Even by my elliptical standards that heading is dafter than a daft thing so I had better explain. 'Over there' the Supreme Court has just 'enjoyed' their second day considering Obama's Healthcare bill. As I explained the other day, it hinges on whether it is legal for the Federal government to order, under pain of punishment, citizens to purchase health insurance from private companies. The Hill reports the reaction of a Left-leaning Democrat:
Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer and legal analyst, who writes about legal topics for The New Yorker said the law looked to be in "trouble." He called it a "trainwreck for the Obama administration." [My emphasis]
From what I heard on Fox News, the government lawyer was not very strong and came under a severe grilling from some of the Justices and most observers, even government supporters like Mr. Toobin, think that from what they have heard in these first two days means the bill is more likely than not to be tossed out. Mind you, everyone warns that strong conclusions cannot be drawn with certainty based on oral questions and answers at this early stage.
However, if it does sink without trace, J. D. Homnick at The American Spectator, thinks that will absolutely and positively ensure Obama's re-election! A quirky view on the face of it but his argument goes as follows. Dems and Repubs account for about 80% of the electorate and barring anything truly monstrous they will stick to voting 40/40 the way they always do. However, this Healthcare bill is a monster and might well create weakness in the Dem vote. It will certainly effect the 20% independents who always swing the electoral decision. But, if the bill is dead and buried then, in Mr. Homnick's words with my emphasis:
Bottom line, if the Supremes toss Obamacare, they take the albatross of his neck. Then he probably wins, so he gets to dump our nukes and sink Israel and who knows what else. If they let it stand, the country reacts by putting in Romney or Santorum, plus a Republican Senate, so they can vote the nasty thing out of existence.
Well, it's a point of view, I guess!
Another possible advantage for Obama is that he would be able to say - "look, I tried to get healthcare for all, but the judges wouldn't let me" - thus reaping some of the political gains without having to pay the price. Richard Nixon was a past master of this tactic - e.g. his administration simultaneously oversaw the rapid desegregation of the schools whilst opposing desegregation in the courts. Politically quite effective too.
Posted by: H | Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 13:14
Yes, good point, 'H'.
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 28 March 2012 at 18:39