Gallup: Americans still want ObamaCare repealed

posted at 9:50 am on November 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

If America is rooting for a particular side in the most momentous Supreme Court review in decades, Gallup’s latest poll indicates that they aren’t rooting for the White House.  By a narrow plurality, the general adult population wants ObamaCare repealed:

Given a choice, 47% of Americans favor repealing the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while 42% want it kept in place. Views on this issue are highly partisan, with Republicans strongly in favor of repeal and the large majority of Democrats wanting the law kept in place. …

In October, Gallup found 40% of Americans saying passage of the healthcare law was a good thing and 48% a bad thing.

Highly partisan?  That’s not unfair, although it’s worth noting that independents favor repeal by about the same ratio as the general population, 48/43.  Only 10% of Republicans want the PPACA left in place, but 21% of Democrats want it repealed.

Nevertheless, the debate has impacted the overall perception of health care as a government responsibility.  Gallup provides this chart in today’s polling results showing that a formerly strong consensus on this point has evaporated:

health care, government role, private sector, poll

That is a fairly impressive impact that ObamaCare has had on American politics, and one that the White House clearly didn’t anticipate.

Speaking of impact, as the battlefield on ObamaCare shifts to the Supreme Court, C-SPAN wants to televise the oral arguments — and hopes the unprecedented nature of the case will force Chief Justice John Roberts to allow cameras for the first time (via Instapundit):

CSPAN chairman Brian Lamb wrote Chief Justice John Roberts today requesting that he break with Supreme Court tradition and allow for a televised broadcast of the oral arguments in the Obamacare case.

We believe the public interest is best served by live television coverage of this particular oral argument,” Lamb wrote. “It is a case which will affect every American’s life, our economy, and will certainly be an issue in the upcoming presidential campaign.”

Lamb added that “a five-and-a-half hour argument begs for camera coverage.” He said that “interested citizens would be understandably challeged to adequately  follow audio-only coverage of an event of this length with all the justices and various counsel participating.”

As the Washington Examiner reports, it’s the extraordinary length of the proceedings that might argue against it.  Justice Antonin Scalia objected to the presence of the cameras more for what would happen to public perception of the session once the news media started slicing and dicing it:

“For every ten people who sat through our proceedings, gavel to gavel, there would be ten thousand who would see nothing but a 30 second takeout from one of the proceedings” he said, “which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do.” Scalia added that such soundbites would leave viewers with “a misimpression” of Supreme Court operations.

That’s a fair concern, and it’s even more likely to be a problem with a session that goes almost six times longer than a normal round of oral arguments.  But this is an extraordinary case, one that could transform our Republic from a federalist system with limits on the national legislature to one in which Washington can regulate every single aspect of our lives.  A public record of these arguments seems in order, given the stakes involved.

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

A public record of these arguments seems in order, given the stakes involved.

A public record of the argument will exist regardless of whether or not it is shown on television.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2011 at 9:56 AM

I concur w/ Scalia. Our republic has survived this long w/o cameras in the courtoom, I think we will survive after the ruling w/o it…

Static21 on November 16, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Scalia is probably right about TV coverage of the oral arguments. Given the LSM’s propensity for quoting things out of context and editing people’s statements to imply the opposite of what they meant, the media could manipulate the oral arguments to influence public opinion, which might ultimately affect the vote of the only SCOTUS Justice whose vote isn’t already known: Anthony Kennedy.

Steve Z on November 16, 2011 at 10:00 AM

NO NO NO NO to TV coverage. The organized Left and their pals in the media will slice and dice everything the conservative justices say and slant the coverage with soundbites that will make them look crazy. Scalia is right about this. We do not need more politicization of the Supreme Court, it is bad enough already.

rockmom on November 16, 2011 at 10:00 AM

With the prospects of the debate over Controversial and Unconstitutional Obamacare raging on throughout the campaign, is there any doubt why the NSM wants Romney and his albatross of Romneycare?

Chip on November 16, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Televise it, the more open our government is at all levels the better.

Then start televising the Congressional douchebags who work behind the scenes to pad their own wallets.

Bishop on November 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM

That’s not the poll we like, let’s use the other one that shows people like it
-lsm

cmsinaz on November 16, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Wait, wait, wait, weren’t we just told that support for the individual mandate was up this week? How can Gallup say a majority want it repealed? Vexing.

JAM on November 16, 2011 at 10:07 AM

+1 Steve Z

cmsinaz on November 16, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Scalia is definitely right. We all saw how the media slanted the Tea Party by selective editing. They will most definitely do it again. That will serve nothing good.

marybel on November 16, 2011 at 10:09 AM

I had to check to see that this WASN’T Tina writing….

