It'll be either 5-4 against the mandate or 6-3 for the mandate. I'm leaning slightly towards 6-3 for the mandate. Ginsberg earlier comments, though, makes me think it could easily be 5-4 against the mandate. If they strike down the mandate, I don't think they'll touch the rest of the law. Throwing out the law completely, I think, isn't even an option. Such a move would be too political and extreme for Roberts and Kennedy (or at least one of those two).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Leaning towards this. Throwing out the law entirely I think would be forever known as judicial overreach on their part and I cant see Roberts and Kennedy going with that.
empty vessel
Member
Can't be 7-2 unless it is Scalia and Thomas dissenting. If Alito dissents, that would require it to be 6-3. Thomas is to the right of Scalia and he tea parties hard.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
6-3, upheld. Thomas, Alito, Scalia dissenting.
Roberts writes the majority opinion and uses the same argument he used in the the 1070 decision, deferring to the Congress and declaring healthcare an obviously interstate issue.
I'm not optimistic, but I've talked myself into it.
Roberts writes the majority opinion and uses the same argument he used in the the 1070 decision, deferring to the Congress and declaring healthcare an obviously interstate issue.
I'm not optimistic, but I've talked myself into it.
With Scalia writing a comical scathing dissenting opinion! Heres to hoping!
eBay Huckster
Member
Sincerely hoping it's this because I'm all kinds of fucked if it's 5-4.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think Roberts does care about his legacy to some degree. He'll always be conservative, but I read that he was upset with the reaction to Citizens United and wanted to avoid 5-4s on big issues wherever possible.
6-3 upheld. Mandate might get tossed out, but it might not be. It's not like the Court hasn't limited rulings to just one issue before (Bush v. Gore - "Don't worry guys, this only applies to THIS election! Don't use it as precedence, especially if it means a Democrat might win!")
Here's my proof: http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-health-care-predictions-2012-6
6-3 upheld. Mandate might get tossed out, but it might not be. It's not like the Court hasn't limited rulings to just one issue before (Bush v. Gore - "Don't worry guys, this only applies to THIS election! Don't use it as precedence, especially if it means a Democrat might win!")
Here's my proof: http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-health-care-predictions-2012-6
littleworm
Member
5-4 against, what can I say I'm pessimistic.
That might be the case if the ACA forced anyone to buy anything.
But, whatever. I anxiously await the morning.
I disagree, I think many of the largest employers of labor in the US would directly benefit. Walmart, retail, car manufacturers etc. etc. a huge burden is lifted by simply not having to deal with the implementation of employee care, even if it cost the business and the employee the same or more. (Though the savvy of them would fear the increased leverage and bargaining power of employees)
Now the real sticking point is that none of these business would actively support or campaign for such changes. Not that they would not benefit from them.
Perhaps we'll receive an 8-1 ruling with Scalia expressing contrition for previous rulings.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'll drop this off before all talk of healthcare washes it away:
I believe Pennsylvania got a nonpartisan gerrymander for the state legislatures, so Democrats might be able to win back the State Senate. It was gerrymandered to a point that in both 2008 and 2010, Democrats held 20 seats and Republicans 30 post-election.
And of course, this also bodes well for the congressional elections as well, the margins for generic congressional and generic legislative tend to run pretty close together.
I think Democrats are a lock for taking back the Colorado (they're only short 1 seat), Maine and Minnesota legislatures, and probably New Hampshire as well (it has a gajillion tiny districts so it swings heavily every other year). NY is no big surprise but the Republicans do have the State Senate and gerrymandered it as much as they possibly could, but Democrats could take it back.Generic ballot polls said:
I believe Pennsylvania got a nonpartisan gerrymander for the state legislatures, so Democrats might be able to win back the State Senate. It was gerrymandered to a point that in both 2008 and 2010, Democrats held 20 seats and Republicans 30 post-election.
And of course, this also bodes well for the congressional elections as well, the margins for generic congressional and generic legislative tend to run pretty close together.
To continue to optimism train, Nate Silver has updated his Presidential race numbers today and has Obama winning re-election at 65%, and the current EC vote as 292 Obama to 245 Romney.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
between 9:00 - 9:30 AM
That coverage will have to come from taxes*, most likely through payroll taxes (no, payroll taxes don't make sense, but whatever, I don't see anything else being politically viable).
Now I don't know Walmart's healthcare expenses, and I obviously don't know exactly how much medicare for all is going cost, but I don't see them saving money.
And yeah, some companies with better benefits than Walmart might see some saving, but I don't think it's enough for them to put out their political neck on such contentious issue.
* or as empty vessel would say - to avoid inflationary pressure, a certain amount of money, proportional to the cost of the program, will be destroyed through taxes. Just trying to save us time.
Officerrob
Banned
One way or another, tomorrow is going to be a train wreck
8-1 rulings on this and gay marriage with a bitter Scalia dissenting would be better than a 9-0.
