Barack Obama Could Go After Supreme Court On Health Care, James Clyburn Suggests

WASHINGTON -- Two weeks ago, much of the political and legal world thought it would be unthinkable for the Supreme Court to overturn President Barack Obama's signature health care law. Now, following several unnerving days of oral arguments, Democrats are frantically considering how they would respond should the Affordable Care Act be ruled unconstitutional.

The law's proponents have always challenged the idea that the law's individual mandate could be replaced with an alternate provision, though progressives like Howard Dean have insisted that enough people can be compelled to buy insurance without strict financial penalties to make an alternative feasible.

Equally debatable is what type of political response will work best were the Supreme Court to strike down the law. Some believe that it would be best for Obama to simply move on to another legislative goal. Others in the party see value in focusing attention on the individual provisions that would be overturned, such as the end of discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.

Then there are those who think the president could do well by squarely targeting the Supreme Court, accusing the justices of rank partisanship and judicial activism. On Monday morning, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), a member of House Democratic leadership, joined that camp.

"Well, in terms of the Congress, I believe that it would be off base for us to [go after the Court]," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "But for the president, I don't think it is. I think the president ought to take a look at what went on in the years before. We have seen presidents run against Congress and we have seen presidents run against the Supreme Court. Franklin Roosevelt did it to the Supreme Court; Truman did it to the Congress. I think that the president would take a look at exactly what he needs to do to connect with the American people. Let them know he has done everything that he can possibly do. And ask them to give him a mandate for the years going forward."

With his remarks, Clyburn becomes one of the highest-ranked Democrats to express support for turning the court's political make-up into a campaign issue. Others have preceded him to that conclusion. Neera Tanden, the president of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, for example, predicted that there would be a negative reaction against an "activist court rendering a partisan decision" should the Affordable Care Act be overturned.

Meanwhile, the pro-health care reform group Protect Your Care recently told the Washington Post that it would shift its focus from promoting the law toward going after the court, should a negative decision be handed down.

“Since Bush v. Gore, from the progressive side, it would be the most galvanizing Supreme Court ruling ever,” said Eddie Vale, a spokesman for the group. “You’d have a 5-4 court, in clearly a partisan political decision, striking down not just President Obama’s biggest legislative accomplishment but also the biggest progressive legislation since LBJ.”

Comments

[dbrett480]

09:47 PM on 04/25/2012

Why go after the judges? They haven't even ruled yet. Plus it looks stupid.

[RepublicanDepression]

12:01 PM on 04/11/2012

In the late 1990's the Supreme Court polled with favorables over 80%!

After the far-right justices delivered the hyperpartisan 5-4 INJUSTICE of Bush v Gore, their poll ratings dropped about in HALF!

If the far-right justices deliver another hyper-partisan, hyper-polarized 5-4 ruling here, I suspect their favorables will drop so far blow Obama's favorables, that Obama can EASILY win by running against a partisan Supreme Court.

Especially since Scalia made no attempt to hide his partisanship on the bench.

LOL! Go ahead and take away the mandate. You'll only hurt the GOP-supporting health insurance cartels and help Obama win in the fall.

[MsMoonpieJD]

12:02 PM on 04/05/2012

Congress has the power to enact legislation on all things affecting commerce. Art. 1, Sect. 8. Health care is "in commerce." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other similar legislation is based on Congress' express power to regulate commerce. There is an entire semester's worth of cases on this issue in Constitutional Law. The only way the Court can strike it down is if it finds the law is not "rationally related" to its stated purpose, which is making healthcare available to all. There is nothing "irrational" about this legislation.

The issue has been so politicized that the standard of review and the legal and constitutional basis for the law are completely overlooked.

[Rixar13]

09:07 AM on 04/05/2012

"Then there are those who think the president could do well by squarely targeting the Supreme Court, accusing the justices of rank partisanship and judicial activism."

If the SCOTUS becomes the Death Panel we should move to H.R. 676 - Medicare for all Americans Single Payer...

[Elvin Frantz]

08:54 AM on 04/04/2012

Improved universal health care, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, should become an important campaign issue. We do not need an individual mandate to proceed. Just move on toward Medicare for everyone and tie Social Security and health care into a comprehensive program.

[RepublicanDepression]

02:41 AM on 04/04/2012

The five far-right justices have helped drop the historically public approval of the Supreme Court from around 85% at the end of the 1990s to around 45% today after the utterly partisan Bush v Gore.

Obama's ratings are that good or better, even after the endless Fox "News" lies about him, like the bogus Muslim story or birtherism.

So it would make sense for Obama to run against a far-right, bitterly partisan Supreme Court when what we need are Justices above partisanship.

And with the GOP War on Women we need Justices who will defend birth control and reproductive freedom.

[rpmcestmoi]

09:22 PM on 04/03/2012

Kind of a poor piece, but not as poor as the responses in which people clearly characterize the President as a black man or a near alien, and then go on to lambaste him for things he has not done, such as publicly attack the court. This country is getting sicker rather than better.

[ColoradoPete]

09:34 AM on 04/04/2012

Yes it is, and I believe the president has set the tone for the decline we are seeing......

[fxcruiser]

06:51 PM on 04/03/2012

"Barack Obama Could Go After Supreme Court On Health Care"


Someone please define "go after". Does this mean he wants to dismantle the Supreme Court, too, if he does not get his way???? Obama has alread upset a couple of the SCJ, and on just principal, if I were them, I would rule this unconstitutional as a reminder to the good old Pres. The Constitution limits the powers of government....not the power of the people. Obamas slick insertion of Sonia Sotomayor AND Elena Kagan was done with the understanding that he was going to face a fight over this health care issue, and he wanted at least 2 on his side. I am in hopes that they are the ONLY two that find in favor of this mess.

[Garspies]

08:18 PM on 04/03/2012

Your ignorance is astounding and only surpassed by your lack of knowledge and facts.
Oh and BTW, you are not "them" and will never possess the intellect to obtain a JD. So do your dreaming at night.

[fxcruiser]

05:12 AM on 04/04/2012

Typical liberal response..... still did not answer the initial question......Someone please define "go after". Does this mean he wants to dismantle the Supreme Court, too, if he does not get his way????

But I really didnt think I would get an honest answer....

And for your information being a JD is not my forte. I prefer being military minded.

[l78lancer]

02:30 AM on 04/04/2012

That is a pretty fact-free and silly post.

[fxcruiser]

07:43 AM on 04/04/2012

And yours is........(fill in the blank)? Perhaps I can suggest empty, a void, lacking....much like your brain!

[jgmambo]

03:02 PM on 04/03/2012

He is trying to apply Jackson's and Sharpton ways. "Do it my way or there be trouble". Blackmail !

[jgmambo]

02:15 PM on 04/03/2012

Go ! Obama Chavez , Go .........

[whoissurprised]

01:25 PM on 04/03/2012

Obama must have received the leak from Kagan that the SC will vote it down.

[fxcruiser]

06:52 PM on 04/03/2012

Yes....he is running scared.... but he cant run fast enough. His past is catching up to him quickly.

[Cleverboots]

01:19 PM on 04/03/2012

The fact that there is no Plan B for healthcare is an embarrassment for the Administration and scary for those who've started to depend on the existing ACA.

[Cleverboots]

01:22 PM on 04/03/2012

Note to Tech Support: Apparently my Tweets are not posting on Twitter when I click on Twitter with a new post.

[I am just saying]

10:30 PM on 04/03/2012

People are nuts to start "to depend on" something that was clearly in mortal danger from the word go. What I like is the left trying to sell this as a bipartisan piece of legislation.

[Cleverboots]

09:02 AM on 04/04/2012

To each his own.

[field-man]

12:16 PM on 04/03/2012

The problem is that “judicial activism” occurs when justices create a law where no law existed before, a.k.a. legislating from the bench. Determining whether or not a law passed by Congress is Constitutional or not, on the other hand, is the sole reason the Supreme Court was created.

Somebody needs to go back to school.

[fxcruiser]

06:53 PM on 04/03/2012

You are exactly correct. Fanned and Faved

[BSDebunker]

11:06 AM on 04/03/2012

The SCOTUS is part of the system of 'checks and balances', yet the court itself remains unchecked and completly out of balance.

[I am just saying]

10:31 PM on 04/03/2012

True, but so are the other two parts of the checks and balances.

[MsMoonpieJD]

11:52 AM on 04/05/2012

It takes all three, ace. (I accidently marked your comment as a favorite, when I was only trying to reply.)

[rightfeet3]

10:42 AM on 04/03/2012

Obama does not respect the structure of our government. Instead of stating that he believes the SC will reach a fair interpretation of the law before them he hurls insults and tells the world they are unelected thus having less worth. It's sad that we were all fo.oled. into voting for this man in 2008.

[Garspies]

01:42 PM on 04/03/2012

Why would anyone but a neo-con believe in "the structure of our government" after Bush v Gore where the SCOTUS peed down their legs and all over our Constitution. Wake up.

[bea400xp]

03:37 PM on 04/03/2012

Oh the highly intellectual Moderator uses the term neo-con. While he types away at his lap top in some underground coffee house trying to listen to really bad poetry from a college grad with a double major in African American studies with a minor in poetry. While a group of OCW'er bang on some make shift drums. Instead of looking for a J.O.B. in the real world..

Oh look at all those badges too! Wow forget about getting a job you have 492 fans and are a level two superuser. Pretty impressive I sure hope you put that on your resume and sit back and watch the offers come flying in..

[TeebagsKiLLingAMERICA]

01:43 PM on 04/03/2012

The S. Court has no respect for the will of the American People and works for the corporations.
Right wing OUT of the S.P.

It is sad Americans were fo.oled into the Iraq WAR by bush/cheneey

[bea400xp]

03:44 PM on 04/03/2012

Yeah!! lets show our true colors of how liberals are not tolerant of anyone else that doesn't share our same point of view. Oh and it was sad that we where fooled by Hope and Change of Noboma. No longer can the US be the worlds police force. Oops Nobama puts us into Libya and is looking to go to war in Syria now. Nobama "I'm gonna close Gitmo and end the patriot act" if elected. Nope didn't happen either. Oh Drone strikes are up 80% under Nobama. So please tell us again how Hope & Change has happened under Nobama..