Court And Spark
I've watched Congress in session on C-Span. For the most part, pretty dull. The stuff that's interesting--putting the legislation together and making deals for votes--goes on behind the scenes.
So why do the Justices stop the cameras at the courthouse steps? Perhaps they worry it'll turn the proceedings into the circus, but they'll still be in charge, and can set the tone. Can't they at least try it out for a few big cases? A live Supreme Court may not get ratings like American Idol, but it'll provide a fair amount of entertainment. Oh yeah, it'll also provide a great civics lesson for millions.
PS I was talking to a friend and we disagreed on what sort of decision would be best for President Obama. He felt if ObamaCare (the mandate or the whole thing) is overturned it'll hurt the President. It's his signature achievement, and if it's gone it'll hurt his prestige with little to show for his first term. I think it would help him. The law is highly unpopular and his opponent will no longer be able to run against it, while Obama can still pull it out for those who liked it by complaining about those nasty conservative Justices who prevented you from getting health care.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:10 AM
8 Comments:
Prediction: Kennedy will find health care "unique" and the mandate will be upheld 5-4.
Way too early to make that prediction. The New York Times and Washington Post have lots of stories to write before the decision comes out. Maybe they'll get Roberts, too.
"The law is highly unpopular" among a certain who are right now waiving signs when they aren't shooting each other in a circular firing squad.
Striking it down will probably make it "highly popular' as the angries (those who think they lost something) will take over and suck in all the coverage.
The law itself is way too complex to explain easily(you'll recall when it was being voted on the networks allocated far more minutes to the more interesting & understandable Tiger Woods sex scandal). You'll chime in with "too expensive" and "government takeover" and they'll come back with "coverage for all" and "rich insurance companies" but beyond that not too many specifics will be discussed broadly
The law is highly unpopular among that group known as American citizens.
Yikes, LaGuy, way to let your inner Tea Party out. That's going to leave a mark.
I'm sorry to say, though, that if Clinton taught us anything, it's that polls can be moved to where they need to be.
There hasn't been a single poll since the law was passed (or before, for that matter) where it wasn't opposed more than it was favored. Bill Clinton, who promised the law would shoot up in popularity after it was passed, admitted he got it wrong (and then blamed the Republicans), so I guess even he saw you can't always move polls to where they "need to be."
In fact, if you could, all those Democratic lunkheads who counted on Clinton's blithe assurance wouldn't have been kicked out of office in 2010.
Hey, Tiger, I'm on your side. I'm just saying, should Kennedy go soft, and the papers have two years to do their work, the polls will eventually say what they want them to say.
And even on that sorry day, the law will remain an abomination.
But in the meantime, let's hope your faith remains valid, and the people continue to understand what is indeed good for them
Hey, Tiger, I'm on your side. I'm just saying, should Kennedy go soft, and the papers have two years to do their work, the polls will eventually say what they want them to say.
And even on that sorry day, the law will remain an abomination.
But in the meantime, let's hope your faith remains valid, and the people continue to understand what is indeed good for them
Post a Comment
<< Home