I'm going to guess a 6-3 as well, with Roberts joining Kennedy.
empty vessel
Member
Hey, that's what I like to see. I'll change the way we talk about these things or die trying. Although the reality is that the government can spend a lot more than it presently does without inducing inflation (which is the very reason why the economy sucks). So we actually are in a position to have a bit of a "free lunch," so to speak. But only so much. There does come a point at which additional spending would require additional taxation (to make "fiscal space"), but we are well below it. Whenever involuntary unemployment exists, it means the government is not spending enough money. When a lot of unemployment exists, it means the government is starving us of money and can spend a lot. There is nothing "natural" about the so-called natural unemployment rate, either. So even in "normal" economic times, there is a lot of unused fiscal space.
empty vessel
Member
Universal health care provided by the government increases labor bargaining power a fairly substantial amount. Which means it eats into profits and executive pay. Corporate management is happy to sacrifice economic optimization of the society for increased personal compensation.
StopMakingSense
Member
It's because they *think* it's still worth it to decrease employee mobility.
edit: what ev said.
Black Mamba
Member
Roberts wrote the majority opinion, regardless of which side it's on. This is all I'm certain of.
Businesses usually lobby through advocacy groups which tend to focus on their core issues, and big enough corporations to have a sizable lobbying footprint tend to stay away from such touchy (and boycott-y) subjects.
The only big general business lobbying outfit I can think of is the Untied States Chamber of Commerce, and they're pretty much an arm of the GOP.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
From the department of optics and the office of you-can't-make-this-up:
1. Romney (finally) pushes back on Bain attacks; Releases Video Featuring former VP of GST (to push back the idea of Bain pioneering outsourcing, Romney's team brings in an executive that was one of the people that bought them out with Bain!) LOL -- gotta love these terrible LinkedIn profiles written in the third person:
2. Romney Bashes Obama On Jobs At Firm That Does Offshoring Work -
1. Romney (finally) pushes back on Bain attacks; Releases Video Featuring former VP of GST (to push back the idea of Bain pioneering outsourcing, Romney's team brings in an executive that was one of the people that bought them out with Bain!) LOL -- gotta love these terrible LinkedIn profiles written in the third person:
2. Romney Bashes Obama On Jobs At Firm That Does Offshoring Work -
Buddha Beam
Banned
I'm also leaning towards 6-3. But I have to admit, I won't really be all that heart broken if its stuck down. It is, after all, a republican healthcare plan, just passed by the Democrats. I'm kind of looking forward to the day when, a few years from now, Republicans realized they fucked themselves in a big, bad way by getting the SCROTUS to declare their alternative to universal healthcare unconstitutional.
empty vessel
Member
There is truth in this. Obamacare may turn out to have been the best hope of staving off a genuinely universal health care system for a good while. On the other hand, maybe the US will just remain in the dark ages for a long time to come. Hard to tell right now.
NihonTiger90
Member
5-4, mandate is deemed unseverable, entire law gets tossed.
brianmcdoogle
Member
The other night, I couldn't sleep so I listened to the oral arguments of Bush v Gore. Man, that was a strange case.
I'm gonna say 5-4 striking down the mandate.
I truly admire the optimism shown by so many of the core PoliGAF contributors, but I just can't see the entire law being upheld. When you're to the point where a website tracking facial expressions is helping you remain hopeful, that's just not good no matter how you try to spin it.
I truly admire the optimism shown by so many of the core PoliGAF contributors, but I just can't see the entire law being upheld. When you're to the point where a website tracking facial expressions is helping you remain hopeful, that's just not good no matter how you try to spin it.
electricpirate
Member
60% confident in seeing a 6/3 decision here. Possibly removing the verbiage of mandate but keeping the penalty in, or possibly limiting the mandate to health care.
The idea that a decision against it will lead to a meaningfull movement towards single payer or another UHC scheme is hogwash.
Impact on the campaign will be negligible either way. This is just going to generate enthusiasm /raise the stakes for both sides. No matter the decision.
The idea that a decision against it will lead to a meaningfull movement towards single payer or another UHC scheme is hogwash.
Impact on the campaign will be negligible either way. This is just going to generate enthusiasm /raise the stakes for both sides. No matter the decision.
Rocket Scientist
Member
....Holy crap I didn't know it was today! OMG! No way!
makingmusic476
Member
Where is all this confidence coming from?
I ain't confident at all. =/
I ain't confident at all. =/
Read back several pages.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Any idea on a time?
9-10AM EST most likely.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Well I'm going to bed. I'll wake up with no health insurance because Obama didn't want to call the mandate "fee" a tax.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Fuck. Will be in class with no phone. 
lunch hour should be...interesting
lunch hour should be...interestingBlack Republican
Member
sticking to my 5-4 uphold, kennedy switches to uphold mandate
Rocket Scientist
Member
This is going to be an epic ride.
Black Republican
Member
dont worry, someone jumping out a window will pretty much tell you everythingFuck. Will be in class with no phone.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Harry Reid? Thurgood Marshall? Are you fucking kidding me right now!?
ErasureAcer
Banned
I dunno what's funnier...the graph or your reaction. lol.
- Status