Discussion: A SCOTUS Ruling Against Obamacare Would Pose 2016 Dilemma For GOP

system1 · January 19, 2015, 3:23pm

Discussion for article #232189

jack_russell · January 20, 2015, 11:41am

would directly *effect* . . . ``

affect. Sheesh!

targetpractice · January 20, 2015, 11:45am

If you needed a better example of how the Tea Party is slowly poisoning the GOP to death, look no further. Even a decade ago, Boehner and McConnell would have recognized the optics of Obamacare’s death would be overshadowed by the damage done and swallowed their pride long enough to pass a fix to the law. Then they’d have run in the next elections against the flaws in the law and proposed either their own fixes or an alternative law.

Instead, we get a party that’s effectively locked into its own death spiral, paralyzed into uselessness by the fear of a revolt in the ranks if it does anything to help Americans because it will mean helping the President. They’re ready to abandon any chance they might have had in 2016 of taking back the White House and holding/expanding their Senate majority just to avoid the wrath of Ted Cruz and the unruly children of their base.

the_lone_apple · January 20, 2015, 11:47am

“would pose 2016 dilemma for GOP”

If GOP voters weren’t quite possibly the most self-destructive force since suicide bombers.

tao · January 20, 2015, 11:59am

Apparently the GOP can order custom SCOTUS decisions now.

thomasmatthew · January 20, 2015, 12:02pm

How is it that the article can quote Ryan saying they are contingency planning for a ruling invalidating subsidies, point out that a minor technical change to say more directly that subsidies are allowed on the exchanges is the easiest and most obvious fix, and not connect the dots? Did any reporter not ask Bagger Paul the obvious questio, why not just reauthorize subsidies on the fed exchange?

frankly_my_dear · January 20, 2015, 12:03pm

Have done since Bush v. Gore.

pine · January 20, 2015, 12:34pm

Duh??? This other little gem of plan is also not a tone of endearment,this Social Security debacle.

sconosciuto · January 20, 2015, 12:34pm

grammar nazis never sleep!

be nice, affect/effect is usually a hard one and this particular instance, even I had to think about it myself as far as which one was correct.

But if they ever use ‘looser’ instead of ‘loser’ here, I am totally canceling my subscription!

sconosciuto · January 20, 2015, 12:35pm

apparently you’ve never seen a Democratic campaign?

sconosciuto · January 20, 2015, 12:35pm

they might even have an app for that

jack_russell · January 20, 2015, 12:47pm

Grammar Nazi? Really? I have a hard time taking a journalist seriously who can’t get basic freshman English stuff correct. What else is he not getting right?

sconosciuto · January 20, 2015, 12:49pm

stand down Staffelführer, it was not intended as a slight.

mickeyg · January 20, 2015, 12:49pm

I’ll believe it when I see it…and from what I’ve seen recently, I won’t be believing it. Republicans figure any shit they pull, the Dems will get 50% of the blame anyway, so what’s the downside for them ?

dickweed · January 20, 2015, 1:05pm

Voting against their own best interest has never stopped a lot of these folks from voting Republican before and I’d guess they’ll still blame Obama.

vinceandlinda · January 20, 2015, 1:08pm

What do you mean “now”? They have been since Roberts took over!

barblzz · January 20, 2015, 1:15pm

First SCOTUS that should be impeached.

mames5 · January 20, 2015, 1:20pm

This argument makes sense and seems obvious, but I fear that the Republicans (McCain, Graham, Paul, Mike Rogers, etc) who are constantly on the airwaves will blame the Dems for the wording of the law and that the press will go with that narrative…that it is the fault of the Democratic Congress who did not phrase things correctly when they “jammed the law down the throats of the 'merkin people.”

boscobrown · January 20, 2015, 1:33pm

If Obama wasn’t black, do you think that all this would be going on?
Here’s a question I’d like for any racist to answer me. I’ll even define what you are!

rac·ist ˈrāsəst/
noun
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist
adjective
noun: racist; plural noun: racists; adjective: racist
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.

Yup! That’s what you are, “a phucking racist,” No if’, and’s or butt’s about it! It won’t matter matter how many ways you try to sugar-coat or deny your answer, you’re still a racist!

So Obama/black haters,
Give me the main, No.1 reason you hate Obama/blacks!
No wiley-niley answer’s, no on and on circular whiny answers, I only want the No. 1 reason for your hatred of the black man!
Here I’ll even help you out:
“I hate the President and black people because of …, then put in the reason!”
Please proceed!

josephebacon · January 20, 2015, 1:35pm

No it won’t. Not when Fox News, Hate Radio and Right wing priests and pulpit pimps blame Obama.