“I think the Supreme Court’s decision will add to the intensity of a campaign that’s already growing hotter,” said Nathan Gonzales of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. “The Supreme Court will either embolden conservatives if it’s upheld or it will inspire liberals about the importance of getting control of the Supreme Court if it’s thrown out.
“I think both sides use it as fuel for their fire in the election ... and it feeds into the overall political environment that the Ohio Senate race will be fought on.”
The race is tightening, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week. In the poll, Brown’s 13-point lead from a Feb. 15 poll was reduced to 10 points, or 46-36.
Paul Beck, a professor of political science at Ohio State University, said if the Supreme Court strikes down at least part of the health care bill, “it may lower the pressure in a way and make it less important in the fall.”
But Beck acknowledged that if the justices uphold the most controversial sections of the bill — the requirement that people buy health insurance and the addition of millions of people to the Medicaid rolls — their ruling could infuriate conservative Republicans who already “are upset” with the law.
“Will it mobilize people more strongly against the Obama administration and against Democratic candidates for the Senate and the House, thinking the only way to get rid of this is take control of Congress and the presidency and just vote it out?” Beck asked. “There is that possibility.”
President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 without a single Republican vote. The controversy has never quieted, as evidenced by a New York Times/CBS poll released last week. The poll found 36 percent of Americans in favor of the law, with 47 percent opposed.
But opinions differ over just how significant health care will be in the presidential election.
Although longtime Democratic consultant James Carville has suggested that Democrats will reap a major windfall of the law is invalidated, others are not as convinced. The economy, they say, will loom larger, particularly now that Obama’s likely opponent is Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Although Romney has said he would repeal the law if elected, he pushed through a health care bill in the Massachusetts Legislature that included an individual mandate virtually identical to the one in the law Obama signed.
“In the end, President Obama’s chances are going to rise on the economy and jobs, not health care,” said Jim Manley, a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “But one thing for sure is that Mitt Romney is not going to be able to make hay out of it because he’s joined at the hip on Obamacare.’’
Mandel faces no such problem in his challenge to Brown. If the court strikes down all or part of the law, Mandel can assail Brown for being one of the deciding votes on a measure that is both unpopular and unconstitutional.
“How is Sherrod Brown going to defend his vote this year?” asked Barry Bennett, a Republican consultant in Washington who has longstanding ties to Ohio politics.
Brown spokesman Justin Barasky said Ohio voters will cast their votes on who will create jobs in Ohio.
But, he said, “I do think Josh Mandel will continue to have to answer for why he thinks big insurance companies should be able to kick you off when you get sick, why big insurance companies should be able to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions, why college kids should be kicked off their parent’s insurance. Those are questions we’ll certainly be talking about.”
For his part, Mandel said he hopes that the Supreme Court “fully repeals” the bill because “it is an unconstitutional intrusion into the private lives of Americans.”
He said if it’s repealed, then Congress will have to go back to work to pass a new law.
“There are a lot of good reform ideas to consider, and among them are making insurance more affordable by allowing fair tax treatment between businesses and individuals, reducing costs by allowing citizens to purchase insurance across state lines, and expanding the use of health savings accounts to bring cost-saving consumer choice back into the equation,” he said.
The sharp questions posed by the five conservative justices last week led many to speculate that the court will strike down at least part of the law.
But a total repeal seems far from certain. In a revealing comment, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is expected to uphold the law, asked one of the attorneys who oppose it, “Why should we say, ‘It’s a choice between a wrecking operation,’ which is what you are requesting, ‘or a salvage job?’ The more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.”
In other words, if the requirement that individuals retain insurance is unconstitutional, does that render the rest of the law moot?
Throwing out the whole law would eliminate provisions denying health care coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, requiring employers to provide accommodations for breast-feeding moms, and keeping sons and daughters on their parents’ health care plan until age 26.
The varying options seemed to vex conservative and liberal justices alike on the last day of oral arguments.
“Can you take the heart out of the act and keep everything else?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia.
For Republicans on the ballot in November, the question is slightly different: Can you convince voters that you care about their health care even though you want to tear apart the health care law?
Manley said the question is one that will play in the strategies of both parties.
If the court strikes down the law, he said, the problems of American health care remain — rising insurance premiums and a statistic that could resonate with voters: 46 million Americans without any insurance.
“For individual members who voted for the bill, one of the goals would be to ask their Republican opponent what exactly is their plan to reduce health care costs,” he said.
About the Author