Today is the big day!

Shortly after 10 am Eastern time today the fate of Obamacare will be announced.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and predict that SCOTUS will strike down the mandate as unconstitutional. That’s a death sentence even if they don’t throw out the rest of the Affordable Care Act.

I freely admit that I may be guilty of wishful thinking. I think Obamacare is a bad program and Congress needs to start over and do it right. Either way it will not be good for Obama.

There are a lot of opinions flying around about this topic, but like I said a long time ago there are only five opinions that count. Those five opinions belong to whoever makes up the majority of the Supreme Court decision.

Supreme Court justices serve as long as they want to. They can’t be fired, and though technically they can be impeached as a practical matter they are untouchable. We can’t even cut their pay.

They are literally a law unto themselves. They make their own rules and follow or ignore those rules as they please. They aren’t bound by precedent, and they have on more than one occasion reversed earlier rulings. The rules of ethics don’t apply to them.

They choose what cases they will hear and ignore the rest.

But they are, by far, the smallest branch of our federal government. They have no means of enforcing their rulings. Besides themselves they have only some clerks and administrative staff, as well as some bailiffs to protect them and keep order.

So why do we listen to them?

Tradition. Because the system works, mostly. Because nobody has come up with a better way.

Thomas Paine said, “In America the law is king.” Those nine black-robed justices are the king’s high priests. Or, as the late Justice Robert H. Jackson once said, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

This entry was posted in Affordable Care Act, Law and Constitution, Obamacare and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Today is the big day!

  1. So if it is struck down will Scotus be joining us under the RAYCIST bus?

  2. Oswald says:

    Big Pimp Democrat:

    I think Andrew Koppelman gets it in one paragraph:

    The philosophy they relied upon, which I’ll call Tough Luck Libertarianism, holds that property rights are absolute and any redistribution to care for the sick violates those rights. If you’re sick, and you can’t afford to pay for medical care with your own money, that’s your tough luck. The judges’ willingness to read this notion into the Constitution is very big news, dwarfing even the fate of the ACA, which is itself the most important social legislation in decades.

    • T says:

      Cracks me up to think he really believes that’s what overturning the mandate does. To me, it does just the opposite.

  3. Oswald says:


    Obamacarians’ Pregame Rationalizations: Doesn’t Matter; Good for O; All Scalia’s Fault, and More!

    The Supreme Court has so far struck down neither the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act nor the law’s individual mandate requiring every American to buy private health insurance.

    The court may not strike down the law at all, but nervous supporters of Obamacare are ready for the worst.

    Anticipating a decision against the Affordable Care Act, supporters are explaining that it’s the media’s fault for not explaining how great Obamacare is, but that the loss won’t really matter because Obamacare has already inspired medical market players to behave better so it’s really a win for President Obama because now he’ll be able to make a campaign plank out of the fact that the Supreme Court is full of rightwing extremists as demonstrated by a Quinn/Martin study showing that SCOTUS is so much crazier than George Lincoln Rockwell that even the Father of Our Country would be appalled at how obviously the justices want the 99 percent to get sick and die, which proves that it’s all a plan by the vast rightwing conspiracy and that the conservatives should be careful what they wish for because Democrats would be justified if they passed a court-packing bill, which they just might do if Antonin Scalia doesn’t resign.

  4. Oswald says:

    Gabe Malor:

    The Roberts Court Is One of the Least Activist Courts of the Modern Era

    In their effort to preemptively attack the credibility of the Supreme Court in general and Chief Justice Roberts in particular, liberals have started spreading a stupid and easily refutable lie.

    It started with that James Fallows character who claimed the Supreme Court was about to perpetrate a coup. He claimed that Justices Roberts and Alito in particular, “actively second-guess and re-do existing law.” Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s chief law analyst who completely shit the bed predicting that no lower court would even pretend that the Obamacare lawsuits had merit, also oozed this lie, claiming that the Roberts Court has been “eager” to overturn legislatures. This lie was ultimately repeated by Politico’s dim and shallow Roger Simon and now it is ubiquitous and unchallenged among liberals.

