iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Supreme Court Health Care Ruling Could Shake 2012 Elections

By JIM KUHNHENN   03/26/12 04:06 AM ET  AP

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is likely to shake the presidential election race in early summer. But the winners in the court will not necessarily be the winners in the political arena.

No doubt, a decision to throw out the entire law would be a defeat for Obama. His judgment and leadership, even his reputation as a former constitutional law professor, would be called into question for pushing through a contentious and partisan health insurance overhaul only to see it declared unconstitutional by the court.

But it would not spell certain doom for his re-election. In fact, it would end the GOP argument that a Republican president must be elected to guarantee repeal of the law. It also could re-energize liberals, shift the spotlight onto insurance companies and reignite a debate about how to best provide health care.

If the court upholds the law, Obama would be vindicated legally. Republican constitutional criticisms would be undercut because five of the nine justices were nominated by Republican presidents.

But opposition would intensify in the political world. Without legal recourse, Republicans would gain new energy to argue that the only path to kill the law would be to elect a Republican president and enough GOP candidates to control the House and Senate. They might be wary of promising overnight repeal because a filibuster-proof Senate majority seems beyond their reach in the November election.

Central to the dispute over the law is a provision that requires individuals to have health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. Polls show that this mandate is opposed by 3 of 5 Americans. Among Republicans, calls for its repeal are a surefire applause line.

Of the four federal appeals courts that have ruled, two upheld the law, one struck down only the insurance mandate and one punted, saying an obscure tax law makes it premature to decide the merits until the main coverage provisions take effect in 2014.

With the court hearing arguments Monday through Wednesday, operatives from both parties have been playing out the potential outcomes. It's a calculation complicated by the intensely polarized public attitudes toward the law, by the still unsettled race for the Republican nomination and, most important, by the range of potential decisions by the court.

"A lot of the arguments that are being made against it right now are that they violate basic constitutional rights and principles," said Tad Devine, a veteran consultant of Democratic presidential politics. "If the Supreme Court, controlled by Republicans, doesn't agree with that, I think it's going to be hard to make that argument."

"If they strike down the mandate," he added, "it takes away a lot of the attack against the president on that issue."

White House and Obama campaign officials would not publicly discuss the options ahead, worried they would be perceived as trying to influence the court. But the Obama campaign has begun to draw attention to the benefits of the law, hoping to counter the beating the law has taken from the GOP presidential candidates.

This past week, it posted a new health care app online where users can find out how the health care law affects them. It also launched a website that features testimonials about the law.

The campaign's Obama Twitter account drew attention Thursday to that "Faces of Change" website and to the law's second anniversary, a day after White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed any observance of the bill's signing as something "that only those who toil inside the Beltway focus on."

On Friday, the White House released a report that promoted achievements such as coverage for young adults and omitted any mention of problems, including the little or no progress toward carrying out the law in many states. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement the law "gives hard working middle-class families the security they deserve."

Privately, many Democrats concede that repeal of the law would be represent a huge public relations problem for Obama, though one he could overcome if the court issues its opinion in June, as expected.

Republicans appear divided on the results.

Republican strategist Greg Mueller, who works on many conservative causes, said that if the law is upheld, the conservative base will be energized; if the law is declared unconstitutional, it will display Obama's overreach.

"I don't think there is a bad scenario for Republican candidates," he said.

Not all see it that way.

Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa said this past week an Obama victory would be more assured if the court strikes down the individual mandate, as King would like.

"I think then that there is more risk that President Obama will be re-elected because people will think they are protected from this egregious reach into our freedom," King said.

"If the Supreme Court finds it constitutional," he added, "then I believe Barack Obama will not be re-elected because they will understand that they have to vote him out of office to repeal it."

The public's broad respect for the Supreme Court as an institution is also a factor.

"I think a wide swath of the people will say `if the court says it's kosher, then it's kosher.' I think in many ways that will be the final word," said John Feehery, a former top Republican House leadership aide. "That doesn't mean the controversy is going to go away because this law is so massive and has so many parts that haven't been implemented yet, including the individual mandate."

The court's decision could affect the Republican presidential contest, too.

A court opinion in June would come at the tail end of the GOP primaries and ahead of the Republican National Convention.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has elevated the health care law to his top campaign issue. He argues he would be best equipped to carry the repeal banner. Front-runner, Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, signed into law a health overhaul similar to Obama's, with an insurance requirement as part of it.

Romney has said he would seek to repeal the federal health care law, but has stood behind Massachusetts'. He argues these decisions should be left to states.

"Well, that's pretty compelling," Santorum countered sarcastically Wednesday at a rally near the shores of Louisiana's Lake Pontchartrain.

"Why would conservatives, Republicans, take the biggest issue in this race – freedom, and its impact on the economy, on your life, on your economic well-being, on your religious liberty – why would we take that issue and turn it around and give it to Barack Obama instead of using it like a sledge hammer?" he asked.

It's a case that Santorum pledges to take all the way to the floor of the convention, if he somehow manages to accomplish his long-shot goal of denying Romney enough delegates to win the nomination outright.

___

Online:

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 22
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
06:27 PM on 03/28/2012
no doubt in my mind after seeing transcripts or Hearing comments / judges questions Obama care will be completely Struck down
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Adam of CA
Independent Information Hunter
03:59 PM on 03/26/2012
Mr. Greg Mueller says that there is no bad scenario for Republicans when the Supreme Court Judges decide on the Individual Mandate.
Stop the train!

