To me the best argument that Obamacare has nothing to do with Democrats “caring” about the health of people is in their excitement at the mere mention that the health care law could be struck down by the Supreme Court. Harry Reid sees an ultimate political victory if the law is overturned, and James Carville is as giddy as Gollum trapped in a meat locker at the thought of the Supremes knocking down the law:


*****

Fact is many Democrats don’t want Obamacare to survive the Supreme Court challenge — probably including Obama. Sure, they’ll act like it’s the end of the world, but it will provide hope to their political survival.

I don’t know if you heard the person Team Obama chose to argue their case in front of the Court, but I’m thinking the administration agrees with Carville and is pretty much throwing the game with this guy:

Comments

32 Responses to “Carville: SCOTUS Overturning Obamacare Would Be the Best Thing That Could Happen to Dems This Year”

  1. backwoodsconsr on March 28th, 2012 12:08 am

    Gee, except for the voice being different, that sounded like Obama without the teleprompter.

  2. lynnevertt on March 28th, 2012 12:31 am

    Getting rid of Obama is the best thing that could happen to Dems.

  3. clu seatoe on March 28th, 2012 12:35 am

    So from under the bus we hear a quivering, timid little voice trying to tell SCOTUS “…insurance has become the predominate way of paying for health care.”

    Can somebody explain WHY that’s an argument in favor of obamacare?

    I had always thought that SCOTUS was the place where the lower court judge’s interpretation of the law or laws was correctly or incorrectly adjudicated and rendered, and not where the case is to be re-presented or re-tried.

    The case is presented and tried in the lower courts and the how’s and why’s of the outcome are presented in the SCOTUS for the acceptance or rejection of the lower court’s ruling and interpretation of the law.

  4. backwoodsconsr on March 28th, 2012 12:35 am

    But who among them has sense enough to realize it?

  5. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 12:39 am

    Finally, a worse attempt at speech than Al Sharlaton`s famous, "Resist we much … about this …" Gee whiz, that guy was NERRRRVOUS ! He sounded like he was about to spew !

    Yes, even this administration "knows" when something is unpopular with the masses. Whether they care or not is the question. This economic disaster has doomed the pRes`s re-election from the start, along with dems in general. If O`Scare is stopped, you just know the whole bunch are gonna feel like a millstone has been removed from around their necks ! IMO, only Crap n Raid would have been the economic-disaster-equal !

  6. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 12:43 am

    I think lots of dems realize it. The problem is, they also realize the backlash from blacks nationwide resulting from removing BHO from the 2012 ticket ! They`re STUCK with him !

  7. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 12:45 am

    Gee whiz, Clu … are you hopelessly stuck in reality ? ;-)

  8. Marshall_Will on March 28th, 2012 1:02 am

    "was correctly or incorrectly adjudicated and rendered, and not where the case is to be re-presented or re-tried."

    Clu has a point there? More Opening Arguments Over-reach!

  9. clu seatoe on March 28th, 2012 1:06 am

    HUH??

  10. Marshall_Will on March 28th, 2012 1:07 am

    Right, that's why the imperative to get the Ragin' ( BS ) Cajun out front saying "They 'tried' something and now the Republicans 'own' healthscare".

    No James, pure STRAW and you know it. What we'd 'own' in a de-facto sense is an already over taxed system burdened w/ the elderly AND aging Boomers that you azzclowns left in a hopeless state of disrepair!

    But don't worry James, we'll provide 'waivers' for nearly everyone. In FACT, if you don't want health insurance, you don't have to PAY for it at all!

  11. backwoodsconsr on March 28th, 2012 1:08 am

    Clu has a clue?

  12. Marshall_Will on March 28th, 2012 1:17 am

    IANAL but my lay understanding is this is not the forum to be "establishing time of death", was it a blunt instrument and did the butler do it?

  13. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 1:59 am

    It`s Opposite / Bizarro World; things don`t happen the way they would in the real world !

  14. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 2:03 am

    Even Mrs. Carville knows James is an idiot when it comes to pollitics !

  15. JetHeadJoe on March 28th, 2012 12:39 pm

    Not so fast, Mr. Carville. You see, Democrats tried to force this unconstitutional crap down our throats, not even considering that it IS unconstitutional. This defeat (if it occurs; it hasn't happend yet) is a disaster, period, and there's no good way to spin it. The SCOTUS just may have save us from this program – passed only by Democrats using only legislative gimmicks. How, then, do Republicans "own" health care now? (Answer: they don't.) As for Obama's arrogance, Republican ideas don't stand a chance of being entertained anyway. This is solely a black eye for Democrats, and nothing more.

