed since that was taken. Has the GOP quit gay bashing and Hispanic bashing? Not that I've seen. The only thing that they have quit doing is women bashing because their numbers were starting to really tank after that episode.

    Romney does not seem to be a very good campaigner but whether that's enough to make him lose or not remains to be seen.


    Well (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:31:07 PM EST
    Your analysis assumes that all those people who are supposedly turned off by the Republicans will actually vote for the Democrats.

    And you are still forgetting independents.


    Independents (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:43:44 PM EST
    have a negative opinion of the GOP too. 49% of them think the GOP is too extreme.

    There are a lot of people making (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:45:31 PM EST
    noise about not voting for Obama again, but when push comes to shove, I think a fair number of them will.  They will be guilted into it, shamed into it, scared into it - just as Democrats have been for at least the last three elections.  

    Now, while I don't think the commenters here can be taken to be completely representative of the electorate, how many times do you read someone saying how angry, how unhappy, how frustrated and disgusted they are with Obama and Dems, and then say, "but I'll probably vote for him/them?"

    Will that be enough?  Who knows?

    The bottom line here is that having the law upheld doesn't make the law better than it was; it's still a pretty bad piece of legislation with a few good elements, and it isn't going to be the panacea its proponents want it to be, and it isn't going to make sure that, no matter where you live, in red states or blue, you will have the same access and affordability as everyone else.

    It would be helpful if, as between Republicans and Democrats, we could have an honest discussion about the law; as it stands, there is nothing to be gained by Republicans casting this as a government takeover of health care, or as a socialist conspiracy - this does nothing to put more Americans in a position where they can get the care they need without going broke.

    As for "comical," I find it kind of amusing that you think that all these people making noise about not voting for Obama again will actually follow through and deny him their vote; some will, but most will suck it up and take one for the team.  It's too bad, because going along, again, is not the way to get better leaders or better representation.


    I would (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:10:04 PM EST
    love it if we could have a debate about health care policy in this country but you can't debate with crazy (government take over of healthcare) or cults (it's the most progressive piece of legislation EVAH).

    And (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:40:44 PM EST
    Now that the SC has ruled, most people who don't understand the finer points of this law are going to wonder why many of their benefits have not kicked in by Election Day.

    Things like pre-existing coverage.....


    I doubt (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:01:24 PM EST
    that. I mean that can easily be explained by stating that it doesn't go into effect until 2014,

    I wouldn't count out ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:34:05 PM EST
    the Republican party just yet.  Everything is teeing up perfectly for Jeb 2016!  Hell, he even has Aaron Sorkin shilling for him on recent talk shows.

    Jeb (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    Bush must be stuck on stupid if he thinks he can win a general election. I'm actually not counting the GOP out but I think they have ruined their brand for a generation or more and are going ot have to modernize the party before they can come back.

    Remember Teri Schiavo? That one decision is going to come back and haunt Jeb forever along with the SYG law.


    Hiliarious! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:53:26 PM EST
    99.99% of Americans neither remember nor care about Terry Shiavo.

    Oh (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:12:21 PM EST
    but they will be reminded. Easy shot at Jeb by even a crazy Republican. Look at all the stuff the GOP drug up on Newt, Santorum and Romney that even political junkies didn't know. Besides I think Jeb switched from behind pro-life to pro-choice and that's probably enough for him to not make it through the primaries.

    Wait (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:37:45 PM EST
    I thought the Republican Party was dead on 2008??

    Oh yeah - 2010 happened.....


    Heck (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:38:56 PM EST
    they could have been if Obama had put a boot on their neck instead of giving them mouth to mouth resuscitation.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by dk on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:48:57 PM EST
    You've been spot on Ga6thDem in your analysis, IMO.

    ACA isn't particularly revolutionary for the purpose of fixing the health care crisis in this country (though the Medicaid expansion is helpful for the people who need the most help, assuming it gets funded, which it probably won't).

    What is revolutionary is the agreement among Democratic and Republican elites to support the project of privatizing government services (at the expense of fairness).  Given the size of the healthcare industry, it's crucial for the money wings of both parties.  Roberts reconized this.  In other words, distribution of wealth is fine as long as it's from the poor to the rich.


    Ga6 is saving me a lot of typing (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 09:36:39 PM EST
    Glad she got here first.

    I think the point of today is not to re-argue the merits of the ACA. The point is that states like mine, led by the tea party darlings of the GOP, cheered on by most of the media who just love a brawl,  made a huge production out of challenging it, and lost. No way that is not a Dem political victory.

    The merits/faults of the ACA will play out over the coming years, but it at least has been given the stamp of legitimate law. I think that takes a lot of steam out of the election year argument.


