Rasmussen: 49% want states to sue to stop ObamaCare

posted at 11:36 am on March 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Remind me again how the success of passing ObamaCare is supposed to help Democrats in the midterms.  Americans want tort reform, but ObamaCare has them so angry that they want states to sue to block it.  Only 37% oppose the idea, according to Rasmussen:

Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters favor their state suing the federal government to fight the requirement in the new national health care plan that every American must obtain health insurance.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds that 37% disagree and oppose their state suing to challenge that requirement. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. …

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 58% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor such lawsuits. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Democrats are opposed. This suggests that filing a suit would be popular in Republican leaning and toss-up states but not in strong Democratic states. Of course, as with all things in the world of politics, these realities could shift over time as both parties try to spin the recently-passed legislation.

As many as 14 states already have plans in the works to do just that.  They plan to attack the program at its weakest Constitutional point, the individual mandate, but will also look at other grounds.  The undoing of the individual mandate would unravel the entire bill; without a way to force the young and healthy to buy comprehensive insurance they don’t need, premiums will skyrocket as must-insure regulations come into effect, and Democrats will reap a whirlwind of anger at the ballot box for the next several cycles.

Ironically, the only age demographic that doesn’t support suing to stop ObamaCare is the youngest, 18-29 year olds.  Even 21% of Democrats favor such lawsuits, as well as 14% of liberals, who probably would like to see that effort transform the system to single-payer.  Every income demographic supports the lawsuits by at least a plurality, although those pluralities are thin for <$20K (1 point) and $40-60K (3 points).  A majority of men (53%) and plurality of women (45%) support the lawsuits.

And here’s another tidbit for Democrats to ponder heading into the midterms — 70% of likely voters consider themselves angry at the policies of the federal government completely controlled by their party, including 48% who are “very angry.”  That comprises 67% of men, 73% of women, more than two-thirds in every age demographic, 73% of independents, and 50% of Democrats.  Heckuva job, Barack!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Ironically, the only age demographic that doesn’t support suing to stop ObamaCare is the youngest, 18-29 year olds.

It’s not ironic. These are the people who supported Obama overwhelmingly and who did so in large part because of his health care plan.

They’re also very stupid and have no idea that they’re not poor. They think they’ll see cheaper/free health insurance from this and have no idea that they’ll be funding people with pre-existing conditions.

I’m actually looking forward to being out of that group.

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Is it you assertion that the Legislative intent of the founding fathers was to leave gapping holes in the restraints on the government?

Chip on March 23, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Her head is spinning. She’s trying valiantly, although unsuccessfully to justify taking liberty away.

darwin on March 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Is it you assertion that the Legislative intent of the founding fathers was to leave gapping holes in the restraints on the government?
Chip on March 23, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Her head is spinning. She’s trying valiantly, although unsuccessfully to justify taking liberty away.
darwin on March 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Yes, I keep wondering when they will wake up the fact that it is their side that is attempting to suppress our freedoms and Liberties.

Chip on March 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM

It’s also likely sustainable under the Commerce clause, because buying (or not buying) insurance substantially affects interstate commerce.

crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:13 PM

How so?

This is why it’s irritating to argue Con law with you guys. You’re so ignorant you think I may have extracted the rational basis standard from one of my trailing orifices.

crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:50 PM

You’re going to law school. Naturally you’re more educated on the subject than anyone else here who hasn’t been. You should be too embarrassed to even show your virtual face here if the opposite were true.

This comment is like talking to a Mexican who barely speaks English and calling the person ignorant just because he doesn’t know English as well as you do.

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 3:08 PM

You’re going to law school. Naturally you’re more educated on the subject than anyone else here who hasn’t been.

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 3:08 PM

She thinks that she is more educated on the subject. In reality she has just attended more indoctrination lectures than the rest of us.

MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM

It’s also likely sustainable under the Commerce clause, because buying (or not buying) insurance substantially affects interstate commerce.

crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:13 PM
How so?

This is why it’s irritating to argue Con law with you guys. You’re so ignorant you think I may have extracted the rational basis standard from one of my trailing orifices.

crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:50 PM
You’re going to law school. Naturally you’re more educated on the subject than anyone else here who hasn’t been. You should be too embarrassed to even show your virtual face here if the opposite were true.

This comment is like talking to a Mexican who barely speaks English and calling the person ignorant just because he doesn’t know English as well as you do.

