Skip to main content

Obama and the Supremes


The oral arguments are over in the Supreme Court and now the guessing game begins. It is fascinating to watch this all unfold as we are truly witnessing critical legal history. This decision, no matter what it is, will be studied in law schools for decades to come.

Sadly, I am not sure that the American people really understand how broad reaching this decision is? It is way past Obamacare or even healthcare. It is a key constitutional decision that will impact generations and will set a course for congress regarding commerce in the US.

While it is true that the Supreme Court has overturned legislation passed by congress, re commerce, more than 150 times, this is different. We are really debating several things in this case:

1.      Is an individual healthcare mandate constitutional?

2.      Can the mandate be severed from the PPACA law?

3.      Can the Federal Government dictate individual choice in commerce nationwide?



As you can see these are not small issues and will have a big impact on many segments of our country and its economy. The decisions the court makes by June will naturally affect the upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections.



The oral arguments were very interesting. As expected the 4 liberal judges were clearly trying to find ways to uphold the constitutionality of the law and the 4 conservative judges were doing the opposite. Judge Kennedy who is so often the swing vote in this Supreme Court was a surprise. His questions would lead one to believe that he will strike down the provision. However, oral arguments do not dictate the opinions of each judge as we have seen many times in recent history.



President Obama made a huge tactical error by delivering a veiled threat to the court last week and his justice department is now on the hot seat in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge in a case there, after hearing the President’s statement about “unelected judges shooting down legislation passed by a duly elected congress”, has demanded that the DOJ deliver a very specific explanation of what the President thinks the Court’s powers are. This is getting heated and the DOJ response will be interesting to say the least.



I have always felt that the Supreme Court would try to find a way to compromise on this critical case. I say compromise because that is as close as I can describe it. I suspect they will rule that the individual mandate is a tax and that it is constitutional. Thus leaving the law primarily intact and allowing the administration and HHS to implement this massive healthcare program.



This would be a sad outcome as it will leave both sides somewhat deflated but not defeated. This will lead to more ridiculous debate and an outcome that will surely further hurt the American people and our fragile economic recovery.



I for one, am hoping for a slam dunk either way so that we can have a true debate about healthcare in the US. All PPACA has done is further regulate the insurance industry, drive up costs and leave even more uninsured than before it passed. It has, however, done one good thing -  it has scared many of the greedy parties to the healthcare industry and for the first time several are having honest discussions about what can be done to really fix it.



If the administration wins hands down the Republicans will have huge hurdles ahead. Can they beat the President in November without a win? Or does this give them a huge platform to run on? If the President is re-elected how soon will we have National Healthcare? Will he attempt to do it prior to the end of his second term or will he just put all the pieces in place so that it is a forgone conclusion?



If the entire law gets struck down by the Supremes, what will this do to the Democrats? Will the President be able to win re-election? With his masterpiece legislation in flames will he be able to fix healthcare in his second term or will he turn tail as Clinton did and leave it for another President to handle?



I don’t know about you but I can’t wait to see the outcome to this sitcom – Obama & The Supremes. (sounds like a bad band name) Bring on the popcorn!

Popular posts from this blog

Porsche Perspective

Before I start I must declare that I am a Ferrari owner, racer and lover. As such Porsche is normally an arch enemy. Most of the faithful from each camp very rarely see eye to eye and often avoid each other like the plague. So for me to write this piece on Porsche is a stretch and proves once and for all, above all I am just a true lover of all cars! Porsche has to be respected for their longevity, their racing prowess and their myopic market focus. Porsche's have been racing and winning for as long as I can remember and while they are not a Ferrari their racing pedigree is remarkable. Initially their claim to fame was the basic 911. This is still their bread and butter car and over the decades has been improved markedly. But I am not going to focus on the 911, the Panamera or Cayenne. Today I want to discuss the smaller, younger cousins - the Cayman and the Boxster. These two "entry level" Porsches are worth writing about. Porsche first made the Boxster in 1997 in an...
Read more

Tax Returns & the Truth

We are being bombarded with stories about the Mitt Romney tax returns. The left thinks he is hiding something and wants him to disclose 10 years of returns (recently amended to 5 years) so they can dig into them and find ways to make his wealth an issue in this election. While it appears all is fair game in politics I think the American people would prefer to hear about who is going to fix the economy and get jobs back on track. That said all the debate about tax returns made me start thinking and now I have some questions. Mitt Romney paid over 13% in taxes in his 2010 return and claims that is the case for all years. His 2011 return will be out in September and we will see what that year yielded. Barrack Obama paid 20% in his latest tax filing according to public records. All this got me thinking. I made less money than both of them in 2011 and I paid about 44% in taxes. Is there a problem here? How can they both pay so little on large sums of income and I, a poor working ...
Read more

Energy Policy in America

Energy Policy in America Well it appears that we are at another critical crossroad with economic policy in America. Our President has decided that moving America to alternate green fuels is worth the potential economic downturn that could result from this short term strategy. America definitely needs to diversify its energy use. No one on either side of the aisle would argue that point, however, the process and timing of such a diversification are critical to our economic recovery. We must do 2 things over the next decade with our energy policy if we are to maintain a position as the leading economy in the world. One we must become less dependent on foreign resources and two we must diversify our energy use. It seems apparent that we have tremendous oil and coal resources in our country that we are not utilizing. I feel this is a starting point. How much energy utilization can we switch from foreign oil to our own resources over what period of time? At the same time what...
Read more