    Meh (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:41:23 PM EST
    I bet BTD is CRYING (2.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 11:37:38 PM EST
    Know why?
    This is like the worst of all possible words for him. They upheld the law as a TAX -which will go around Obama's neck in November. However they squeezed back at his idea of a totally elastic Commerce clause.

    I'm a happy man tonight.

    That sounds rather nasty in spirit (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:25:10 AM EST
    on your part . . .

    just saying'


    I heard him on the radio and did not detect tears (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 05:38:52 AM EST
    In the relatively short time you have (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:52:06 AM EST
    been appearing in the comments here, you have managed to distinguish yourself as someone who believes gloating and taunting are effective means of communicating; unfortunately, what that communicates is that you are less concerned with being insightful than you are with pushing people's buttons for sport and inciting anger.

    And nothing makes you more smug than getting a rise out of BTD, although there's an element of your trying a little too hard here; too bad that in the process, whatever arguments you think you're making disappear, and all that's left is evidence of the small and shallow person you apparently are.

    The anonymity of screen names and the internet doesn't disguise as much as people think it does...


    Cute (none / 0) (#127)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 08:50:30 AM EST
    A. I actually commented here for awhile in 2006 under a different name that I forget.
    B. BTD loves insulting people as a means of argument and when he's not satisfied insulting them he'll often ban them from his threads without any warning.

    That's all I'm going to say in this matter.


    Sour grapes, and sour grapes, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 09:31:31 AM EST
    And Sour grapes

    Call the Waaaaaaaambulance

    Ya know, you are free to start your own blog, write astute reasoned arguments thereby gathering together a group of readers and followers, and ban people who troll you too.  Like a few other trolls around here point out, it is America, instead of whining and focusing on what everyone else is doing create something of value.....


    You are mean. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Angel on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 06:43:48 AM EST
    Here's an interesting graphic (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    Damn... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    The should have used shades of red for the most and shades of blue for the least and it would have been damn close to the politics of those states.

    IOW, the red states are making out pretty good, but I suspect that is more because those places have been so neglectful in helping their own residents get affordable health care.


    And (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    The Upper Midwest and Northeast (the "blue" political areas) have more "bigger" employers who offer employer-sponsored plans than what would be the "red" political areas on the map, so there are more people without insurance there to begin with.

    I'm happy ACA was upheld (none / 0) (#5)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:21:51 PM EST
    but, I'm worried about Roberts rejecting the mandate under the Commerce Clause.

    I'm not an attorney so I guess I'm asking - does this move signal narrowing the use of the Commerce Clause?

    If that's the case (narrowed interpretation of the Commerce Clause) then are minimum wage, work conditions, labor standards in general, etc., etc. at risk?

    What is at risk is all New Deal legislation (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:41:41 PM EST
    The ground work has now been laid out.  Calling this a tax issue makes repealing/rolling it back a lot easier for Repubs.

    I also think it is going to be difficult to rally enthusiasms of progressives now to keep Obama by running against the court.  The court just let him keep his "most progressive piece of legislation since Medicare."  


    Obama (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:49:12 PM EST
    needs to send Roberts some flowers or something, especially after not voting for his nomination to the bench!

    Well, Roberts messed up (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    Obama's oath at the inauguration.  So, they are even.

    I doubt most progressives think they can (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 09:41:55 PM EST
    count on Roberts to vote their way. I don't see this changing the calculus of running against the court.

    I should have said (none / 0) (#7)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    Rejected that the authority for the mandate is permissible under the commerce Clause.

    BTD may weigh in on (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:43:09 PM EST
    this and provide clarification and interpretation,  but his blog at Daily Kos sounds the alarm that Roberts and the four in dissent's take on the Commerce Clause is "a shot across the bow to the Supreme Court's New Deal jurisprudence."  And,  while it would be naive to ascribe any great intentions to Roberts et al, it seems to me that when Roberts, at least, held that the mandate was not justified under the Commerce Clause, it could be construed as being in a narrow context for future determinations--based on Roberts position that "the power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of  commercial activity to be regulated." Roberts says that the Founders knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing.

    And both the fifth vote of the Court and the four in dissent, along with Clarence Thomas' edifying ancillary paragraphs, hinge on their premise that non-activity does not enter commerce, with examples such as not growing wheat is not commerce.  


    It certainly is something to watch... (none / 0) (#71)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:23:36 PM EST
    though no New Deal cases were overturned but rather distinguished. And, admittedly, this ACA was pretty unique in its scope so that liberal leaning justice/s  can distinguish this ruling on the commerce clause out of existence. It's only a shot across the bow if Romney wins and Obama can't replace Scalia, Kennedy or preserve the centrist block when Ginsburg or Breyer retire.

