tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32512109.post2790633414238846414..comments2024-03-27T11:10:52.382-07:00Comments on On My Mind: Robert Reich Is DelusionalJayhawkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00756807802218022043noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32512109.post-70104021142951529732012-07-02T07:09:38.445-07:002012-07-02T07:09:38.445-07:00Actually, Jayhawk, as I will be saying at our othe...Actually, Jayhawk, as I will be saying at our other 'battleground' I think a <b>very</b> good case can be made that at least part of the reason Roberts switched at the last minute -- as the evidence of the opinions shows, the decision almost certainly was originally 5-4 to reverse with Scalia writing the opinion -- was a realization of how overruling the ACA, on top of <i>Bush v Gore</i> and <i>Citizens United</i>, would have made the court vulnerable to political pushback if -- as is now certain in my eyes -- Obama wins a Johnson v Goldwater, Nixon v McGovern level landslide reelection. (I consider Obama naive, a bumbler and a bungler as a President, though the more I look at what he's actually achieved, I'll admit I may beunderestimating him. But there's no doubt he is a great campaigner, and even a bad one could defeat the ineffable Mittens handily.)<br /><br />Another was, probably, the sheer mass of lesser cases that repealing it would have caused. Could insurance companies sue for the return of the 'medical loss ratio rebates' -- the least noticed provision, but one which has already put a lot of money into a lot of people's hands? Could an insurance company sue to get out of a contract -- i.e., a policy they wrote -- they claim was entered into 'under duress' because of the prospect of the ACA? Could they once again begin 'recissions' and 'pre-existing condition' denials?<br /><br />I do think 'restoring their credibiliy' was a factor even here, because without the sustaining, next term would have been filled with ACA-related cases, and the sheer amount of money being, in effect, held in escrow until the secondary decisions came down could have shoved us back into a recession.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32512109.post-69733346499300510312012-06-28T09:12:21.177-07:002012-06-28T09:12:21.177-07:00His reasons are as bad as Obama's...
"Th...His reasons are as bad as Obama's...<br /><br />"They won't overturn a law passed by a strong majority".. yeah, passed by 7 votes on the House - what's that, 1.5%? Ok, the Senate was 60-39, a bit better, but still not particularly popular.<br /><br />"Overturning this law would be unprecedented".. pure B.S. That's what the USSC is for (one reason) us to rule on contitutional questions.<br /><br />This from Obama, supposedly a "contitutional scholar".. If that's what a scholar is, his ROI on his education is no better than Krugman's economics.brucenoreply@blogger.com