Poll: Did the Supreme Court Make the Right Call on Obamacare?


It’s the question pundits have been asking themselves all weekend: was the Supreme Court right to call Obamacare a constitutional law?

After all, the bill was sold to the average American not as a tax, but as a mandate. In fact, White House legal officials even tried to defend the law as a mandate allowed under the commerce clause in front of the court – though it was clear they would take none of that. What’s more, many legal scholars said the mandate never should have been upheld – which made Thursday’s ruling a surprise for Republicans (in a good way, actually).

While SCOTUS isn’t necessarily democratic (well, only 9 people get to vote), we at DYNAMO believe in the wisdom of the voters.

So, answer the poll below and let the world know what you think about the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision…

Advertisements
Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in President Obama
19 comments on “Poll: Did the Supreme Court Make the Right Call on Obamacare?
  1. The Patriot says:

    The Supreme Court should have exercised 100% fidelity to the Constitution, it should have been ruled unconstitutional on all its merits. If that was not to be the verdict, the court should have declined to hear the case, forcing Congress and the President to continue the debate and possible repeal.

    • I find it ironic that the anti-injunction law didn’t apply, since this law was supposedly a tax. Scalia pointed out that Roberts et. al. basically just ignored that law, without any explanation as to why. Also, I’m surprised there haven’t been any rumors about a Roberts conspiracy for kickbacks or political gain somehow. It wouldn’t take much for those to gain traction, so I’m surprised no one’s even made one up yet.

      • The Patriot says:

        I agree with you on the anti -injunction law issue. And the kickback idea actually crossed my mind, $, power, position, legacy all being the “why” he [Justice Roberts] would seem to have crawfished and voted with the libs.

      • I mean I’m not saying Roberts did anything wrong, but he’s very sensitive to his “legacy” and how the public views the court, as I’m sure most justices are. I’m just not certain that the impact it had on his ruling was meaningful.

  2. Anonymous B. Jackson says:

    I find it telling that you didn’t make it an option for voters to say that SCOTUS made the right call and that we SHOULD like it.

    • The Patriot says:

      I think that falls under choice 4

      • Anonymous B. Jackson says:

        3 anti-Obamacare options, 1 pro-Obamacare option, and 1 “other”. Nice poll.

      • There were a number of reasons for opposing the law and only one reason to support it. I broke it down so we could see why people who opposed it thought it was wrong. But yeah, you can always choose to comment on it if that’s what you want to do.

      • The Patriot says:

        Nice, DYNAMO, you’ve raised the ire of an easily offended liberal. I’ll go one further, Anon you do know there are other nations that have socialized medicine? Americans don’t want it 60% to 40%. The 40% can flock off to Canada.

  3. Anonymous B. Jackson says:

    I’m not offended, nor is any ire present. I just find it quite telling that this blogger apparently “believes in the wisdom of the voters” and then creates a poll so obviously designed to steer them to his conservative perceptions and beliefs.

    And really DYNAMO? You think there is only one reason for supporting this law? Is that a joke?

    • Yeah. The only reason someone would think the law should be upheld is if they think it’s constitutional. Unless you can come up with another one…

      • Anonymous B. Jackson says:

        You changed your wording there. Anyone else notice that?

        “The only reason someone would think the law should be upheld is if they think it’s constitutional.”

        Yeah and the only reason someone would think the law should be struck down is if they think it’s unconstitutional. What’s your point?

      • Where?

        And yeah, but there are several reasons why it would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, people certainly have the option to simply comment below and explain why their nuance wasn’t included in a 5 question informal survey.

        At this point I’m not sure if your commenting to make that case, or just because you’re mad no one else agrees with you. Don’t blame the poll, blame the polled.

        If anything, this poll makes “unconstitutional” look weaker because it splits up the vote. Ever consider that?

  4. Anonymous B. Jackson says:

    Originally you said, “There were a number of reasons for opposing the law and only one reason to support it,” implying that you were talking about actual support for the merits of the law instead of the constitutionality of it. No matter.

    The fact is, even when you made it an option to say that the Supreme Court made the right call, you still found a way to weasel in that we shouldn’t like the law (option 1). Therefore, an Obamacare supporter would only be able to vote option 3, which he or she may not even entirely agree with. Once again, nice poll.

    And sure, anyone can post a comment, but why even make a poll if it’s going to be so skewed to one set of beliefs?

    • The Patriot says:

      Why do you support the law?

      • Anonymous B. Jackson says:

        Lots of reasons.

        First of all, it ends a myriad of the unjust practices that were going on in the health care industry as a side-effect of allowing it to be a totally free market, mostly devoid of regulation. Because of the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies can’t refuse to cover preexisting conditions. Annual or lifetime caps on coverage are now gone – in other words, extremely sick people won’t be dropped after a certain amount of their care has been covered by their insurance company. Insurers can’t drop people simply for getting sick. The so-called donut hole in prescription drug coverage for seniors will be closed.

        Secondly, there’s quite a few new benefits that will be realized due to Obamacare. Kids can stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26, saving money for kids and parents in many cases. A free visit to the doctor now must now be covered to discuss preventive treatments and screenings. And the so-called “individual mandate” will insure millions more in America, lowering the cost of health insurance for everyone.

        These are all good things. Yes, they come with a cost. But they’re worth it. It’s time America joins the rest of the Western world and insured its people.

      • The Patriot says:

        And then reality came a knockin. Let me just educate you on two quick facts. As a nation, we are broke! Meaning, everything you see around you regarding the economy is fake. It’s all borrowed money, with very little worth. Our total debt is 140 trillion dollars. Point two; the Federal Government has only 17 enumerated powers given to it by the people (U.S. Constitution), owning companies is not one of them. The government is not permitted to own or operate a health insurance company, or insure anything for that matter. This law is antithetical to the American legal system.

    • Oh, in that instance I was referencing the constitutionality, as in “supporting why it should be upheld.” Of course I’m sure people could come up with more than one reason to support the ACA on merit. Lots of people are wrong in lots of different ways, that’s the beauty of America.

  5. Anonymous B. Jackson says:

    Really, Patriot? Our money seems real enough to build and sustain the most bloated military on the planet. We all know the U.S. is in major debt; it’s what we should cut that people disagree on.

    And to your second point, are we even talking about the same law now? Nowhere in the Affordable Care Act does it allow the Federal Government to own or operate a single insurance company. Not sure where you got that idea from. Obamacare simply allows for sensible, justified, and I think, morally necessary regulations on health insurance companies operating within U.S. borders. Remember, the main purpose of an insurance company is profit, not quality affordable care for the nation’s sick. This is where the regulations come in. Do you disagree with the Obamacare regulations, or is it only the cost you take issue with?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: