SCOTUS has made Mitt Romney's candidacy utterly worthless

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

The lion's share of the ACA is now considered constitutional, for all intents and purposes (or "for all intensive purposes" for those who attended Texas public schools). That does not imply that it's "good" legislation or "bad" legislation. It simply means the constitutional argument cannot be made in criticism of it.

Let's remember how Mitt Romney justifies opposing the ACA despite crafting a Mini-Me version of it as governor of Massachusetts (though his law was actually the forerunner to the ACA, so maybe that makes the ACA a...Mega-Me?). First, he says that his health reform plan was "completely different" from Obama's - it wasn't. Then, he says he opposes it because it's not something the federal government is allowed to do.

Except that the motley crew of John Roberts, three Old Jews and a Wise Latina have declared that it is something the federal government can do. So what is Mitt's new rationale? If he still opposes the ACA, why did he implement a near-identical plan in Massachusetts? Is he saying he regrets doing that? That his only substantive achievement while in office was actually a bad thing?

Rick Santorum said at one debate that it would be terrible to have Mitt Romney standing on a debate stage next to the President in the fall precisely because he could not serve as an effective critic of the biggest animating force in the Republican Party - the Affordable Care Act. And Santorum was right. Santorum opposed the ACA and the very idea of anything like the ACA from the get go - constitutional or not, it was categorically wrong for reasons of Santorum's moral and economic philosophy. But Romney's only legitimate criticism of Obamacare, because of his words and his actions for the bulk of his political career, was its constitutionality, and that criticism ceased to exist today.

[You kip if you want to...]

I can only concur.

I always said Rick was more electable than Romney for precisely this reason. Mitt's just so easy to attack.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, 75% of his justices he appoints will find RomneyCare unconstitutional!

[Invisible Obama]

It certainly deals his candidacy a blow, losing a key talking point hurts. Now, Obama is free to talk up the really good parts of the plan without the "unconstitutional" argument looming.

[Mitt Romney's Hair]

State law vs. federal law. Enough said.

Further, all that matters now is that he's the candidate who champions repealing Obamacare. Who cares what Romney did in his state years ago? He now advocates repealing it.

Romney will now win the election. He will ride the overwhelming anti-Obamacare support, which only hurts the economy even more, and the economy is still very poor.

Obama is toast. Now where's the jam?

[Mitt Romney's Hair]

It certainly deals his candidacy a blow, losing a key talking point hurts. Now, Obama is free to talk up the really good parts of the plan without the "unconstitutional" argument looming.

You're kidding, right?

Obama would be best advised to not even mention Obamacare considering how badly it polls! Romney gets standing ovations for supporting its repeal. That says it all.

Good luck to the Democrats now!

Republicans maintain a very strong attack line against Obama, which has only grown further with it being upheld and being seen as a tax after Obama claimed it wasn't and after saying he wouldn't raise taxes on middle class families. GWHB, anyone?

Majority of Americans don't want Obamacare or the mandate. HOW is it being upheld good for Obama!? LOL

As I said, good luck!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It certainly deals his candidacy a blow, losing a key talking point hurts. Now, Obama is free to talk up the really good parts of the plan without the "unconstitutional" argument looming.

You're kidding, right?

Obama would be best advised to not even mention Obamacare considering how badly it polls! Romney gets standing ovations for supporting its repeal. That says it all.

Good luck to the Democrats now!

Republicans maintain a very strong attack line against Obama, which has only grown further with it being upheld and being seen as a tax after Obama claimed it wasn't and after saying he wouldn't raise taxes on middle class families. GWHB, anyone?

Majority of Americans don't want Obamacare or the mandate. HOW is it being upheld good for Obama!? LOL

As I said, good luck!

Yeah, he should avoid mentioning the part about pre-existing conditions and children under 26, because 1% of people support repealing those.

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201101210005

[Mitt Romney's Hair]

There's now even more motivation to vote Obama out.

I love how the Obamacare supporters are so in over their head regarding today's outcome. Watch the polls closely in the coming weeks/months. He couldn't even make it to 50%+ in recent times (read: "years"), he has no chance of doing so after today. He is done.

[Mitt Romney's Hair]

SCOTUS has actually made Mitt Romney's campaign worthless because he'll now win regardless of how he campaigns.

He'll ride this to the White House just as those in 2010 rode the exact same tide to Congress.

Enjoy a few more vacations to Martha's Vineyard, Obama, for you, too, will join the 8.2%+ of the unemployed.

[technical support]

SCOTUS has actually made Mitt Romney's campaign worthless because he'll now win regardless of how he campaigns.

He'll ride this to the White House just as those in 2010 rode the exact same tide to Congress.

Enjoy a few more vacations to Martha's Vineyard, Obama, for you, too, will join the 8.2%+ of the unemployed.

Keep drinking the kool-aid i guess todays event wasn't sweet enough for you. Even your conservative supreme court  judge sided with the liberals.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

The constuitional criticism is still valid as this act is just that. Unconstuitional. Roberts gave the people a valuable tool to repeal the thing by telling us to vote for people who want this thing repealed. I would encourage that and for the states to nullify the act within their borders which the states can do.

[You kip if you want to...]

