Politico is full of RW hacks.

It shows us how important ONE JUSTICE is.

Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Cost Of Health Care Law Has Doubled
http://mediamatters.org/research/201203160005

It's fantasy.

Right-wing media needs to be removed from airing right-wing crap unless there is a equal counterbalance.

And right now, there is none (except for Current)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002424865

And the reason the mandate may die in the SCOTUS chambers is because of the lack of a public option. But let's see how all of this shakes down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002435119

*************QUOTE*************

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/health-care-liberals-eye-scalia-roberts-vote/story?id=15918156

Health Care: Liberals Eye Scalia and Roberts Vote

.... Walter Dellinger, former Clinton administration acting solicitor general and a stalwart supporter of the law, has said for months that the decision will be either 7-2 or 8-1.

"I always thought at the end of the day it's going to be upheld, it isn't going to be close and it won't come down to Kennedy," he said in September, during a panel discussion hosted by the American Constitution Society.

Dellinger thinks at least three votes are in play: Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia. ....

"I think he is likely to vote to strike down the individual mandate because it is a new exercise of Commerce Clause power," Fitzpatrick said. "And, in general, he believes that Congress already has too much Commerce Clause power. I think he thinks the mandate is beyond what Congress should be allowed to do." ....



*************UNQUOTE*************

Antonin Scalia hasn't voted for anything that doesn't benefit himself.

And neither does John Roberts.

Kennedy is the only one that needs to be convinced that he does the right thing. He may be a Republican, but he is still a old-school Republican and may swing our way.

Kennedy owes us for the Bush v Gore debacle, and he should be held on that.

The RW will do their best to defund it and weaken it as much as possible. But repealing it outright...not gonna happen.

If the purpose was to reduce government expenditures, then the law appears to be a success. If the purpose was to provide 'affordable health care', then, yes, it surely seems to have failed the poor, at least so far.

I guess it's a Point of View thing. Who was 'affordable' targeted to? The government, the people who are insured, or the corporations providing insurance and health care (they're all networked together, connected to 147 core global firms). Quite the Triangulation of interests.

So many people worked so hard for the public option, and so many others for single payer.

It was a corporate gift from the outset, and the process of its passage is perhaps one of the best recent examples of collusion between the parties that now both work for the corporate elite.

They fired up one side with the promise of universal health care, and they fired up the other side with the threat of government-controlled health care....

and they finished with a "compromise" that mandated every single American to buy a maliciously overpriced corporate product for their entire lives. And no. There are no plans to "fix" it.

Neither side out in the country wanted what we got, but it was their plan all along.

Wake the hell up, America. The theft is bipartisan. Occupy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/conservatives-distort-cbo-data-to-claim-obamacare-costs-have-exploded.php

Remember Talon News?

Don

The Supreme Court's own jurisprudence is crafted on the concept that a law, enacted by Congress and signed by the President, is lawful. Even if they find some sections of the law unconstitutional (e.g. the individual mandate), they will attempt to limit their decision to those sections which they find unlawful. They would leave as much of the law as possible in tact. Obviously some aspects of the law may be dependent on principles in the law that the Court may find objectionable. But I doubt we will see the entire bill struck down.

I think there is sufficient precedent for the Court to uphold the entire law or the majority but we know this Court is notoriously partisan and hateful.