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 3:08 PM

–If you go to the Hot Air Headlines (http://volokh.com/2010/03/22/what-are-the-chances-that-the-courts-will-strike-down-the-individual-mandate/), you’ll see that Orin Kerr says there is only a 1% chance in his opinion that the individual mandate will be struck down. And that’s from a blogger on a conservative website {Volokh Conspiracy).

Money quote: “With all this blogging here at the VC about whether the courts will invalidate the individual mandate as exceeding Congress’s Article I authority, I thought I would add my two cents by estimating the odds of that happening. In my view, there is a less than 1% chance that courts will invalidate the individual mandate as exceeding Congress’s Article I power. I tend to doubt the issue will get to the Supreme Court: The circuits will be splitless, I expect, and the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. In the unlikely event a split arises and the Court does take it, I would expect a 9–0 (or possibly 8–1) vote to uphold the individual mandate.”

Not like I haven’t been telling you (collectively) this for a while now….

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM

This is why it’s irritating to argue Con law with you guys. You’re so ignorant you think I may have extracted the rational basis standard from one of my trailing orifices.

crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Wow, a “law school student” citing wiki as a reference source. That’s pure gold, Jerry!

Del Dolemonte on March 23, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM

So the founder’s Legislative intent was to leave gapping holes in the restraints on the government?

Chip on March 23, 2010 at 3:37 PM

It is H.R. 3590

I hope you like a little light reading… 2700+ pages.

barnone on March 23, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Thanks! I looked at it for a few minutes, and I’m already confused. I need a lawyer to decipher it.

Susanboo on March 23, 2010 at 3:42 PM

So the founder’s Legislative intent was to leave gaping holes in the restraints on the government?

Chip on March 23, 2010 at 3:46 PM

She thinks that she is more educated on the subject. In reality she has just attended more indoctrination lectures than the rest of us.

MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I’ll give her the credit of saying I’m sure she’s also read a ton more books on the subject and has more of a baseline understanding than most of us do. I’m not a lawyer. Closest I came was helping my mother pass the bar nearly six years ago, and I get that it’s tough and have some basic respect for those who can do it and come out a success.

That’s not to say that those who haven’t attended law school can’t school her. It’s certainly possible, but it’s just arrogant to pretend that people here are ignorant because they don’t know something she’s spending thousands a year to learn.

Not like I haven’t been telling you (collectively) this for a while now….

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM

No offense, but that’s not at all answering my question, though the “I told you so” is duly noted. One person’s opinion that the Supreme Court won’t even take the case doesn’t explain to me what my buying or not buying health insurance has to do with interstate commerce.

Do you know it’s relevance here? If so, I’m genuinely asking for an explanation. I accept that my lack of a law background could be a problem here, I’m just not seeing it.

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 4:39 PM

This is why it’s irritating to argue Con law with you guys. You’re so ignorant you think I may have extracted the rational basis standard from one of my trailing orifices.

crr6 on March 23, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Remember crr6, a law school graduate doesn’t mean that you’re a lawyer yet and there is a HUGE difference b/w the two (I’m both). In fact, there are few things more dangerous than a green atty with a crisp new bar card.

There’s no telling how the nine wise “persons” will come down on the individual mandate, but if they find that it’s constitutional then it effectively makes the commerce clause “limitation” meaningless. IOW’s, if the Feds can force every citizen to enter into a contract with a third party, then there is literally nothing that they can’t force you to do economically. Which kind of renders the contitution and it’s limitations on federal power meaningless as well.

Even so, I kind of expect them to side with Obama on this if for no other reason than it fits with the rest of this trainwreck.

volnation on March 23, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Wow, a “law school student” citing wiki as a reference source. That’s pure gold, Jerry!

Del Dolemonte on March 23, 2010 at 3:36 PM

I get the joke here, but wiki really gets an undeserved bad rap. It’s only as good as its sources, but most entries as very well sourced, and any joke entries often get corrected before my friends have been able to email the link.

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 4:42 PM

No offense, but that’s not at all answering my question, though the “I told you so” is duly noted. One person’s opinion that the Supreme Court won’t even take the case doesn’t explain to me what my buying or not buying health insurance has to do with interstate commerce.

Do you know it’s relevance here? If so, I’m genuinely asking for an explanation. I accept that my lack of a law background could be a problem here, I’m just not seeing it.

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 4:39 PM

–It’s because Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution. In the last seventy or so years, that’s been interpreted to mean that Congress has the ability to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce to any real extent. So because insurance contracts are sold (or made available) to residents of the various states and because a bunch of money is involved, Congress has the power to regulate the sale or offer of those insurance contracts. Hope that helps.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

So because insurance contracts are sold (or made available) to residents of the various states and because a bunch of money is involved, Congress has the power to regulate the sale or offer of those insurance contracts. Hope that helps.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

I appreciate it, but not completely. Just about everything is sold or made available to residents of the various states. There are few things I can get in Texas that I can’t get in any other state.

Health insurance is even more limited than most considering I can’t cross state lines to purchase health insurance but can to purchase a car.

So why would the commerce clause apply here with this product and not any other potentially expensive American product? Or is the argument here that it does apply to all American products (depending on how much money is involved with them)?

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Remember crr6, a law school graduate doesn’t mean that you’re a lawyer yet and there is a HUGE difference b/w the two (I’m both). In fact, there are few things more dangerous than a green atty with a crisp new bar card.

volnation on March 23, 2010 at 4:39 PM

So to pit lawyer against lawyer, what’s your opinion on the mandate’s Constitutionality?

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 5:01 PM

Congress has the ability to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce to any real extent.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

So, by that logic, we no longer have limited government, correct?

Chip on March 23, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Congress has the ability to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce to any real extent.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

So, by that logic, we no longer have limited government, correct?

Chip on March 23, 2010 at 5:23 PM

So to pit lawyer against lawyer, what’s your opinion on the mandate’s Constitutionality?

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 5:01 PM

I’ts been over a decade since Con Law I/II so to say that I’m rusty would be to state the obvious. crr6 knows the historic case law and the prevailing tests so I’ll leave the boilerplate analysis to him/her.

Holwever, I’ll concede that historically the CC grants the Feds wide power to regulate interstate commerce, but there were still limits. This individual mandate is really breaking new ground in terms of not only the type of commerce that the Feds can regulate, but also the type of commerce that the Feds will require among the populace. Like I said before, if the court holds that the federal government has the ability to force individual citizens to enter into a contract with a private entity or face sanctions, then what exactly is the point of having limits on what they can’t make you do in the interest of interstate commerce. It effectively renders the CC limitations moot, or any other federal limitations for that matter.

I realize that many on the bench see the Constitution as a living, breathing document meant to reflect the prevailing social and political norms of the current landscape. However, the more that those same folks push to have the Constitution mean anything, the more that it effectively means nothing. That’s why I think that this holding will be historic in that it will either expand the governments power exponentially or it will check it. I’ll hope for the latter but I kind of expect the former.

volnation on March 23, 2010 at 5:41 PM

volnation on March 23, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Thank you. That’s pretty much in line with my way of thinking on the matter as well. I would think we have our best shot with the Supreme Court now, considering it’s only more conservative than it was a decade ago, and might change with new Obama appointments, but I suppose it’s difficult to predict what they’ll rule.

Esthier on March 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM

NANNY is already on the job…..the wheels on the bus are already turning as AMERICA heads down the highway to TRANSFORMEDVILLE.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601087&sid=aa32kl.M09T4

One question for you America…..how has that LAZY REPUBLIC thing worked for us? Being so concerned about our kids soccer games, Birthday parties, little league teams and the fun stuff of life that we left it to the professional UNWATCHED AND UNACCOUNTABLE politicians to deal with that “legislation stuff”.

Attention Lazy Republic citizens……..it might be too late.

PappyD61 on March 23, 2010 at 9:23 PM

This is why it’s irritating to argue Con law with you guys. You’re so ignorant you think I may have extracted the rational basis standard from one of my trailing orifices.

crr6

You did. You’re the idiot who believes a document designed to limit the powers of the federal government actually gives the federal government the unlimited power to do whatever the hell it wants. If the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government the power to force people to buy health insurance, then that means it gives the federal government the power to force us to buy anything it wants.

Geez, just what we need, yet another idiot lawyer screwing up this country. I see public defender in your future.

xblade on March 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Mo. Lt. Gov. Kinder will seek to join anti-health care bill lawsuit.

We may be stuck with Comrade McCaskill, but this brave gentleman is up for the fight.

daesleeper on March 23, 2010 at 10:13 PM

BTW where is Ahnold? Where are you, California?

Anyone?

Bueller?

PattyJ on March 24, 2010 at 2:00 AM

Obama is by far the single most divisive president ever!!! I wonder if he’s actually trying to start a civil war for some self serving reason.

BobUSMC on March 24, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3