An ironic twist in the battle for Obamacare

By Brian Howey

INDIANAPOLIS, IN  – When Long Beach, Indiana native John G. Roberts was up for confirmation to become U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, he did not get the vote of then U.S. Sen. Barack Obama.

The freshman from Illinois would say in 2005, “The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, was that it was his personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”

And Obama added of his no vote, “I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch.”

On Thursday, in dramatic fashion, it was Chief Justice Roberts who cast the deciding vote upholding Obamacare and the individual mandate that has ignited the Tea Party firestorm engulfing Indiana and American politics.

What irony.

Roberts joined Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in the 5-4 decision, saying in the majority opinion that it “does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Health Care Act.” That judgment is up to the people, according to the ruling. “When a court confronts an unconstitutional statute its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy the legislation,” Roberts wrote.

“Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA  to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use,” the Roberts’ opinion said.

President Obama reacted, saying, “Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believed it was good for the country. I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.

Obama continued, “I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.”

The decision is a dramatic victory for President Obama, though the political consequences could make Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Joe Donnelly have to defend the law which several polls have shown is deeply unpopular with Hoosier voters. Donnelly was one of the final Democrats to announce he would vote for the law in March 2010.

Donnelly is in a “tossup” race with Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who drew mocking attention last week when his campaign posted four different videos with the candidate offering numerous reactions to the various Supreme Court ruling scenarios.

Mourdock said in a statement, “I am disappointed in the Court’s ruling today that Obamacare can stand as a massive tax on Americans. Obamacare will add trillions to our national debt, deter future job growth, and force thousands of individuals out of their existing health care coverage. The choice in the upcoming election couldn’t be clearer.”

Donnelly explained, “Hoosiers will be pleased to learn that many positive aspects of this law, such as lower prescription drug costs for seniors, making sure people cannot be dropped by insurance companies if they get sick, and making healthcare more affordable and accessible, remain law. Yet this law is far from perfect, and I will work with both parties to improve it and protect Medicare.”

Donnelly then turned to politics, saying, “Richard Mourdock’s only unique contribution to the debate on lowering healthcare costs has been to suggest that employers could choose not to offer cancer treatment coverage to their employees. He holds a ‘my way or the highway’ approach, has questioned the constitutionality of Medicare, and supports over $200 billion in Medicare cuts. Mourdock’s Tea Party thinking won’t solve problems or improve healthcare.”

A Reuters Poll released over the weekend revealed that 56% opposed Obamacare and 44% favor. However support for provisions of the healthcare law was strong, with a full 82% of survey respondents, for example, favoring banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. In a December 2011 Public Opinion Strategies Poll conducted on behalf of Indiana Realtors, 57% of likely Hoosiers voters opposed the law, with 43% strongly opposing. 55% supported repealing Obamacare. 

Former Indiana Republican congressman Mark Souder, who writes a column for Howey Politics Indiana, called the decision a “sweeping victory for Obama” but said that it will cause political problems for Donnelly. “The President will likely try to put the Republicans on the hot seat and the House will try to put the pressure on Donnelly through votes as well,” Souder predicted.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has already scheduled a House repeal vote for July 11.

Over the next five months, this becomes a political battle for Hoosier voters.

The columnist publishes at www.howeypolitics.com. Find him on Twitter @hwypol. Contact Howey atbhowey2@gmail.com.