Because the Judges have already decided to consider this case on the foundation of commerce, their bias to uphold ObamaCare is evident. The Supreme Court will decide that ObamaCare is constitutional (even tho common sense informs a person that the government should not dictate how workers should spend their earnings).

That said, any Joe Citizen would connect the dots and also realize that the RepubliCon arguments have been a fraud all along.
With the Supreme Judges affirming ObamaCare as legal, the RepubliCons loose their entire election campaign which was based on ObamaCare being illegal.

With such a legal decision, Joe Citizen now has this legality to reject the RepubliCon for its scam on the American People. The scam was that they opposed that citizens should pay for their own health insurance.
That opposition is the opposite of the RepubliCon Ideology that people should be responsible for themselves, instead of relying on the government for handouts.

The God Offal Pretenders (redefinition of Grand Old Party) have certainly established themselves as Repub-gnants to be buried in the Nov. 2012 Election.
04:23 PM on 03/26/2012
I hope you're 12 years old....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:01 PM on 03/26/2012
Either way they decide,lets get this over one way or the other. We either move forward with the ACA or go back to the drawing board. We have to come up with solutions for lower health care cost and how to insure all citizens.


Just a question--How are so many against ACA when it hasn't been fully implemented ?
photo
O4US
I'll go with the 'Blue', thank you
03:54 PM on 03/26/2012
Good question. The Republicans are opposed to it, even though it contains some of the ideas they proposed back in the 90's, because a Democrat would get the credit for it. And, those of the general public who are opposed to ACA seem to have bought into the lies and misconceptions about the plan. People really need to understand where we are now and what this plan can do for the general population over time. Obviously, the super wealthy don't care to see a change because they've been benefiting quite well for a long time now and they put a lot of individual funds into pulling the strings of their political puppets. And, that goes for both sides of the political aisle.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:04 PM on 03/26/2012
Thanks, I agree.
photo
O4US
I'll go with the 'Blue', thank you
11:15 AM on 03/26/2012
I hope what doesn't get lost in all of this is the fact we have a President who has demonstrated the courage to engage in the serious issue of healthcare in this country, proposed a plan that even doctors say is better than the status quo and expended political capital toward what he perceives as being a greater benefit to the citizens as a whole.

Should this plan be doomed by the SCOTUS then I think the public should demand an alternative proposal that is universally accepted. Without change, the healthcare issues of today are serious and are not going away voluntarily.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ffny
10:43 AM on 03/26/2012
Won't be the first time they interfered in an election!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:20 AM on 03/27/2012
No it won't, but they sure got it right last time!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ffny
10:25 AM on 03/27/2012
That's an opinion .....
We all know what they say about opinions...They are like an ass...everyone has one!
photo
FresnoSanity
My Micro-Bio is empty.
09:50 AM on 03/26/2012
Well we know that there is 3 votes against it before opening arguments are even made. Scallia will vote against it because health insurance was not around when the constitution was drafted, so the founders could have never envisioned our modern system and therefore its EVIL. Thomas will sit there and try to look like he is awake and vote the way his wife’s donors tell him to. Roberts will vote against it because it stifles corporation’s freedom to take advantage of its customers.

And they say that justice is blind.
09:35 AM on 03/26/2012
Is there any doubt the Republican puppets on the court will strike down this law to please their masters?

I think not.
banderson2
82nd ABN Div Paratrooper Ret
09:33 AM on 03/26/2012
This activist supreme court is going to do the same thing they did in 2010, rule in favor of the republicans.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dbos
Single payer universal health insurance agent
09:18 AM on 03/26/2012
Contentious and partisan were words used to describe the affordable health care plan in this article? I found this article to be a a basic hit job on the president which seems to be going on more and more here.
photo
demisfine
Often correct, NEVER right.
09:15 AM on 03/26/2012
"Justice" Roberts was seated to do exactly what he has been doing.
He is an activist without peer.
Mort Adela
Was a trapeze artist. Until I got dropped.
09:14 AM on 03/26/2012
"The public's broad respect for the Supreme Court as an institution is also a factor." I would suggest that "broad respect" has significantly deteriorated since 2000.
photo
FresnoSanity
My Micro-Bio is empty.
09:54 AM on 03/26/2012
The sad part is that most people lack the historical grounding to even appreciate how fragile that “Broad Respect” actually is.

How many average Americans even know who Dred Scott was, much less how his case tarnished the “broad respect” the court enjoyed?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Slim Thomas
10:25 AM on 03/26/2012
Altho I wasn't there I do remember.I agree that the court has not held much esteem over the years.Sometimes they seemed good but they are and always will be a arm of the economy.America is about money and we should always remember that.
photo
dayzee10
Are you a master builder or a master butcher?
08:46 AM on 03/26/2012
Scalia, Thomas and Roberts are on their knees now bowing before the corrupt, croney, corporate gods begging them to please give them guidance on which way to vote
09:37 AM on 03/26/2012
Now there's an intellligent comment
photo
dayzee10
Are you a master builder or a master butcher?
02:14 PM on 03/26/2012
Why thank you Mr Whipple
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Slim Thomas
10:26 AM on 03/26/2012
Actually they are having their little heads patted by their masters.