Unlike Dan, I think that the possibility that the Supreme Court may strike down the mandate does not necessarily mean that Republican chances of electoral victory in November would be diminished. Much depends on whether the mandate would be found severable. If it's severable, the health insurance market is plunged into actuarial chaos, as the mandated coverage and guaranteed coverage aspects would remain. Premiums skyrocket; insurers exit the market; employers drop coverage, and the nation gets angry. Some blame the Court, others blame the Democrats. But the Republican base remains energized and Republican calls for total repeal then have a practical urgency. If the mandate is not severable, then Dan's analysis is more likely to have salience, but the polls indicate that two-thirds of the nation is opposed to the mandate, so I'm not sure where that big surge for Obama -- as a result of such a ruling -- would come from. Voting for a President to influence Supreme Court nominees appeals to some people -- particularly law professors -- but this is an issue that, by itself, is unlikely to move independents who oscillate from D to R and R to D. Other factors -- the economy, especially -- are far more likely to trigger their votes.
We'll see. Law professors have no special expertise as political prognosticators.
Comments