Monday, December 13, 2010

ObamaCare Court Ruling: Does this Help or Hurt Romney for 2012?


From USA Today :

"The linchpin provision of the landmark health care law extending insurance to 32 million Americans was struck down by a federal judge in Virginia on Monday, dealing the first major blow to President Obama's most far-reaching legislative achievement."

ObamaCare Now on The Ropes - from NRO:

"The decision of Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia v. Sebelius is no bird of passage that will easily be pushed aside as the case winds its way up to its inevitable disposition in the United States Supreme Court. The United States gave the case its best shot, and it is not likely that it will come up with a new set of arguments that will strengthen its hand in subsequent litigation."
"The key successful move for Virginia was that it found a way to sidestep the well-known 1942 decision of the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn, which held in effect that the power to regulate commerce among the several states extended to decisions of farmers to feed their own grain to their own cows. Wickard does not pass the laugh test if the issue is whether it bears any fidelity to the original constitutional design. It was put into place for the rather ignoble purpose of making sure that the federally sponsored cartel arrangements for agriculture could be properly administered." (Full story here)
-------------
For as many stories, articles and posts written about the passage of ObamaCare, there seems to have been just as many citing this legislation as the Death Knell of the potential 2012 Romney for President campaign.

Question: Does this ruling and the potential dismantling of ObamaCare via the courts, help/hinder or have no effect on Romney's plans?

12 comments:

phil said...

This helps Romney on 2 fronts.

1. It goes along with what he has said since the passage of Obamacare. Repeal, de-fund, fight in courts.
2. It shows Americans what Romney has stated ALL along. Obamacare is Unconstitutional. Romneycare is Constitutional at the STATE level.

illinoisguy said...

The bottom line is that Massachusetts had a problem with freeloaders. They wanted a solution to it. Mitt along with Heritage Foundation and many other players gave them a solution that was passed by 99% in their Congress. After four years, they overwhelmingly still favor it today, and it is still within budget.
On the other hand Obama forced down the throats an unconstitutional plan that was hugely unpopular.
This will help Mitt in that it puts this issue back in the hands of the states where it belongs.

Anonymous said...

This helps Mitt.

Excellent points phil!

Ann said...

It just gives credit to What Romney has said all along. The national mandate is unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

n all honesty, ObamaCare is a no-win situation for Romney. If it is enacted or, at least, not destroyed by 2012, then Romney will have a tough time, in the primaries, fighting the argument and an even tougher time, in the general, utilizing the negative aspects of it. If it's unconstitutional on the Federal level...which everyone agrees with...even Romney hmself...and his supporters, on the basis that the Federal government cannot force the citizens to purchase goods...then why should it be okay on a state level? It doesn't matter if it is legal or constitutional on the state level...in theory it shouldn't be and my guess is that the average voter will agree that the government(federal or state) should not force the population to purchase something they may or may not want.

cross-commented from ROS.

JR

Right Wingnut said...

The battle over ObamaCare is likely to extend into the campaign. I hear it could take 1-2 years to get a decision from the SC. This is not what Mitt needs if he is to win over the grass roots element of the party.

Anonymous said...

I mean who cares if it IS constitutional on the state level...it shouldn't be!!! Even Romney didn't want the mandates...why are his supporters fighting for them for Mass but not for the Fed? That's right because they can't admit that Romney screwed the pooch when he didn't veto that bill forever cementing his fate on mandates and his stance on government intrusion into the private life of the individual. Just sayin'

BOSMAN said...

Anon,

As a life long MA resident and I LOVE the mandate. I've explained my view several times before. here are 2

We Had A Health Care Mandate In Massachusetts, before Mitt Romney Was Governor


Mitt, Me, and the Massachusetts Health Care Mandate

Anonymous said...

Massachusetts is a STATE and states have different constitutional rights. I don't like the mandate to force people to buy health care, but I REALLY hate the current mandate that forces ME to pay for the healthcare of anyone who bothers to show up in the emergency room. This includes people WHO AREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE COUNTRY!!! I think Mass health care will be an issue in the Primary, but in the General it might be an asset because Romney will know more about health care problems than most.

AZ

kelly said...

It just plays into what Romney has said should be done all along. Fight this thing until it is thrown out.

Anonymous said...

You guys are so delusional...screw those freeloaders...they're causing me to pay more yet insurance premiums have steadily risen every year since the mandate was introduced and the program costs just about the same as the state had to pay for the uninsured but keep believing that freeloaders are the problem...when really they're just a red herring

JR

Revolution 2010 said...

MA Health Care only seems to be a problem with Palin and Huckabee supporters. NOTHING Romney could say or do, or states winning court cases will change that.