Why does Politico assume it’s in the White House’s political interest to have the Supreme Court approve Obama’s health care law, with its controversial “individual mandate,” before the November, 2012 election? And why assume the Obama White House was also thinking that a favorable ruling was in its interest when it chose to pursue a rapid Supreme Court review? If the law is as unpopular as it seems to be, and if the individual mandate is “the most hated piece of the law,” then the Court, by removing the threat of the law, or at least the mandate, on constitutional grounds, would remove a big reason to oppose Obama, no? Health care “repealers” could reelect the President without fear that he’d require them to buy insurance–or, if the entire law collapses, without fear that the law would not be repealed over his veto. The Court would already have done the repealing. … I’m not saying Obama wants to lose the case. But he could easily have figured that if he’s going to lose the case, he might as well do it when a loss would remove a thorn in the electorate’s side. …
Would a SCOTUS loss help Obama?
5:49 AM 09/30/2011