    It signals such narrowing in future IF (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 03:24:52 PM EST
    the split remains the same.  What needs to happen to avoid the hardening of the Chief's language about the Commerce Clause and "inactivity" is for the succeeding vacancy(ies) to be filled by a Democratic President.  The re-election is still, in many ways, about the Supreme Court. As we can see from where 4 of the conservative Justices were willing to go and from the foretaste by CJ Roberts, the effects could be far-reaching with a solidified Rupbublican control.

    My husband was teaching all morning (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:26:19 PM EST
    Just got to his lunch, said he sat down to eat something and of course FOX News was on and he heard that ACA was upheld.  FOX News has Roberts picture up, and who is to blame for him being on the Supreme Court and being the Chief Justice.  Up is down, black is the new white, FOX News driving in the ditch and on the sidewalk :)  Go home, pull the blinds, lock your doors :)

    Apparently (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    CNN wasn't the only one to get the ruling wrong - FOX said it was overturned as well.

    And MSNBC commentators (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    so I read.

    But there is a long history, apparently usually not noticed, of journalists' inability to parse complex sentence structure.  And lawyers/courts, of course, revel in such (unnecessarily) complicated writing.


    BTD announced it correctly (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    on Netroots Radio though.  He was shocked, but could still read.

    I think we need to put them (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    on an aspirin regime, just to be safe.

    Take two aspirin and call me in the morning. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:08:12 PM EST
    Did they (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    actually mention Bush as the one being responsible for Roberts?

    He didn't say who they (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:40:37 PM EST
    were holding accountable at this point, only that the culprits are being sought in the current discussion.

    I can't watch Fox today.  I'm happy, I'm celebrating, I'll deal with craptacularness tomorrow :)


    Why would you ever watch Fox? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:46:41 PM EST
    I just can't bring myself to deliberately expose myself to that; it's bad enough that I mostly yell at the other networks' "news coverage" when I happen to see it - so bad for the blood pressure and general mood - and there's only so much yelling-at-TV-anchors a person can do before being considered unstable.  :-)

    It's a good cardiac workout :) (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:49:55 PM EST
    And the unintentional comedy... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:21:56 PM EST
    is unrivaled.

    Could They... (none / 0) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:51:03 PM EST
    ...banish him from the clubhouse and possibly push him over, or is he going to try get back extra specially hard ?

    I bet he's got security for a while.


    I was watching the tube (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:58:34 PM EST
    while doing Netroots Radio.  For awhile the front the Supreme Court was crowded with all sort of protesters, and then suddenly the people were gone replaced by law enforcement standing in their place.  Did something end up happening at the front door of the Supreme Court?  It looked fairly 50/50 liberals to tea partiers.

    For those that tout the benefits (none / 0) (#15)
    by BTAL on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:44:51 PM EST
    of the 80% of revenues applied to costs, stand by for a shock.

    What has already started happening is the insurance companies are buying up clinics, practices, hospitals and other service providers.  They can bury a ton of "medical care" costs in these entities to easily meet the 80% requirement.

    Prices will go up and improved or more accessible care will not.

    Not sure (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    about the prices because Kaiser operates this way and they have better prices than all the other insurance companies here in GA and also have been named #1 for care for years.

    Furthermore, as large companies (none / 0) (#48)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:46:04 PM EST
    with a labor force that has a higher percentage of admin costs in their health coverage (primarily low wage workers with high turnover - not waste or poor management at insurance companies) have said if they do not get waivers, they will have to drop covering their employees.  They are getting their waivers.

    If prices go up (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:05:32 PM EST
    Do you really think that a majority of the people won't fight for single payer then?  Do you really think mobs won't demand it.

    Let's hope so... (none / 0) (#64)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    Hopefully this ACA moved the goalposts to the point where universal health care is the new norm, and the best way to implement it is the new debate.

    Probably why Rep. Pence compared today's decision to 9/11.


    This is what I hope for (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    Yup. The ACA has to be tried before we get to (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 09:44:40 PM EST
    something better. I don't think the status quo moves the ball.

    And, magster, as Eugene Robinson wrote in WP (none / 0) (#135)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    today, a wonderful think will now underlie all of this...the fight for the ACA is not just the first big step in the fight for universal healthcare, it is the first time that the principle that Access to Health Care is a Right, Not Simply a Privilege can be read into an official American position.

    When I was about 12 years old, my Dad--seemingly out of the blues as he, my sister Rita & I ate dinner one night--stood up and said "Always remember Christy, health care should be a right." I'm tired today; happy-tired from crying about the consolidation, verification of that first big step with the SCt's action yesterday. From the for-whatever-personal/public reason Chief Justice Roberts stayed his hand (via a longstanding principle used by respected Conservatives of the past no less concerning construing language to be Constitutional where reasonable to do so) to the legal and political consequences and--finally--to my personal relief & memory of my Dad and sister Rita that we are coming to see Access to Health Care as a Right.  Now, I'm crying happy again. Thank you.


