Image 01 Image 03

Meaningless but fun Reader Poll on Obamacare verdict

Meaningless but fun Reader Poll on Obamacare verdict

Your vote counts, so we will count every vote!

There is so much speculation and punditry on what the Supremes will do, what it will mean, who will be the winners and losers, etc.

So why not a really meaningful test of the law — a Reader Poll.

Make Eric Holder proud, vote early and often.

The poll answers do not cover every possibility, just the most likely scenarios regarding the mandate (there are, of course, other issues).

What will the Supremes do?  (poll open until midnight Eastern tonight)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Juba Doobai! | June 27, 2012 at 11:05 am

Eh, where’s the poll?

    OcTEApi in reply to Juba Doobai!. | June 27, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    I don’t see the poll either, its probably being stripped out by one of my many adware, spyware or tracker blocking programs and its very unlikely I’ll roll em back for any internet poll.

    -they’ll have to try harder.

    I’ll submit this string of spurious characters instead.


      Juba Doobai! in reply to OcTEApi. | June 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm

      Yep. I also have every blocker and stripper loaded for bear in my computer’s browser. I saw it on the iPad and voted though.

Wow! I find myself in the majority, (throw the whole thing out), but the Supremes often surprise…

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to GrumpyOne. | June 27, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    I will be schocked if they dump the whole thing. That takes too much guts. I just don’t see Kennedy doing that. He seems like he’s always been a middle of the road kind of guy.

I voted differently from what the result ought to be, according to what I think I know.

The individual mandate is plainly unconstitutional; there’s no severability clause. Congress knows how to write severability causes, had included one in a draft, and then removed it. There was no argument made that the severability clause was accidentally left out, and at any rate, Congress could have fixed it. There is some argument that the individual mandate is essential to the legislation.

The logical thing for the Court to do is throw the whole law out; they will turn into pretzels to find a way to save some part of it. That would be a political decision, yes.

    Rick in reply to Valerie. | June 27, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Your comment is exactly my feeling and how I voted. I am concerned about all of the talk about Roberts going to the dark side so as to salvage, in some people’s minds, the reputation of “his” court. I cannot get myself to think that little of him.

Thanks for running this poll “the Chicago way!”

If they do decide to “pronounce” to us mere mortals that the law is within the bounds of the Constitution, it will simply mean that the Constitution has no bounds to the point of being rendered meaningless. Fedgov will have full authority over us all. If so, June 28, 2012 will indeed be one big red letter day. It will mark the day we all officially became liege subjects.

Of course, I hope they toss it all, but realistically I think they’ll just cut the mandate.

The government is the government. Three branches all vying for the ever-expanding power. I don’t expect the Supreme Court to reverse that trend, just slow it down a bit. We are moving away from individual liberty in this country, feeding the federal beast. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches all are contributing to that erosion.

    Valerie in reply to windbag. | June 27, 2012 at 11:42 am

    That’s the crux of this election, and if the Republican candidate can show that, rather than having a monolithic, centralized decision-making system we can instead select to encourage the proliferation of a plurality of smaller, competitive systems, he wins.

    It’s simply not a zero-sum game.

The objective of the 1787 delegates was to find a workable pathway between the inflexibility of the Articles of Confederation and the natural skittishness and suspicions of the states towards any proposals removing parts of their sovereignty? Would the states have ratified the Constitution if they knew that their very undoing such as through a boundless Commerce Clause might have been an intrinsic part of it? Were the Framers so foolish as to write inherently conflicting provisions, those which limit side-by-side with those enabling the means of evading those same limits such as the CC and the General Welfare Clause? Projected to a natural end point this far-ranging view of these clauses means that there is no natural end point as to what Congress may make compulsory upon the American people.

