E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Supreme Court, suddenly at the heart of presidential politics, is preparing what could be blockbuster rulings on health care and immigration shortly before the fall election.
The court, sometimes an afterthought in presidential elections, is throwing a new element of uncertainty into the campaign taking shape between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
Sharply divided between four conservatives, four liberals and one conservative-leaning swing justice, the court already is viewed as being nearly as partisan as Congress. Within weeks it will rule on the contentious 2010 Democratic-crafted health care overhaul and a Republican-backed Arizona law that's seen as a model for cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Obama sometimes seems to be running against the court, or at least its conservative members. Whether that will sway voters in November is unclear. The public receives far less information and visual imagery of the Supreme Court than it does of the White House and Congress.
An anti-court strategy by Obama "will fire up his base, but I doubt it will make any bigger impact on swing voters," said Republican consultant John Feehery.
Recommended: House GOP set to curb college student loan costs
Meanwhile, strategists in both parties are hoping they can turn the upcoming decisions to their advantage — for instance, possibly boosting Democratic turnout among Hispanic voters unhappy with GOP immigration policies or emboldening the Republican base if Obama's landmark health care law is ruled unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court already has played a huge and direct role in U.S. presidential politics. Its 5-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore settled the bitter 2000 contest by barring a Florida ballot recount, which Democrats hoped would prevent George W. Bush's election.
And the 2010 Citizens United case, also decided 5-4, greatly eased political spending restrictions on corporations and unions. It gave birth to the "super PACs" that are reshaping campaigns by raising millions of anonymously donated dollars for TV ads attacking Obama, Romney and targeted congressional candidates.
By holding well-publicized hearings on the health care and immigration cases — and now writing keenly awaited decisions — the court is stirring passions on key issues in this year's elections. Less clear, however, is how the politics might play out.
Many court-watchers expect the justices to throw out most or all of the health law, which Republicans derisively call "Obamacare." During public oral arguments, the most conservative justices questioned Congress' authority to require all Americans to obtain health insurance.
Romney may be poorly positioned to exploit such a ruling, however. The similar "individual mandate" that he successfully pushed as Massachusetts governor was a model for Obama's federal plan.
"I don't think the Romney campaign will want to make health care a major issue," said Democratic strategist Doug Hattaway. "Every time Romney criticizes the president's health care reform, he opens himself up to the Etch A Sketch attack."
Hattaway was referring to claims that Romney switches back and forth on important policies, erasing and redrawing pages when convenient.
Republican strategist Terry Holt said a court decision overturning the health care law would be an unmistakable setback for Obama.
"It repudiates the singular achievement of this administration," Holt said.
Feehery agreed, saying such a ruling would make Obama "look like a weak president."
But it might help other Democrats, Feehery said. "It takes away a law that is unpopular," he said, "but puts health care back on the agenda for the Democrats, which has been a winning issue in the past."
In the immigration case, the Obama administration opposes Arizona's requirement that police check the legal status of people they stop for other reasons.
The law, pushed by a Republican governor and Legislature, has angered some voters, including Hispanics, in battleground states such as Florida, New Mexico and Colorado.
A number of court analysts predict the justices will uphold parts of the Arizona law but may overturn others. That could energize Americans who want tougher sanctions, including deportation, against millions of illegal immigrants in the country.
"This could prove problematic for Romney," Feehery said, because it would pit his conservative base against much-needed Hispanic voters in targeted states. "If Romney handles it right, by largely ignoring it, it could take out a major source of irritation for Hispanics and maybe help a portion of them see the good side of Romney," Feehery said.
Earlier this month, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, delivered what some considered a misleading warning to the court regarding the health care law.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," the president said. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example."
White House spokesmen tried to explain that Obama recognizes the court's power to review laws passed by Congress. His point, said spokesman Jay Carney, is that the Supreme Court traditionally has "deferred to Congress' authority in matters of national economic importance."
Leave a Comment:
obamy is trying to do away with the Supreme Court, another of the dictators way to rule the country, ME and only ME that counts. Next he and the Dems will do away with the Second Amendment allowing citizens the right to own guns, if that happens, this country will be taken over in a heart beat, no one dares trying to come in and take over with about a 1/3 of the people in this country owning guns.
Obama does not have the power to do away with the Supreme Court. He understands the concept of checks and balances. Obama has not done anything to stunt or deny anyone's second amendment rights. You teapartyers do not understand facts. Stop listening to Beck and Hannity.
I will believe that he has not done anything to attack the Constitution when Fast and Furious investigation is over?
Texas, You need to check into the "fast and furious" operation that was set up by the Obamy boys to try and eliminate the right of private citizens to own guns!
