Viewpoints: The Law Is Now Front And Center In The Election; Right’s Muddled Response
Editorials and opinion writers say the Supreme Court decision moves the debate about the health law back to voters in November.
Politico: Supreme Court Ruling Not a Big Deal For Some
Republicans are characterizing the Supreme Court health care ruling as one of the worst decisions in the court's history. Democrats, who asserted the fate of the republic — or at least of Barack Obama's presidency — hinged on the outcome, are celebrating. Both sides are already preparing to use it as fodder for fundraising and television ads. ... Chances are though, despite all the ballyhoo from the left and the right, it won’t have a major effect on the outcome of the presidential race (Linda Killian, 6/28).
Politico: GOP's Path Post-Health Care Ruling
It is critical that the GOP focus on the needs of the American people. Is a Big Government, high-cost, high-regulation program run by Washington bureaucrats really what we need to solve our health care problems? For the sake of our health, our health care and our economy, Republicans must take the lead on offering a positive alternative — one that provides higher-quality care at lower cost and with increased choice — for Americans to support this fall (Frank Donatelli, 6/28).
The Wall Street Journal: Obama Has a Good Day
ObamaCare, including the insurance mandate, was upheld. What would have been a political disaster for President Obama has been averted. He has not been humiliated, and the centerpiece of his efforts the past 3½ years has not been rebuked by the Supreme Court. ... There will be a downside: The president is left carrying the burden defending a bill nobody likes. It certainly has the worst public reputation of any new government program of my lifetime. The Republicans can say, "It may be constitutional, but it's still a bad law, and we'll get rid of it." In fact the speaker of the House said it within hours of the decision (Peggy Noonan, 6/28).
The Wall Street Journal: It's Up to the Voters Now
If there is a modicum of hope in Chief Justice John Roberts's inglorious one-man opinion Thursday, it is that Americans were reminded again that they cannot count on others to protect their liberty. Certainly judges aren't reliable. They can be turned by the pressure of the media and the whims of vanity. If Americans want to repeal ObamaCare, their only recourse is to demand it at the ballot box in November (6/28).
The Wall Street Journal: The ObamaCare Election
Politically, here's what the Supreme Court provided in upholding the president's health legislation: clarity. Ever since the March oral arguments, with their tantalizing hints the court might strike down the law, the politics of health care has been a muddle. With this week's decision, the debate refocuses. This election is now about ObamaCare—not just in its own right, but as proxy for a generational debate over liberty. Chief Justice John Roberts, in legitimizing sweeping federal powers, has left it to the U.S. electorate to serve as the check on government intrusion—and thus dramatically elevated the November stakes. That is no political victory for President Obama, though it could be an electoral game changer for Mitt Romney if he recognizes the potential (Kimberley A. Strassel, 6/28).
The Wall Street Journal: The Tax Duck
Editor's note: The duck test—if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. As the basis for the majority opinion in the Obama health-care decision, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the law's individual mandate to buy health insurance is valid because it is a tax, citing Congress's power under the Constitution to "lay and collect taxes" for "the general welfare of the United States." Herewith, from President Obama on down, is a sampling of Democratic denials that the individual mandate is a tax (6/28).
The New York Times: A Muddled Political Response From The Right
The future of the health care system is now back where it should be, out of the hands of judges and into those of voters. With the constitutional question about President Obama’s health care law now settled, the public will have a chance to examine Mitt Romney’s claims that it is terrible for the country. Based on his remarks on Thursday, they will not have much to go on (6/28).
Los Angeles Times: The Healthcare Law Fight Isn't Over
Logical or not, the ruling underscores the dangers of relying too heavily on the Supreme Court to solve policy problems. Conservatives should have used the time that the court was deliberating to formulate attractive legislative proposals to both repeal and replace this unpopular law. But they didn't. So where does this leave us? (Tom Miller, 6/29).
Baltimore Sun: For ACA Ruling's Winners, Perhaps A Pyrrhic Victory
The Supreme Court's action restores Obamacare to a front-and-center place in the coming fall campaign. President Obama had already resigned himself to a campaign in which he must defend his record on jobs and the economy rather than simply touting his accomplishments. Now he and his team must wage a two-front war. In addition to defending himself on jobs, he must defend a health care law that is controversial at best and deeply unpopular at worst. (Richard J. Cross III, 6/29).
Boston Globe: Federal Health Care Law Doesn't Help State Or The Nation
That’s what happens when we try to force heavy-handed Washington solutions on problems that require flexibility and creative approaches undertaken at the state level. The health care law should be repealed. We must preserve the right of states to develop and implement health care solutions that meet the unique needs of local citizens, as we were able to do in Massachusetts (Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., 6/29).
The Dallas Morning News: Health Care Ruling An Ironic Win For Obama
Unfortunately, the fight to repeal the law will only gain shrill momentum now. House Republicans already have scheduled a doomed vote to overturn it, and Mitt Romney, Obama’s GOP challenger, continues to promise repeal. In polls, Americans still oppose the law, despite favoring some of its planks. A wiser course would be to accept the court’s ruling and improve the parts of the law involving funding and cost containment. But that would require real leadership, another irony (6/28).
The Minneapolis Star Tribune: A Major Step Closer To Health Care For All
The still-struggling economy is bound to be the dominant campaign theme for the next four months. That’s as it should be. But by tossing the health care issue back into the political arena, the Supreme Court has given Americans a chance to be more than passive spectators of what happens next on that front. Voters should seize that chance and bone up on the ACA reforms (6/28).
Denver Post: Could SCOTUS Health Care Decision Cost Obama Re-Election?
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would argue that conservative Chief Justice Roberts joined with liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court to support “Obamacare” for one reason and one reason alone: to cost President Obama re-election in November. Instead, let me just say this. A victory for Obama today could make winning in November a whole lot tougher (Jessica Peck, 6/28).
Houston Chronicle: Roberts Rules With Health Care Opinion
Now comes the hard part -- the politics…. The third branch of government has done its work on this issue with wisdom and integrity. It is left to the other two branches to show they can follow suit (6/28).
Journal of the American Medical Association: After Supreme Court Ruling On The Health Care Law, Focus Turns To The States … And November
But, while the court’s decision removes the legal uncertainty around implementation of the health reform law, political uncertainty remains…. Although this election is likely to be much more about the economy than health reform, Governor Romney has reiterated his aim to repeal the ACA if elected president (or, short of that, change its funding and direction). So the outcome of the election could well determine the future of the health reform law (Larry Levitt, 6/28).