    Yes, in about 48 hours liberals managed to cook up this claim and now they’re all scurrying around repeating it like a bunch of lemmings. There’s just one problem: it is completely untrue.

    This is not a matter of opinion. We can actually count how often various Courts have “re-done existing law” and “overturned legislatures.” And such a count reveals that the Roberts Court doesn’t overturn as many precedents as its three predecessors. The Roberts Court doesn’t even come close to overturning the number of laws that its three predecessors did.

    Here’s the data on the first five years of the Roberts Court (gleaned from this NYTimes infographic):

    (1) The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts overturned precedent decisions at an average rate of 2.7, 2.8 and 2.4 per term, respectively. By contrast, the Roberts Court overturned precedent only at an average rate of 1.6 per term.

    (2) The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts overturned laws at an average rate of 7.9, 12.5, and 6.2 laws per term. By contrast, the Roberts Court struck down laws only 3 laws per term.

  5. DandyTiger says:

    I’m just happy the supremes are back together.

  6. DandyTiger says:

    Two ladies are sitting next to each other on a plane. One is a Yankee and the other, a Southern Belle. The Southern Belle turns to the Yankee and asks,

    “So where y’all from?”

    The Yankee turned her steely gaze to the Southern Belle and replied,

    “I am from a place where we do not end our sentences with a preposition.”

    Silence ensues and the flight continues until a few minutes later when the Southern Belle again turns to the Yankee and asks,

    “So, where y’all from, bitch?”

  7. votermom says:

    I’m so excited! No matter what they decide, the fact that we’ve come to today is a big fat poke in Pelosi’s eye.

  8. carol haka says:

    Today is the first day of the Rest of our Lives!

    God has Blessed America and will right this wrong!

  9. DandyTiger says:

  10. carol haka says:

    Drudge reporting: Obama is preparing 3 different speeches.

    Here’s an idea, why doesn’t he just go play golf and not interfere with our celebrations!

  11. DandyTiger says:

  12. Lulu says:

    I just skimmed some of the Prog sites this morning to see if their were going to be any hissy fits or mental breakdowns. Obama attended something (campaign related I’m sure) and he was all down in the dumps and philosophical and shit about the decision so he seems to know it is going to be real bad for his glorious memory. The funny thing is that the Progs are concerned that he is going to be all sad and demotivated.. It is like their 13 year old girlfriend has been told she has to move from LA to Fordyce Arkansas. How can they do this to her/him? It is so uncool that the Supreme Court would say no.

  13. Oswald says:

  14. Oswald says:

    If Obamacare is upheld it’s not over.

    The Republicans will run against it. With a 60% disapproval rating that’s a no-brainer.

    • Lulu says:

      A lot of them want it upheld for that very reason. It will be 2010 all over again.

      • DandyTiger says:

        Though it will be a psychological blow if it’s upheld I think. And the Obot victory dance will be nauseating. Just for that alone, the court should kill it.

        • Lulu says:

          It would really encourage the attitude that Obama can do anything he pleases. Here come the drones! Hide!

  15. Oswald says:

    A public service announcement from The Crawdad Hole:

  16. Lola-at-Large says:

    OT: Well, well, well, JP Morgan couldn’t pick a better day to announce they were wrong about $2 billion in losses: it’s really more like $9 billion. The planning here is obvious.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      I just keep hearing that guy from CNBC saying something like, “The medicine will become the poison.”

  17. gxm17 says:

    My fear is that they’ll keep the mandate which will be another win for corporations and yet another loss for the American people. I trust this SCOTUS about as far as I can throw ’em.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Right there with you. It’s diabolical that all of this, start to finish, was decided by people who all have the best health insurance money can buy, and never have to worry about it being cancelled or not being able to afford it.

      • gxm17 says:

        Yep. I hate being right. Very depressing. While I was driving in to work around the time the decision was announced, I suddenly had a sinking feeling of despair deep in my gut, and I knew what SCOTUS had done without even checking the news. Sad, sad day.

  18. DeniseVB says:

  19. Lola-at-Large says:

    Here’s how I’m looking at this whole thing: Today is the day we find out if there are any protections left afforded to the people, or if all our leaders are the enemy.