    As many here have already (none / 0) (#66)
    by BTAL on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    posted - today's ruling just moved any single payer possibility 10-20 years down the road.

    The only way (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:14:52 PM EST
    I see anyone touching the subject of "health care" reform in a generation will be if the Republicans can repeal it under a Romney presidency.

    Other than that, no one is going to touch it with a ten foot pole.


    ACA will be improved though (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    With a Republican House (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:52:13 PM EST
    and possibly a Republican Senate??

    I have no idea how things pan out now (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:49:45 PM EST
    I think this changes momentum for Dems.  And we haven't even had debates yet, how Obama does will reflect down ticket.

    And now, what is Romney's secret plan? (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 03:41:45 PM EST
    Google news says Romney is running an (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:56:54 PM EST
    ad in which Hillary Clinton criticized Barack Obama during the '08 primaries.  

    I have had a year of not scraping (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    and groveling and living in fear.  Something strange has happened to me, I'm done with it.  I have worked hard my whole life.  I am a contributing member of this society, I am not trash and you will not kill me or my family for profit.  I'm done with even considering it.  Doubt if I'm alone.

    I woudl (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:47:41 PM EST
    say 5 to 10 years because insurance companies have shown no shortage of desire to produce large bonuses for CEO's.  

    Another cool graphic (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    Walker's Wisconsin (none / 0) (#26)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:58:03 PM EST
    should be of the deep blue hue on that map -- an interesting color selection, which should be read as deepest read, i.e., refusing to meet the requirement.  And Walker reiterated that today.

    I kind of predicted this result... (none / 0) (#31)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:02:22 PM EST

    I live in Parker, CO, so if anyone wants to hire an airplane skywriter to proclaim my awesomeness, that would be nice.

    Would you settle... (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:21:28 PM EST
    for covering your house in a very nice shade of red fire retardant?  

    If They Weren't Busy... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:23:00 PM EST
    ...trying to fight fires, I would.

    Multiple windows when link clicked (none / 0) (#34)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:12:04 PM EST
    Not for the faint hearted (or small memory pool) - the link above to the decision caused my IE9 browswer to open multiple new windows.  I'm fairly certain it's not a virus or something on my PC.  Multiple windows were spawned that I had to use Task Manager to close.

    J - you may want to repost that link.

    works fine in firefox and (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    it's the link to the court's opinion from their website.

    Obama Thought he Lost (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:19:54 PM EST
    Apparently Obama was watching CNN or FOX and for 40 seconds believed his legislation went down in flames.

    Deleted Tweets (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:35:39 PM EST
    Website with deleted Tweets about the 'defeated' SCOTUS ruling.  Funny.

    you'd think he'd have better sources . . . (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:43:30 PM EST
    just saying' . . .

    If Obama didn't know the truth then (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:18:53 PM EST
    he's not much of a constitutional scholar.

    I'd hope he'd read it for himself or have an underling read it rather than watch TV.


    Tne initial reporting (none / 0) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:23:50 PM EST
    as I understand it, came from news people inside the courtroom, where Roberts read the decision from the bench.  The whole first section, I understand, was on commerce clause.  It took a while to get to the part where he allowed it under taxing power, which not many people even expected would really come up seriously.

    Right, No Electronics... (none / 0) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    ...so from the horses mouth to the people present to the News station to the rest of the world.

    Obama wasn't privy to anything, obviously, before the rest of us.

    He had people there, but apparently it takes about 40 more seconds to get the right interpretation of the ruling relayed back to the President.


    If the former constitutional professor (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    had had one of his minions tuned into ScotusBlog, he would not have had a 40-second heart attack...why people - including the president - rely on CNN and Fox for accurate info is beyond me.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#132)
    by Rupe on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 02:21:14 PM EST
    Seems remarkable that 500,000 (I think that was the number that ultimately tuned in) of us knew SCOTUSblog to be the best place to hear the result but not anyone in the administration.  Between a group of wannabe "celebrity" journalists or astute legal analysts, I would bet on the latter coming to quicker and more accurate conclusions.

    Actually, there was (none / 0) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:29:19 PM EST
    Valerie Jarrett was apparently monitoring Scotusblog, but it took a heeeuggue 40 seconds for her to realize media had gotten it wrong and get word in to Obama.

    But gosh, that 40 seconds must mean the Obama administration is incompetent. <eyes rolling>


    OT: Holder held in contempt (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:50:17 PM EST

    If there was ever any doubt, today's ACA... (none / 0) (#54)
    by magster on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    ruling made today's vote certain. I'm surprised the Republican tantrum didn't result in the GOP calling for violence.