Ed!!!

“A public record of these arguments seems in order, given the stakes involved.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/availabilityoforalargumenttranscripts.aspx

This includes recorded arguments, that are available as well.

The only reason to have TV is to show how evil the conservatives look when they are dragging the Obama lawyers over the coals.

DrEvilDoer on November 16, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Scalia is definitely right. We all saw how the media slanted the Tea Party by selective editing. They will most definitely do it again. That will serve nothing good. marybel on November 16, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Ok, but the argument against seems to be, We need less sunlight on govt proceedings because of what the left will do with what’s exposed.

Sorta sounds surrenderish.

Akzed on November 16, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Haste makes waste, Obama.

stenwin77 on November 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Americans still want ObamaCare repealed

Hell, real Americans want Obama repealed.

coldwarrior on November 16, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Gallup: Americans still want ObamaCare repealed

It was NEVER about what we wanted…

Khun Joe on November 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM

There is no upside to this idea. Televising the oral arguments will only serve to further increase the politicization of our highest court.

stefano1 on November 16, 2011 at 10:21 AM

I would like to have a camera in Barack’s face and Princess Nancy’s face and Dingy Reid’s face when they strike it down. Priceless.

SouthernGent on November 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM

In what universe do 10% of republicans want the act left in place? This is the problem with these polls, there’s so much falsifying going on they really can’t be trusted.

BKeyser on November 16, 2011 at 10:27 AM

The last thing we need is the Obamedia distorting the proceedings of the high court. No TV. Ever.

Dominion on November 16, 2011 at 10:53 AM

In what universe do 10% of republicans want the act left in place? This is the problem with these polls, there’s so much falsifying going on they really can’t be trusted.

BKeyser on November 16, 2011 at 10:27 AM

If you take out the leadership it drops down to 1% that didn’t understand the question.

Corsair on November 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Gallup provides this chart in today’s polling results showing that a formerly strong consensus on this point has evaporated:

All it takes to change people’s minds is to let them see with their own eyes what happens with liberalism and they realize they were wrong.

Careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

jeffn21 on November 16, 2011 at 11:10 AM

The oral arguments are just a small portion of this case. Voluminous briefs and prior court proceedings are important components, too: the justices review this material ‘off camera,’ over an extended period of time, so a few video clips would be woefully inadequate to capture the case.

It seems to me that a complete proper public record would be a book and/or a DVD, with lots and lots of PDF files and a huge annotated guide to explain the legal references.

landlines on November 16, 2011 at 11:13 AM

There is a simple reason why the request should be denied.

C-SPAN made the request.

No different than ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC etc., who will report out of context to support Baracky’s pile of crap.

Didn’t I read on HotAir yesterday that polling showed majority favored Obamacare. Why, its as if polls had no meaning and were unreliable, put out there only as a means to sway public opinion.

fogw on November 16, 2011 at 11:21 AM

“For every ten people who sat through our proceedings, gavel to gavel, there would be ten thousand who would see nothing but a 30 second takeout from one of the proceedings” he said, “which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do.” Scalia added that such soundbites would leave viewers with “a misimpression” of Supreme Court operations.

This already occurs. The corresposndent on the nightly news reports the highlight as they determine it to be. This isnt going to be something new just because the soundbite now becomes televised instead of being relayed.

paulsur on November 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM

For Bush v Gore CSPAN had pics of the faces of all the justices on screen while they broadcast audio of the arguments.

I hope they’re able to do at least that.

MaggiePoo on November 16, 2011 at 11:42 AM

A public record of these arguments seems in order, given the stakes involved.

That would be true even if the record is released after the justices publish their finding.

burt on November 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Actually I find myself in agreement with most arguments against televising the proceedings. A video clip is more easily demagogued than an audio one and it would be too easy to Palinize the unfavored justices. The last thing America needs is even more erosion of what confidence we have left in our institutions.

MaggiePoo on November 16, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Hey, I thought we were going to televise the negotiations that went into ØbamaCare. What happened to that?

Kafir on November 16, 2011 at 11:50 AM

In principle yes, but not this time because Oboobi will slice and dice this for his campaign ads.

AH_C on November 16, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I say get rid of oral arguments altogether in non-jury trials and appeals. They’re inefficient and just a chance for lawerly grandstanding. As there are no witnesses, appeals should be in written format only.

edshepp on November 16, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Americans still want ObamaCare repealed
Hell, real Americans want Obama repealed.

coldwarrior on November 16, 2011 at 10:17 AM

: )

listens2glenn on November 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM