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:
LyndaAZ: I too live in AZ...I work in the healthcare industry....AZ does offer a plan for folks like yourself that have a pre-existing condition...all you need to do to find out about is enter "AZ pre-existing condition insurance" and you can explore the options that you can have under these plans. Good luck Lynda...there is hope, don't give up. Also, there are many doctors here in AZ that will negotiate rates for ofc visits with you and even set up terms for payment if you're paying cash.
Jeez: I have never heard of any state protecting people from the loss of their job...in my experience, the best protection from job loss is to find another job as quickly as possible...I am fortunate enough to work in the healthcare field where there are plenty of jobs, especially here in AZ. I also do not look to the gov't, neither state or federal to "save me".
I'm curious to find out what your experience is with insurance companies that have "rooked" you...please share your story.
The citizens united ruling by the right wing activist judges on the supreme court is the most irresponsible, dangerous ruling handed down by the US Supreme court ever.
The ruling allows gigantic donations to be used to support any corporate agenda, no matter what, and made in complete anonymity. The ruling also allows for unions to use this ruling. Big deal, unions represent less than 7% of the US workforce.
Anytime a large corporation makes a large anonymous political donation, something is fishy.
I don't buy any argument supporting anonymity when it comes to political donations by ANYONE.
"Anytime a large Union makes a large anonymous political donation,something is fishy".
Also applies. Just look at the growth of the Pensions for Public Employees.
Slodon, Key word: ANONYMOUS
I know you hate unions and would like to change the topic. Again the key word is ANONYMOUS.
And by the way, in this election cycle, the unions of this country are only able to contribute a small fraction of what corporations and big oil are going to contribute to their favorite political party. ANONYMOUS or not. If the Dems win in 2012, it will be with relatively little help from unions just as in 2008.
It annoys me that the people who write these articles think the American public is so dense as to not notice how SOCUS has tried to manipulate the direction of this country.
We are not that stupid.
He also hates solar energy and economy cars, and loves big trucks and oil.
God doesn't appreciate you using His name to push your prejudices.
The Roberts court has been proactive in seeking out cases that eventually overturn decades of democratic jurisprudence in favor of advancing a corporatist ideology. It should be impeached. Consider the horrible Citizens United decision and how it favors corporations and the extremely wealthy.
If the Supreme Court can't rule for the GOP in healthcare and immigration maybe they can just step in and call the election for Romney like they did with Bush.....last ditch resort of the GOP..=..Scotus
Jeezysis...,
You're right. A good way to get government out of people's lives is to let them die if they get really sick.
You got this exactly right. Those who can afford to pay for healthcare and insurance are covering the bill for those who cannot. Hmm, sound a lot like the ideal tax plan Obama is shooting for, so why is he displeased with healthcare the way it is now?
Here is what is hurting our healthcare insurance right now. Not everyone HAS to get insurance yet, but since insurance companies can no longer turn down those with pre-existing conditions, all those without pre-existing conditions still elect not to get insurance, but now all those with pre-existing conditions know that Obama has given them a free-ride to get the insurance companys to pay for expensive treatments in return for their small policy payment. This is like telling people to wait until you have an auto-accident, THEN get insurance and ask the insurance company to pay for your already damaged car. How in the world can anyone believe that this logic will not adversely affect our insurance rates?
The solution to that is you hit the insurance company so hard when they deny a claim without just cause that it becomes more profitable for them to pay legitimate claims that try to deny them without just cause. If a person is denied without cause, they should have no problems finding an attorney to take on the case without any upfront money. I'm not one for frivelous lawsuits, but if the insurance company is denying payout without just cause, make them pay, hurt them enough in their pocketbook and they will think twice before doing it again.
How is it that an inferior country like Canada can figure out how to provide heath care to its citizens and the GREAT America cannot? Could it be that greed has a bigger grasp on us than it does on Canadians?
Since you obviously believe the "GREAT" America is a greedy nation, why do you call Canada "inferior". Your words betray your feeble attempts to show a massive disparity, when what you really believe is that America is inferior and a government based health-care system is superior. I'm not disputing your contention, I'm just saying you don't swap people to your point of view with sarcasm about their country.
Wonder how much money Thomas and Scalia have contributed to Romney under the cloak of Citizens United.
Probably less than what Sotomayor and Kegan has paid Obama for their appointments.
Slodon! Please! Your claim can be tested against reality but Sullivan's cannot. That is the problem. The SCOTUS made sure that bribe money as a result of the Citizens United decision cannot be exposed. Please give us some indication that Sotomayor or Kegan paid Obama anything except the pledge to be honest.
Republican consultant John Feehery's opinion is obviously partisan. From my own perspective, I can only say that I think our entire government, including all three branches from top to bottom is stuffed with sycophants who cannot think for themselves, else are afraid to do so, and have been afraid to do so, with rare exception, over the last 40 years.
Who needs 'em? It is 'way past time to think for ourselves. I'll believe that we can, when, in blog ops like these, and pervasively, from the man in the street to the top of the heap, I see it in honest dialogue that respects the critical thinking that is needed to resolve our national issues (which are not "partisan", but have always been real).
I have no respect for any who are hog-tied to a "party line". I'm tired of fear-mongering, brow-beating, manipulation, innuendo and gossip. Surely, America can do better, but it hasn't made the effort for years. Most of the whining comes from people who are terrified to take a stand on their own behalf. They continue to leave it up to "somebody" (else), or toot the horn of their "substitute" for self. Whereas, in reality, there's nobody here but YOU and ME.
Let's get down to the business of US/U.S.: What do we want? What do we need? How can we accomplish it in our mutual best interests?
The 5 republican supreme court justices could sit at home and phone in their votes on their decisions, all they need to know is what political party is pressing for a vote on the bill. I can hear them know "what constitution" ha, ha, ha,. how much justice can you afford today.
When my SS check gets here next month, I could afford maybe $50 worth. Of course, that would mean I have to eat dry dog food for a while instead of that really good canned stuff.
"...It repudiates the singular achievement of this administration," Holt said...." -- "Repudiates"? It is as if people now have much faith in the current Supreme Court! Ruling against both laws will only help us realize that we just can't let the current Supreme Court go unchallenged or get worse (with more conservative appointments) for the next 4 years.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
The 5 conservative justices, led by Roberts, are the most partisan and activist in recent memory. Roberts lied when he said he would not be activist and that he would "only call balls and strikes" in his conformation hearings. Not only does he change the strike zone in favor of conservative causes he also decides who actually takes the field - i.e. the rich, the conservative, and the corporations....who are now 'people' according to him and his far-right cronies on the court.
Independent of what happens with the Supreme Court
ruling on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), how might the general election affect
reform? http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=4907
It is clear from all the comments that the second civil war is approaching the boiling point.
Interesting to note that above all it is an Australian fanning the flames.
to have the supreme court be politically motivated is wrong, as their decisions ARE politically motivated. they are no better than the political party's that put them there. what a joke!!!
Unless you are a constitutional expert, you cannot possibly know whether a decision by the justices is politically motivated or not. By saying they are politically motivated, you must want a certain outcome, therefore, you are the one who is politically motivated and do not want the justices to rule according to the Constitution.
Road Warrior, are you aware that Roberts, Alito, and Thomas regularly attend Republican fundraisers? What does that tell you? Fess up!
The assumption that the justices are above politics has been violated by these obvious political hacks.
If you have any doubts that decisions are politically motivated, look at Bush v Gore.
They decided to cancel the vote counting.
Clarence Thomas' wife was working for the Bush transition team.
Florida state officials were working for the Republicans.
To the rest of the world It looked like a coup d'etat.
The really unscrupulous part of the Bush v Gore decision is that the SCOTUS put an extra ruling that the decision could not be used as a precedent in future court cases. LOL That is what the SCOTUS is supposed to do, make decisions that are to be used as precedent in future cases. This was the biggest proof that the court knew what they were doing was unconstitutional.
I have no doubt rulings are politically motivated. I admit that. There hasn't been objective rulings since Thurgood Marshall was appointed to push affirmative actiion in the 60's. Since then, both sides vote as a block. There are four justices that always rule for Republican causes and four justices that always rule for Democrat causes. I get irritated when the liberals only say the court is political when their side loses. If Sotomayor rules in favor of Arizona, it will be the first time in recent history that a Democrat appointee rules contrary to the party that appointed her. Republican appointees have been much more fair. Stevens and Souter were both Republican appointees and have never ever voted with the conservatives.
