I really hope the health care law is upheld (though I don’t expect that to happen), and yet I’m sure that wouldn’t be the end of the fight by any means. I think, once they’re back in power, right-wingers really would try to do what Louie Gohmert predicts:
Liberals should be concerned about what a future “redneck president” could impose on them if the Supreme Court upholds the healthcare reform law’s mandate that everyone have insurance, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Monday.
“Let’s say you want to follow this administration’s idea of greatest good for the greatest number of people,” Gohmert said. “It ought to scare liberals to come run and join conservatives, because what it means is when this president’s out of the White House and you get a conservative in there, if this president has the authority under ObamaCare … to trample on religious rights, then some redneck president’s got the right to say, ‘you know what, there’s some practices that go on in your house that cost people too much money and healthcare, so we’re going to have the right to rule over those as well.’ ”
Now, when Gohmert talks about “practices that go on in your house that cost people too much money and healthcare” I don’t think he’s referring to, say, eating too much greasy takeout food and washing it down with half a dozen Bud tallboys and/or crystal meth and never getting more exercise than the amount you get walking from the TV chair to the driver’s seat of the pickup truck. I know exactly what he means — he means gay sex, because thoroughly discredited right-wing pseudo-science, which is believed by a large percentage of the right, including right-wingers who claim to be sophisticated, tells us that gay men and lesbians have shockingly brief lifespans and die sooner than straight people from all sorts of causes, including accidents. Oh, and I’m sure he’s also referring to abortion, which all right-wingers “know” causes breast cancer, even though that assertion has been thoroughly debunked. And I almost forgot the supposed link between having an abortion and depression, even though that’s also been debunked.
Right-wingers never admit defeat, so if they somehow manage to lose at the Supreme Court on the mandate issue, they absolutely will take advantage of it the next time they control the entire federal government. And if you think they won’t try to use pseudo-science in legislation, obviously you haven’t been paying attention to the climate change debate in America.
Now, it’s not at all clear that they can actually succeed in these efforts. But they’ll certainly be more than happy to waste everyone’s time trying, because payback is their idea of good governance.
(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)
I don’t get one thing. When, and if, the GOP controls the Presidency and Congress together at some point in the future, what would happen if they outlawed abortion? As just one example. Meaning, what would the Catholic Church do then? I mean they didn’t outlaw it the first 6 years of the W. Presidency. They can’t outlaw it otherwise they can’t gin up the outrage machine. And the outrage machine is all they have.
you’re missing how that would go down.
Congress isn’t going to abolish abortion. They would need sixty senators, a willing president, and the House to even pass the law, and the law would be considered unconstitutional by the Court.
They need to replace one of the five pro-Roe/Casey Justices with a anti-choicer.
Poppy Bush cleverly preserved abortion rights by picking Souter. Poppy (and his wife) was never a real lifer. Dubya tried to do the same thing (in all probability) by putting Harriet Miers on the bench. When that failed, he was forced to put Alito there and add a vote for repeal.
The next Republican president will face the same dilemma. Can they sneak a pro-choicer in? It won’t be easy, and depending on the president they may not even try.
Then if they get their 5-4 majority and overturn Casey and Roe, the laws will revert to the states. Many states will instantly ban abortion. Many will not. The abortion issue will become much more of a local/state issue.
But my over-arching point still stands. If the court overturns Roe v. Wade, what will the Catholic Church do then? How will the GOP fire up the base at that point?
the same way they do now. By promising to support the abolition of abortion.
So, you expect a 5-4 decision to overturn the mandate?
What about severability?
I’m leaning the other way, although I am certainly very concerned.
If they could get rid of the mandate without screwing over the insurance corporations, I think they would do it in a heartbeat. But they can’t, as far as I can see. If they leave the insurance companies on the hook for preexisting conditions without giving them a guaranteed pool of healthy individuals, then Congress will be stuck trying to redo the bill without the ability to do so.
They seem to have a choice between leaving things be, and invalidating the whole law. And I think that’s a bridge too far for someone like Kennedy, especially because it would involve a breathtaking change of precedent and result in a 5-4 decision.
It could happen. I am slightly optimistic that it won’t though.
The stacked SCOTUS doesn’t give a fuck about precedent or principle. Jeffrey Toobin thinks their going to strike it down:
he also says Kennedy is a “lost cause”.
man, there are going to be some angry progressives. Impotent, powerless, angry progressives.
great. Are the arguments over for the day?
yes, done for the day.
sorry, booman. I hate to be right this time.
I’m not clear on why I keep getting rapped for incivility when it’s apparently above board around here to gloat about people in this country (potentially) not being able to receive decent health insurance?
I’m wishing the argument would circle back to the Social Contract argument that the Heritage Foundation started with. Responsibility should be framed as a front line player.
The audio of todays Oral Argument is up if people want to listen and make up their own mind. The transcript should be up shortly as well.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday
I’m too nervous to listen. May have to wait until I get home and then with a glass of wine–or two.
Well I admit I haven’t listened to it yet myself. 🙂 Anyway someone else on another forum pulled these chestnuts out of the transcript, which is now up. (I havent had a chance to read it through myself) You can find it at the same link as above.
These remarks remind me of the old adage, ‘you don’t need a parachute to skydive, you only need one if you plan on skydiving a second time’
The idea that a mandate forces you to buy something you don’t want …begs the question of when don’t you want it…when you’re living the healthy parts of your life, well sure…or when the unexpected happens and you need major medical and haven’t got a way to pay the rest of us to take care of you?
I saw that timing was brought up in arguments, forcing you to buy insurance before you could be admitted to a hospital rather than forcing you to buy while still healthy. Seriously? Have none of these people ever worked for a living, understood how a company figures its bottom line or tried to get an insurance company to budge a nikel?
NO FUCKING SHIT! Statistically, you enter the health care system — if not the health care market — by breathing.
Goehmert is a guy in need of an opposition candidate to ridicule his bullshit. And to get him even if he wins to reel in the crazy.
As for rightwingers never admitting defeat, isn’t it about time for progressives to become relentless?
I’ve been reading Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenburg, Madison and Jefferson. The rightwing is acting no different from the Hamiltonian Federalists in the Washington, Adams, and Jefferson administrations. One almost gets the impression that Rove got his playbook from Hamilton.
What makes you think Hamilton would side with the Republicans today? Sure, he liked business, Wall Street, lawyers and professionals…but he, like Adam Smith, believed they had an interest in their countrymen and people. He was also incorruptible.
My comment really was intended to focus on relentlessness and tactics.
I think that in other respects, you are right.
bring it.
BRING IT.
Of course it won’t be the end of the fight. The fight over much bigger fish than healthcare reform. You make the error of thinking the crazies need some particular bit of reality to justify their drive to destroy the commonwealth. They don’t. Logic doesn’t matter to them, and their propagandists will always come up with elixirs for the ignorant and sociopathic. What they might do with any particular twist of law is entirely irrelevant.