    Owego in reply to pfg. | June 27, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    Well said. The CC and General Welfare clauses seem now to be gateways to a constitutional blank check. More than anything I believe this election is about the Role of Government; all the rest are talking point symptoms and subsets of that issue; jobs, healthcare, the Fed, immigration, education, taxes, the economy, the environment, executive orders, and on and on. You never hear this. Never. Gingrich understood and Obama understands; Gingrich spoke openly about it, Obama doesn’t want you to know.

    Browndog in reply to pfg. | June 27, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Plenty of paperwork flying around to define the Founder’s intent as to those clauses.

    They have been ignored, burned, and dumped in the ash heap of history, replaced with Court “Precedent”, thanks to progressive law professors.

    Heck One of the Founders was against the Bill of Rights because he said those rights are obvious; as the governments powers were limited and defined.

My “great day” scenario would inclide at the least the mandate down the drain followed by Holder being held in Contempt of Congress.

My nightmare day would be Obama issuing an Executive Order freezing any sort of action/inaction with whatever SCOTUS decides. That would punt it all until November at least. I hope Republicans are prepared to answer anything like this nightmare. Imagine this dragging on for more months.

Man! I’m a dope! I didn’t even THINK of selling my vote!

I voted 800 times already! But obviously the election’s rigged, because my 800 votes didn’t get counted… 🙂

I tried to vote ‘fair and balanced’, one of each.
Then I found myself in a violent 4 way argument with myself; finally I compromised and voted to throw the whole thing out.

Viva Judge Vinson!
Viva Justice Scalia!
Viva Justice Thomas!

Oh, Oh…I got all the founders to vote.
Oh and the entire illegal immigrant population of Lower Slobenia.

I’m still looking for all the disenfranchised voters

15,346 throw em all out… I mean throw it all out.

Then we could impound all federal property, tax the EPA out of existence, force the feds to pay every citizens property tax, confiscate their windfall profits.

After Arizona and the Administrations reaction U.S.

Wow, I voted to kick the can down the road. But, who knows what evil actually doesn’t lurk in Obama’s Heart! That Supremes kick the can vote would encourage Obama to let it all hang out and means our revolution would get encouraged to go forth with vigor.

I voted “Refuse to decide”, although a better expression of my opinion is that the Supreme Court will make only modest tweaks in the law while leaving its worst parts intact (such as the mandate).

Personally, I think ObamaCare should be junked entirely. But I have a sinking feeling that its worst aspects will still be around after tomorrow.

Henry Hawkins | June 27, 2012 at 5:02 pm

For those growing increasingly apprenhensive about the impossible to call Court decision on Obamacare due tomorrow, here’s a couple three happily distracting thoughts:

We haven’t had to endure Keith Olbermann himself or Keith Olbermann references for three months.

Now where in sight or sound for over a year has been Anthony Weiner.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is reportedly to join the above two in obscurity in just a few short months.

There. Doesn’t that feel better?

curious_tom | June 27, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Just a thought, There is no sever-ability clause. Therefore if any one part is unconstitutional, then the whole thing goes. It was written as an all or nothing deal. that is my understanding. If am wrong I am sure I will be given the opportunity to be corrected and shamed.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to curious_tom. | June 27, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    I’m confident one of our legal beagles will answer your thought, but I believe I read… something… somewhere… where the SC can still isolate just the mandate as unconstitutional despite the absence of a severability clause (which they had in there, then took out for the later version that passed).

Wouldn’t it be a rocker if we heard something similar to this:

First, by a vote of 6-3 we find the Congress of the United States of America in contempt of the people of this country for passing legislation whose full extent was not entirely known until after said vote;

Second, by a vote of 6-3 we find the President of the United States of America in contempt of the people of this country for signing into law what was not fully known to him;

Third, by a vote of 6-3 we find both the Congress and President of the United States in contempt of this court for having wasted the court’s time with this matter;

Therefore, the entire law is ruled invalid.

What will the Supremes do?

I wanted to voto for “sing Stop! In the Name of Love“, but that wasn’t an option. 🙁