Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Wow... 48% of Dems want Obamacare all or part overturned? [View all]
http://www.wane.com/dpps/health/healthy_living/supreme-court-in-a-no-win-position-on-obamacare_4206439Excerpt from David Gergen:
Court finds itself in a bind
Consider the quandary the high court faces in trying to keep the public on its side.
Last week, a New York Times/CBS poll revealed that a majority of respondents -- 68% -- believes the individual mandate to buy health insurance, the central feature of the law, violates the Constitution and wants the court to overturn the law in part or in whole. Even a plurality of Democrats (48%) want a partial or full overturn. So if the court decides to uphold the law, it will sharply contravene current public opinion.
But what if the court indeed decides to strike down the mandate and possibly other parts of the law? In the near term, yes, that could be widely welcomed by the public. But over time it could stir up a different fire, one that could do further damage to the reputation and prestige of the court.
Despite its occasional waywardness, the Supreme Court has traditionally been viewed as the least partisan and most independent of the three branches of government. That in turn has built a reservoir of public trust so that, in controversial cases, most Americans believe that the justices have worn a blindfold, carefully weighing the law of the land. Thus they respect the law, an important source of legitimacy for our only nonelected branch of government.
73 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How is it different than the laws that say you have to have car insurance. Just asking. nt
Laura PourMeADrink
Jun 2012
#56
That is not the typical objection from the public. If it was, I could respect that. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2012
#49
Some Democrats want everything or nothing, so it will most likely be back to nothing.
BlueCaliDem
Jun 2012
#4
Why not deal with the actual waiver process instead of spreading BS about it? n/t
Bolo Boffin
Jun 2012
#68
If that was the only thing going on here, you might have a point. Now, the waiver process.
Bolo Boffin
Jun 2012
#70
They're one step ahead. They will move to Delaware and still not lower prices.
FarLeftFist
Jun 2012
#20
Because what would happen in reality is just the opposite of what you claim.
Egalitarian Thug
Jun 2012
#39
The survey says only 42% of Democrats think SCOTUS should keep the whole law.
Bolo Boffin
Jun 2012
#57
True. It would be disconcerting if things like polls and protests could sway judges. n/t
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2012
#51
I think many of us, deep down, understood that mandatory for-profit insurance was a Faustian deal
Romulox
Jun 2012
#33
There is no provision in the US Constitution that allows for forced purchases--but only from
Romulox
Jun 2012
#48
Lots of people think "it's a bad idea and it shouldn't be that way" = "unconstitutional"
Orangepeel
Jun 2012
#38
That's not a solution for the stockholders who own stock in the health-care companies.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#54
most profound post of all. ! of course Obama knows the same...wonder if even he is
Laura PourMeADrink
Jun 2012
#66
If only they had listened. We tried to tell them but were attacked and vilified and the
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#65