  16. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 1:13 pm

    I heard on radio news today (missed some details) that if / when O`Scare is declared unconstitutional, everyone will simply be put on Medicare. It sounded to me that the dem who said it was fairly well pleased with the idea and not surprised, like it may have been part of a plan.

    Did anyone else hear this ? Can anyone offer some elaboration ?

  17. backwoodsconsr on March 28th, 2012 1:39 pm

    Hot Air had a Headline post about it. It seems to be an idea that's being floated. The liberals won't stop trying to put the Almighty Government in charge of everything.
    http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/03/27/h

  18. Truesoldier__ on March 28th, 2012 1:48 pm

    This does seem like it is a way for the Dems to save face on a very unpopular piece of Legislation. Basically, he will be claiming that if Obamacare had been fully implemented health care costs would have dropped dramatically, but the evil Conservatives on the court stopped it from happening. He will then go on to justify the need for his re-election so that he can appoint more judges to the Supreme Court that will not stand in the way of progress.

    Let's just hope the American public doesn't buy it.

  19. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 2:02 pm

    The Rs own an opportunity to frame the Health Reform issue in the proper perspective; affordability, not access. The single best thing to do to make health care more affordable would be comprehensive Removal of Gummit from all our biz, personal and professional ! The second best thing is comprehensive TORT REFORM !

  20. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 2:05 pm

    Thanks, bwc.

  21. Truesoldier__ on March 28th, 2012 2:31 pm

    Just saw these comments by the Supreme Court Justices from today's hearing:

    “One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

    Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

    Meanwhile, the court’s liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.” But she looked to be out-voted.

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

    It sounds to me like even Ginsberg believes that the mandate will be struck down.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justic

  22. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 2:50 pm

    As I heard on radio yesterday, the incompetent lawyers will and are being blamed for losing the argument with SCOTUS !

    So now, our own stupidity, the Evil Rs, Bush and their own incompetent lawyers are to blame !

  23. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 2:52 pm

    There are some good signs; I hope we can count on them. It`s looking rather 5-4 ish !

  24. backwoodsconsr on March 28th, 2012 2:57 pm

    Spin. Used so often in politics that during the 2000 election fiasco CNN had a half-hour show called The Spin Room. It starred Bill Press and Tucker Carlson, and they had a lot of fun making light of the way both sides tried to spin the day's events. The show didn't last long after the election was decided, but at the time it was one of the most delightful bits of political humor I had ever seen.

    There are some who will blindly believe anything the Dems tell them, but a Supreme Court decision against Obamacare is a loss for the Dems, I don't care how they try to spin it.

  25. Truesoldier__ on March 28th, 2012 3:13 pm

    That is what I am thinking as well. It should be 9-0, but with the current make up of the court that wont happen. Just one more reason Obama needs to go in November.

  26. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 5:42 pm

    It should come as no surprise; I think Zero should be impeached today ! Losing re-election in November won`t be nearly the embarrassment for him and the left as impeachment would be !

  27. ChapBix on March 28th, 2012 8:31 pm

    It isn't just Obama they need to get rid of. The entire hard left wing of the party is driving the bus (Democrat Party) and people who have any sense will realize that and reject them.

  28. ChapBix on March 28th, 2012 8:37 pm

    Good slap down of Mr. Carville, JetHeadJoe! His, and others of his ilk, must be met head-on and the populace reminded that it was the Democrats who bungled this and shoved it down our throats making it necessary for this show-down in the SCOTUS, Again, this is the stuff of effective ads this summer and fall.

  29. ChapBix on March 28th, 2012 8:47 pm

    "He will then go on to justify the need for his re-election so that he can appoint more judges to the Supreme Court that will not stand in the way of progress."

    An effective antidote to that will be to play video of Justice Ginsburg during the arguments on the mandate when she said that .were compelled to buy wheat based on a SCOTUS decision in about 1942 or somewhere thereabouts She was way off base. Therefore, she becomes the poster child for future Obama SCOTUS picks..

  30. ChapBix on March 28th, 2012 8:48 pm

    Oops, left out a word.

    "when she said that people.were compelled"

  31. ChapBix on March 28th, 2012 8:53 pm

    The problem with having the SCOTUS strike down the mandate and leaving the rest for the court to sift through and decide to leave or strike is that the SCOTUS is placed in the position of becoming a super-legislature, a violation of the constitutional divided powers.

  32. SignPainterGuy on March 28th, 2012 9:03 pm

    Apparently there is no "severable" language in the bill, so SCOTUS can indeed strike down the entire thing. That`s what I gathered from some of yesterday`s reporting ! As a matter of fact, it was mentioned that because there is no "severable" language, it`s a matter of striking "all or nothing" !

    Oh, my head hurts !

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.