  20. T says:

    For me this isn’t a popcorn day. This is very serious. And honestly, now that the crap bill has been partially implemented, I’m not sure what will be the worst outcome. My insurance has changed very much for the negative beause of this bill and I honestly don’t believe it’s going to go back to the way it was if the bill is overturned. Instead, it will only become worse than it is, as good things about the bill are ditched in plans, while the negative aspects and the rate increases stay.

    Maybe I don’t want the mandate overturned now that a great deal of the damage has already been done. I just don’t know. And no, I didn’t want it in the first place.

  21. cj says:

    Andrew Golis‏@agolis

    SCOTUS decision prediction: there will be more coverage of the political implications for Obama than of the health implications for America.

  22. WMCB says:

    Great article:

    Closed-minded dismissal of opposing views has gone from being a bad habit of conservatives to a core strategy of the Left.

    As we await the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling, liberal commentator after liberal commentator has declared that only a dishonest partisan or a complete fool could find the individual mandate unconstitutional.

    This is where the liberal elites have been headed for a couple of years, and not just on health care. In many cases, it’s simply a matter of the liberal bubble. For others, it’s a cynical way of moving the bounds of permissible dissent. This latter phenomenon I’ve given the florid name “Strategic Epistemic Closure.”


    The other side’s views need not be entertained, the argument goes, because the other side is not serious. And we know they are not serious because they are on the other side. Any reporter who gives as much weight to the Right’s argument as to the Left’s is guilty of false equivalence and “he-said-she-said” analysis.

    Paul Krugman, the acid-penned New York Times columnist, is the trendsetter when it comes to Strategic Epistemic Closure.

    “I don’t know of any economics or politics sites on that side that regularly provide analysis or information I need to take seriously,” Krugman writes, explaining why he reads no conservatives or free-marketers. “I know we’re supposed to pretend that both sides always have a point; but the truth is that most of the time they don’t.”

    Those conservatives they can’t dismiss as “ignorant yahoos” (Krugman’s term) they vilify as corporate shills. Yahoos and shills being the only two sources of conservative or free-market argumentation, they can all safely be ignored.

    This is related to what liberal blogger Ezra Klein recently described as “building a permission structure.” Klein wrote this week of how the Right built a “permission structure” allowing conservative judges to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional.

    Here’s the flip side of that story: liberal Strategic Epistemic Closure is all about dismantling any permission structure on the Right. For instance, get enough elites to dismiss an idea, and boom, it’s “discredited.” Get enough liberals to act shocked at a proposal, and you’ve made it “controversial.” Then pretend some objective standard has been met, and warn the media not to give credence to discredited or controversial ideas.

  23. myiq2xu says:

    Three more minutes

  24. myiq2xu says:

    Here we go:

    The decision of the 9th Circuit is affirmed in Alvarez.

  25. T says:

    Oh freaking come on…you have the health care opinion.

  26. Lulu says:

    Mandate out.

  27. DeniseVB says:

    mandate unconstitutional !

  28. Lola-at-Large says:

    YES! We are still AMERICA! Mandate falls!

  29. yttik says:

    If Obamacare is struck down, I think this whole boondoggle is going to turn out to be a good thing for uninsured people. Before Obama, our state had sliding fee insurance for those who made to much for medicaid. Even Romney created a plan for his state. I think the end result will be that individual states will come up with their own plans and the federal Gov will help support them, much like they do with medicaid.

    Believe it or not,Republicans actually want people to to have access to healthcare and I believe they will do a better job of delivering it than Obama has.

    If Obamacare holds up under the SC, we’re totally screwed. The economy will suffer, people will lose their insurance, and rates will increase. HC reform will leave such a bad taste in people’s mouths,it will take decades before anyone dares to address it again.

  30. myiq2xu says:


  31. T says:

    Nope, mandate survived.

  32. DeniseVB says:

    nope, it survived as a tax … much confusion on FNC

  33. myiq2xu says:

    New thread up

  34. WMCB says:

    WTF? If it was passed as NOT a tax, how can SCOTUS just decide it’s a tax?

Comments are closed.