Tex,
Anyone who states,"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" either does NOT understand the concept of checks and balances, or is a blatant liar who is challenging that very notion in a public forum...Which was it that the "Constitutinal Scholar" was tryng to do?
Larry, are you saying that republicans dont pay taxes?
h engbers ,from what I read on these pages, the right seems to believe that they are the only that do pay taxes
Tsk Tsk Tsk!!!! Really???? Republicans, Neo-Cons, Racist, Teabaggers, MITTWITS and all the Hillbilly foot soldiers for the Republican Party from Po-Dung, Jerk Water Hollar??? Really??? You don’t think that the American people cant see what your doing???
Let me spell it out for you… First let me say that I am a Middle Aged White Male, A WASP…. And this is what I see is happening in America and the reason for all this Anti- Immigration AND Anti- Abortion/ Anti-Contraception legislations being passed…
All I see and hear on FAUX NEWS and from the right IS FEAR!!! A whole nation of scared White Men willing to legislate to keep this nation WHITE AS POSSIBLE…. Rachel Maddow hit it right on the head when she exposed THE REAL REASON for Anti-Immigration laws…. Kris Kobach and Mr Hethmon (Authors of Anti-Immigration Legislation) said in the Washington Times.
“Immigration is “on track to change the demographic makeup of the entire country. You know, what they call ‘minority-majority,’ ” said Hethmon, who is general counsel at the Washington-based Immigration Reform Law Institute. “How many countries have gone through a transition like that — peacefully, carefully? It’s theoretically possible, but we don’t have any examples.”
Really?? Are White Men really that Scared of the nation Browning?? So Scared that that they will even LEGISLATE THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS OF WHITE WOMEN??
What does all these anti-contraceptive anti-abortion legislations say in the broader picture? The simple answer is it shows a caring for life... But does it really?? When that child is born Republicans and the rightwing would sooner have that child starve by cutting the very programs that child may need to survive... When that child becomes preschool age programs designed to give that child a fighting chance to succeed in first grade are abolished...
No! The caring exhibited by passing all these anti-conceptive and anti-abortion laws gets wiped away by the elimination of the programs to help these grow and thrive... SO WHY all this legislation??? I am afraid of a theory that Republicans and Evangelicals keep adding credence to... I fear that in order to slow the "Browning" of this country Republicans, The Far Right and Evangelicals are attempting to "Re-Whiten" America by limiting the reproductive options of White Women specifically the poor and young White Women of America....
Forcing poor young white women to have children they are not ready for and do not want. If you look at the big picture the effect of all this legislation will cause the White population to increase and thus slow the browning of America... As for Blacks and Hispanics they do not typically use hormonal contraceptives so these kinds of legislations really wont have that much of an effect on their populations... CALM DOWN!!!! Its just a theory.... Not something I truly believe. But the end RESULT WILL BE AN INCREASE IN THE WHITE POPULATION!!!
Its not a Conspiracy Theory its MATH.... More Caucasian Children will inevitably be born.... You can dispute my reasoning but you cant dispute the results.... Anti-Abortion and Anti-Contraception legislation is targeted towards low and middle income White Women.... Even if my reasoning is faulty, Think of all the Unintended and Calculated consequences..... Hypothetically if I wanted to rebuild a race without causing Violence to another race, I would Limit or Abolish everything and anything that hampered the Growth of that race... The math works.... You take away the choice of when where and how a woman has a child you are now legislatively in controle of a race, a gender and possibly the species as a whole..... It will be the slavery of a White Woman’s Womb…..
The most racist post I seen in quite a while. Hello Moderators?
You win the dumbest post of the day award; even though it's early, no one will be able to top your stupidity today.
Anti-contraception legislation? Nice invention of the left! No wonder there are still people stupid enough to be demonrats in this country, they can't think for themselves, they just believe the lies they are fed!
VOX66, you are truly a nutjob.
Vox, there are idiots in both parties, thank goodness you belong to the Democrats, who probably don't claim you either.
VOX66 - I pity you and your BB-sized brain. You are truly a jackwagon...
Mr. Vox -
You make attacking the messenger your only message. Be civil.
That is a very scary thought. with the likes of Bachmann and Santorum still around, it's not that far off the mark.
Neither SS nor Medicare are guaranteed. You don't have your personal account. You pay taxes to support the old people who are currently collecting from the programs. Democrats have brainwashed everyone into thinking they have this retirement account waiting for them.
Road, You are exactly right!