The constuitional criticism is still valid as this act is just that. Unconstuitional.

But the Court just ruled it constitutional.

That's what that big building across the street from Congress is for.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From a legal standpoint, yes it is constitutional as an undeniable fact because the court has said so.


From a standpoint of one's personal opinion such may not necessarily be considered as such simply because of this ruling. One can disagree with a court's ruling or find it to be incorrect and seek to delegitimize the court, or engage in a long term plan to change the composition of the court and hope for a reversal of what is considered to be a previous mistake.

An example of the first situation is exactly what the left did with regards to Citizen's United. The second situation is exemplified by the right's actions against Roe V. Wade.

[Free Palestine]

The constuitional criticism is still valid as this act is just that. Unconstuitional.

But the Court just ruled it constitutional.

That's what that big building across the street from Congress is for.

The Supreme Court also said that blacks are not citizens, once upon a time.  It's not an infallible institution.

[You kip if you want to...]

The constuitional criticism is still valid as this act is just that. Unconstuitional.

But the Court just ruled it constitutional.

That's what that big building across the street from Congress is for.

The Supreme Court also said that blacks are not citizens, once upon a time.  It's not an infallible institution.

I didn't say that.

[Mitt Romney's Hair]

FYI, Romney has raised over $2million after today's ruling. As I said, there's more even motivation now to get rid of Obama and this policy. It's going to energize a lot of the electorate.....

[wan]

and how much did u make?

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

From a legal standpoint, yes it is constitutional as an undeniable fact because the court has said so.


From a standpoint of one's personal opinion such may not necessarily be considered as such simply because of this ruling. One can disagree with a court's ruling or find it to be incorrect and seek to delegitimize the court, or engage in a long term plan to change the composition of the court and hope for a reversal of what is considered to be a previous mistake.

An example of the first situation is exactly what the left did with regards to Citizen's United. The second situation is exemplified by the right's actions against Roe V. Wade.

The right has been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade for 30 years. How long will it take to get rid of the ACA at that rate?

[Ljube]

The Health Care Law can be repealed through the actions of the Congress and the President. Roe v. Wade has to be overturned in court, which is unlikely.

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

The Health Care Law can be repealed through the actions of the Congress and the President. Roe v. Wade has to be overturned in court, which is unlikely.

And the Republican narrative becomes what? "We kicked 23-year-olds with congenital heart conditions off their parents' insurance policies?" That's a winning platform. Are they going to cut checks to the states that have already spent a substantial amount of money building insurance exchanges? 

[Ljube]

The Supreme Court called it a tax. Romney will just repeat that. The majority of people don't like mandates.

[Mitt Romney's Hair]

The Health Care Law can be repealed through the actions of the Congress and the President. Roe v. Wade has to be overturned in court, which is unlikely.

And the Republican narrative becomes what? "We kicked 23-year-olds with congenital heart conditions off their parents' insurance policies?" That's a winning platform. Are they going to cut checks to the states that have already spent a substantial amount of money building insurance exchanges? 

Or: We're going to keep some provisions, but reform others and do away with the mandate. We are for fiscal responsibility and affording items before we invest, we believe in not hurting small businesses or employers, we also don't want limited doctors and long waits for simple medical procedures like you get in England and Canada.

But yeah, ok, whatever you say, Sonny Jim.

[Invisible Obama]

You're kidding, right?

Obama would be best advised to not even mention Obamacare considering how badly it polls! Romney gets standing ovations for supporting its repeal. That says it all.

Good luck to the Democrats now!

Republicans maintain a very strong attack line against Obama, which has only grown further with it being upheld and being seen as a tax after Obama claimed it wasn't and after saying he wouldn't raise taxes on middle class families. GWHB, anyone?

Majority of Americans don't want Obamacare or the mandate. HOW is it being upheld good for Obama!? LOL

As I said, good luck!

People like what the plan has changed, no pre-existing conditions, no ability to throw anyone off their insurance for getting sick and the option to keep children on insurance until they are 26. These are all very popular.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From a legal standpoint, yes it is constitutional as an undeniable fact because the court has said so.


From a standpoint of one's personal opinion such may not necessarily be considered as such simply because of this ruling. One can disagree with a court's ruling or find it to be incorrect and seek to delegitimize the court, or engage in a long term plan to change the composition of the court and hope for a reversal of what is considered to be a previous mistake.

An example of the first situation is exactly what the left did with regards to Citizen's United. The second situation is exemplified by the right's actions against Roe V. Wade.

The right has been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade for 30 years. How long will it take to get rid of the ACA at that rate?

The ACA has a better chance of being repealed by Congress. Roe could be in place forever or be struck down in a few years. There is never any kind of guarrantee of success with such a strategy. It took almost 60 years to overturn Plessy with a subsequent, "we fed up before" type rulling.

[Purch]

Well, 75% of his justices he appoints will find RomneyCare unconstitutional!

 I was reading Roberts opinion on the decision, and he clearly differentiated between what the state can do in these situations and the federal governments reach of power. In fact he drew so many distinctions between state and federal power,that it gives me the impression Romneycare would be found constitutional, regardless of whether it was stated as a tax or a mandate.