For so long, 8 of the 9 justices have been irrelevant because they simply cancelled each other out. Only one justice has been the difference maker. To the chagrin of liberals, Sotomayor may be the new swing voter, occasionally voting with the conservatives. Once again, Obama threw you under the bus.
Obama has appointed 2 new Supreme Court Justices, and yet he STILL has to caution (some say threaten) them to vote the way he wants them to on health care. If they don't vote his way with his own appointees, you would think he would possibly consider that just maybe there is a Just (pun intended) reason for their vote?
There'll be no surprises here. Can anyone imagine Clarence Thomas, for example, voting for anything that's not right-wing Republican orthodoxy? These guys aren't justices, they're partisan robots. It would be refreshing to hear some actual attempt to address the legality of issues, but don't expect that with this bunch.
The Republican platform from before Obama's inauguration until now has been solely based on making Obama look like a failure. They stated that, remember?
Instead of trying to help solve the problems left from Dubbya's insanity, they have done nothing except make up lies and say "NO!" That alone is enough to indict them for treason and kick them not only out of Congress, but also out of the country.
The Demcrats from before Bush's inauguration was to have him fail and make him a one termer. What's your point? It's called politics.
so why do we have to start bowing down to Hispanic voters who only want all their family members to come here and start dropping babies left and right and eating up out taxes? Go Arizona!
He was an Adjunct Law Professor MSNBC.
Adjunct: noun 1. something added to another thing but not essential to it. 2. a person associated with lesser status, rank, authority, etc., in some duty or service;
Ha, what a joke!!! Good one.
Oh, and Dumbama, yes a joke too!, absolutely.
The GOP are lying bigots. They are women hating rich B@$t@RD$! Nothing good can be said about rip-publicans.... they have proved that they are useless! They have not given Americans even one job bill....not even one....but over 900 bills restricting women's health.... GOP BIGOTS ALL!
To the Kings and Queens of the Supreme Court and their supporters. Remember what happened to the Kings and Queens of the past.
Once upon a time there was a really big court with really big people in it that followed the policies of their job and did not succumb to politics as they are supposed to do.
And when they stepped out of line, a bigger Ogre ate them up one at a time. Gobbled them down he did with no milk, no fork! Just picked them up by the robe and swung 'em around a bit before he tossed them up in the arr and opened his mouth as wide as he could and...GULP!
If they behaved, the big Ogre would spit them out again to return to the court.
Better get back in that conference room and away from the presidential election door, because I see the big old ugly Ogre in Virginia just over the border. Doesn't take old Ogre very long to step into Washington, DC territory.
Why he is as big as Paul Bunyan was.
http://www.roadtripamerica.com/roadside/Minnesota-Akeley-Paul-Bunyan.htm
Watch out!
I hear him a'comin'!
Boom! (Shaky, shaky ground)
Boom! (Shaky, shaky ground)
Stompin' those a boots and not a watching where he's a steppin'!
I had better see those robes running back in that chamber or I'm going to tell old Ugly Ogre to chase you all back in there away from the politics!
Better go!
I would think that picking fights with the Supreme Court is not exactly a winning re-election strategy for Obama. Of course, he is forgetting about the four liberal justices, Sotomayor, Bader-Ginsburg, Kagan, and Bryer, who are already marching locks step with Obama, and instead he is concentrating his ill will on the conservative justices and the one moderate one, who may strike down Obamacare should they discover it to be unconstitutional. Never have we had a president being so adversarial towards the Supreme Court as Obama, who is unable to accept the fact that his pride and joy, Obamacare might get the boot, and probably will.
Don't fall for these losers on the board bad mouthing everything. They are nothing but hot air. Blah, blah, blah. Dictator. Blah, blah, blah Ruining the country. Blah, blah, blah.
Nice examples of republicans, huh? I read them complaining and no one suggesting anything else. That's all they are good for anyways.
Don't fall for the BS they are spewing.