No one has brainwashed anyone about a personal retirement account. Most Americans know that it's an insurance program...you pay in and when you need the insurance you get the benefit. Another lie by you guys trying to twist the facts. All these programs are insurance programs not private account programs.
Gee Laurie,
Since it's just an insurance program, I wish the SSA would stop sending me those statements every year showing me what I and my employers have contributed and what is in my "account."
I warned you before about posting such misinformation, but, once a lefty always a lefty (unless there is miraculous intervention).
If the mandatory health care coverage provision is found to be unconstitutional, Obama will be less likely to present Republican ideas in health care reform and get back to a single provider position. The Heritage Foundation and Republicans in Congress in 1993 proposed the mandatory amendment in the first place. Romney used it in Massachusetts and it is accepted, supported and in effect today.
Obama's legacy will be denying the Democrats a golden opportunity to finally having a liberal majority in the Supreme Court. I haven't seen a president work so hard to get un-elected since Jimmy Carter.
Anti-Immigration, Anti-Abortion and Anti-Contraceptive Legislation is purely designed because of the Fears of Oold White Men... Lets be Honest!! It is an Attempt to Slow the Browning of our country!!
Vox, You are a racist!
How so???? It is TRUE WHAT I SAY!!!! Kris Kobach Mitt Romneys Adviser Admits to what I say is TRUE!! If you look at the Results of Anti-Immigration and Anti-Abortion/Contraception Legislations It WILL RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE WHITE POPULATION!!!! THATS NOT RACISM!!! THATS MATH!!! Republican social Engeneering at its finest!!! Hitler would be Proud...
Show me an "anti-immigration" bill! Show me an "anti-abortion" bill! Show me an anti-contraception" bill!
REALLY????
Vox, yes, really, you show me the bill number so I can read it! REALLY!!!!
Look up what states have personhood initiative that will prohibit Hormonal Contraceptives There are MANY to choose from
Vox, Just as I suspected! LOL
Obama has only succeeded in making things worse.
First POTUS to have the economy downgraded.
Highest deficit in world history.
Dividing the nation, shooting off his mouth without facts.
Obama wants to make people dependent on the Government, that ensures more Democrat voters.
Welfare families love Obama and the Democrats, who keep giving them free money for NO WORK.
They are systematically ignoring the Constitution and bringing us toward the kinder, gentler world constitution.
Lets take this step by step shall we???
"Obama has only succeeded in making things worse". Actually things are better than than 2 years ago.
"First POTUS to have the economy downgraded." That was the Republicans...
"Highest deficit in world history." NO NATIONS HAS EVER CRASHED AS HARD AS WE DID!!! That started BEFORE Obama got into office...
"Dividing the nation, shooting off his mouth without facts." Dividing a Nation??? That depends... If Obama did everything Republicans wanted I suppose you would say Obama was a Uniter??? "Shooting off mouth without facts???" WHAT FACTS??? YOURS??? THE???? As if you or any Republcan Knew what FACTS ARE!!
"Obama wants to make people dependent on the Government, that ensures more Democrat voters." OPINION!!!
"Welfare families love Obama and the Democrats, who keep giving them free money for NO WORK..." Really??
Vox, You really should follow current events!
I am Up on current events.. Your too busy watching FAUX NEWS and looking to RACIST/GAY/RACE MIXING??Founding forefathers for answers....
So now you hate the "founding fathers"? Wow! Keep posting, you are showing everyone what the left is all about!
I love the Ignore the Ignorant button, Vox66 just made the list.
Mr. Vox -
You YELL TOO MUCH. Please chill some.
Insurance companies don't pay for the treatment of the uninsured; the state or county pays IF they are treated at a private hospital. Many states/counties have Public Hospitals that treat everyone, including the uninsured. Forcing citizen to buy insurance or be FINED?? This is America, not some socialist country (yet) and everyone just can't GET health insurance. Check out the health insurance offered to the employees of hospitals and doctors; either VERY expensive or non-existent! Instead of an expensive, bureaucratic, draconian 900 page law, all the government had to do was modify the existing Medicare law, and allow people to "buy" into that program earlier than when they turn 65, or become disabled. All adults have already paid into Medicare and they could just pay a little more until 65. The law could have made provisions for the dependents. The democrats now have those without buying from insurance companies AND the government gets to decide IF the policy you buy meets their requirements, if not you get fined.
Is this the change we were told would happen with Obama? GSA, TSA, Silly Service, DOD, SecState (Clinton) drinking and partying in public and any number of incidents we have not learned about. Just where IS the leadership of our country? Obama has time to go on silly TV shows when this is going on during his administration?
B. Black - I agree with you... Medicare for all would have been the preferrable way to go but the insurance companies would lose billions of dollars and they are a very powerful lobbying group in DC. Republicans would never have allowed it to happen and some Democrats I'm sure as well. However, it would be the best possible outcome for all Americans and would by an easy transition since most Americans already pay into Medicare, they could pay a bit more and have access to a very good program and probably make the program solvent for seniors for decades to come. But common sense does not reign in Washington DC.
VOX66, please stop posting, you are making everyone ill.
Not a surprise this writer doesn't get it, You don't understand what you don't want to understand, but I'll give the short version anyway
ACA is a question of "Enumerated Powers", The Constitution Limits the "Federal" gov't to powers it has specifically "Enumerated" (Listed). Any powers not listed are reserved for the states. So If SCOTUS decides ACA does not fit in any enumerated power, specifically the interstate "commerce clause", it only means the Feds can't enact it, the states are not limited by any enumerated powers, so Romneycare remains perfectly legal.
The Arizona Law - the question is pre-emption - That is any power specifically granted to "Congress" can't be overridden or interfered with by the States.
The unusual part of the lawsuit is that the most controversial parts of the Arizona Law mirrors the federal Law passed by congress. The Executive branch (POTUS), through it's various agencies, has just decided not to enforce those parts of the law. The Gov't asserts that pre-emtion means if the feds decide not to enforce a law, tha states can't either. The reason this is a novel interpretation is because pre-emption specifically applies to congress. The Executive branch wasn't given any such power, they are claiming the executive branch deciding to ignore an act of congress, is somehow an extension of that power...
Whatever SCOTUS decides, I don't think it'll be political but idealogical - either they believe in interpreting the Constitution as the founders intended (Conservative), or they'll interpret it through modern eyes, to fit what they feel, the country needs it to mean today (Liberal).
Sorry but there is NOTHING RACIST about my post.... I Told the truth... The Object According the April 25th Washinton Times Artical Kriss Kobach and Mr Hethmon ADVISORS to Mtt Romney.. QUOTE : “Immigration is “on track to change the demographic makeup of the entire country. You know, what they call ‘minority-majority,’ ” said Hethmon, who is general counsel at the Washington-based Immigration Reform Law Institute. “How many countries have gone through a transition like that — peacefully, carefully? It’s theoretically possible, but we don’t have any examples.”.... Ive said Nothing Racist.... Im simply looking at the effect of ANTI-ABORTION/ANTI-IMMIGRATION/ANTI-CONTRACEPTION LEGISLATIONS on STATE Levels and Possible soon to be Federal.... It is an Attempt to slow the Browning of America and to Rebuild the white population by LIMITING AND REDUCING THE NUMBER OF HISPANICS!!!! and Controling the REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS OF WHITE WOMEN!!! What part dont you get??? No Racism here JUST MATH!!!
assuming the quote you have in your post is accurate, I see nothing in there but a person stating what they see to be a trend. That's it. "immigration is on track to change the demographic........" So what? that statement does not imply anything sinister.
I NEVER SAID ANYTHING WAS SINISTER DID I??? I simply stated the FACTSA and the possible RESULTS of anti-Immigration/ Anti-Abortion and Anti-contraceptive/Personhood legislations being proposed. Period... Nothing Sinister in the attempt to Reubuild the White Race through Legislation a White Womans Womb and Exporting Anyone of Color!!! Im simply calling it ass I see it!!! HISTORY WILL PASS JUDGEMENT!!!
none of the things you just mentioned were in that statement. nor even implied.
Vox, "exporting anyone of color"? Can you show me where we have "exported" someone because of their color who was a legal resident of the U.S.?
Mr. Vox -
Yup! That was racist. No doubt about it.
Just goes to prove that it is NOT the Republican Party anymore - It has completed it's conversion to the American NAZI Party..... Including the Ridiculous Supreme Court.... How Dear to Hitler's Heart....
I agree
Dallas, Only to those who hate the U.S. Constitution!
Dall, name the President that appointed 22% of the current Supreme Court? Elections have consequences.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to be political and that has been their direction for years. I suggest they be impeached and replaced by those that can abide by the law sent forth and ones that can affect the oath they took at their swearing in.
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each
Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer
justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the
rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the
duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the
United States. So help me God."
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
No member of the current Supreme Court has violated these.
What about the separation of powers?? In Bush's last election, 5 memebers on the Supreme Court were responsible for Bush's winning by denying a true count in Fl. The vote probably would have gone to Bush anyway, but for the court to stop such an important election should not be allowed, no matter how they phrase their actions. That is scarry that 5 people can elect a president.
Mr. Hopper -
Not applicable to impeachment proceedings. The voters won the election.
The Democratic-Republican-controlled United States Senate began the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in early 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding. The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805, and he returned to his duties on the court. He is the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have been impeached.
Many court-watchers expect the justices to throw out most or all of the health law, Obamacare.
"Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth:
Therefore despise not thou the chastening of
the Almighty."
- Job 5:17
Barak will rejoice in this.
Are you calling the Supreame Court GOD??? Are you saying that the actions taken by this Anti-Immigration Legislation will be GOD LIKE???
you do what all liberals do, mis-characterise "illegal immigration" as simply "immigration". We call that lying where I come from.
"health law, Obamacare"
He should enjoy being corrected by review of the Supreme Court.
Mischaracterise??? That presupposes your view of the issue is the correct one.... That also presupposes that we are to believe that YOU have some kind of MoraL AUTHORITY...
you sir, are an idiot.
All sane humans have moral authority. Its sometimes called free choice.
Now if they could only screw up the patriotic courage to rule on Obama's entire ineligibility due to not being naturally born then they might actually go down in history as the 3rd branch of govt. which saved the American republic!
Gallup, poll of registered likely voters 50-46 Romney. The worm has already turned.
the supreme court is as responsible as bush/cheney/wolfowitz/libby and all the other crazy chicken hawks for the Iraq War.
make no mistake.
Don't worry President Obama has more influence than you think on the Supreme Court.
How do you think he can intimidate people who can be there long after his ill-advised presidency is gone by the wayside?
I know most people think the Supreme Court operates independent of the White house but Obama has more influence on the Supreme Court than people think. Politics is a high stakes game.
if the supremes allow that influence to occur than we are doomed. let's hope they have the good common sense to stand up for their place in the constitution.
Don't worry about the supreme court. If our current commander gets re elected then he will reshape the supreme court and all of his work and ideas will be done. Then, he will become dangerous, lame duck, loaded supreme court ,we will never recover! No one sees this one coming. It will be over before anyone realizes what has hit them.
Elena Kegan was Soliicitor General and as such helped write the health care bill. why is she not excused as a judge for this case???????. CONFLICT...CONFLICT...CONFLICT...
President Obama is correct. The Supreme Court Judges ARE NOT elected by Americans. They are appointed by the President of the United States of America to keep the Judical Branch of Government from siding with one side or the other.
If the Supreme Court was in fact all Conservative then what do you think would happen to America? Everyone would be forced to take the Conservative viewpoint of a President without having the Constitution to back their rights up.
If a person went to a court and filed charges against someone because of their freedom of rights being violated because a Conservative said that you cannot believe in what you choose to believe because you have to believe that the person is who they say are based upon a religious belief and the courts said that we agree on what they other person is saying and that you have to believe in the person who they say they are without choice what type of America would America be? America would be no different than Iran or Syria where those who voice their opinion would simply be gotten rid of.
An all Conservative Supreme Court would turn its head while those who dissented against what an all Conservative ran government were quietly removed from American society.
So when the Supreme Court passes sentence based upon their own emotions being present that is called Judicial Activism because they have not been appointed to their positions based upon their emotions. They have been appointed to their positions of Supreme Court Judges to make certain that laws written by the President are in fact either consistent with the Constitution or they are not.
There is no in between ground when it comes to a Supreme Court Judge the verdict is either Yes the law is unconstitutional or No the law is not unconstitutional. There is no middle ground or "Well". Nope there is either only a yes or no result when a Supreme Court Judge makes her of his determination on a law.
The Supreme Court is not to be advocates for the American people that is no their jobs their only jobs are to decide if a law is unconstitutional or not.
Read up on American History and the powers of each branch and stop assuming you know what the hell you are talking about.
I will take the Conservative Definition any day of the week? Opinion from the Liberal left is just that opinion.
U.S. Constitution, Art III, Sec 1: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
ibid. Sec 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, . . ."
Courts and judges frequently find only partial answers to the questions put before them. Unequivocal 'yes' or 'no' is not their habit.
I think many of the liberal media forget that hispanics and others that are here are in favor of immigration crackdowns. Those who are here legally or those who have become U.S. citizens the legal way are as upset with illegals as any group.
David f, that may be true but they also do not want to be racially profiled. What happens to legal Hispanic citizens who get pulled over for speeding in Arizona if this law is upheld?
It's not the entire bill that is bad it is that they can check immigration status if they suspect that they are not here legally. I think perhaps if the law said to check everyones immigration status perhaps that would have eliminated the fear of racial profiling.
"that may be true but," probably not.