Download raw source

Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.24.103 with SMTP id o100csp4266573lfi; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.6.76 with SMTP id y12mr23994533igy.31.1433291800730; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <ntanden@gmail.com> Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qd6si12208624igb.61.2015.06.02.17.36.40 for <john.podesta@gmail.com> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ntanden@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ntanden@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ntanden@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: by mail-ig0-x230.google.com with SMTP id lz2so2427886igb.1 for <john.podesta@gmail.com>; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:36:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OzQeqgXegq96452xwQhc0oQesA930JeRXkXr51/8N9k=; b=GdsuV7i+PGyvZJIRMbXh6t2xvIe2GrJUC0TUvMQd3SNzxENBE+RLjIxM0uYoSqLT2M IRqH7cv8Rj9W1pzWG/Hr4IFk/XopCoue0fwhoijnyLGxpew8YDSkfRqFQhDvn1Rs2sbd OgXJXLEeFuWP1nSsOH5pCyq6xKwSlZH5ZVrGZ7HgL5OfNbPiTpWhXhBsBB1nULXz8QU9 Thidjb2Y7FH1iGYRF3xZaGongMZ0VRrzxR8/2EecyYxuXTnevGP2Zm6++Dv+dN75cOKp ShZ5ufkWpBdzz2ulhZOPzwcfCqFIibGNCPUa5glUhOezIq7xJzVvuix0TfVNSN4y+9i6 bflg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.90.179 with SMTP id bx19mr23683291igb.43.1433291800058; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.90.39 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:36:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <120338598654565189@unknownmsgid> References: <CAJiTYQaX=wB2bujZEAJLhU_KfBGMP2wX3r_PR0KYgvbid8Qqwg@mail.gmail.com> <120338598654565189@unknownmsgid> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:36:39 -0400 Message-ID: <CAJiTYQa58HZUT0+yhUVgHo8ysJd1ihnC680g4AwTo_fxR+XMpQ@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: King v Burwell From: Neera Tanden <ntanden@gmail.com> To: Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> CC: Jennifer Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bea42949a23f00517924092 --047d7bea42949a23f00517924092 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 oops! I mentioned this to John some time back, but think it's a bit more current now. It is most likely that this decision has already been made by the Court, but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then it's possible they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before). As Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off. In this case, I'm not arguing that Hillary spend a lot of time attacking the Court. I do think it would be very helpful to all of our interest in a decision affirming the law, for Roberts and perhaps Kennedy to see negative political consequences to ruling against the government. Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government. It's not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary consequence of a negative decision...the Court itself would become a hugely important political issue. At CAP Action, we can get that story started. But kinda rests on you guys to make it stick. What do you think? If you want to proceed, we should move soon. Let me know thoughts. And I'm happy to discuss. Neera On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > No content in message? > > > > > On Jun 2, 2015, at 8:20 PM, Neera Tanden <ntanden@gmail.com> wrote: > > > --047d7bea42949a23f00517924092 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">oops!<div>I mentioned this to John some time back, but thi= nk it's a bit more current now.=C2=A0<br><div><br></div><div>It is most= likely that this decision has already been made by the Court, but on the o= ff chance that history is repeating itself, then it's possible they are= still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking the manda= te to supporting it in the weeks before).=C2=A0 As Jennifer will remember, = it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time= on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the = role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of th= e case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off. =C2=A0</d= iv><div><br></div><div>In this case, I'm not arguing that Hillary spend= a lot of time attacking the Court.=C2=A0 I do think it would be very helpf= ul to all of our interest in a decision affirming the law, for Roberts and = perhaps Kennedy to see negative political consequences to ruling against th= e government. =C2=A0</div><div>Therefore, I think it would be helpful to ha= ve a story of how progressives and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an = election issue (which would be a ready argument for liberals) if the Court = rules against the government.=C2=A0 It's not that you wish that happens= .=C2=A0 But that would be the necessary consequence of a negative decision.= ..the Court itself would become a hugely important political issue. =C2=A0<= /div><div><br></div><div>At CAP Action, we can get that story started.=C2= =A0 But kinda rests on you guys to make it stick.</div><div><br></div><div>= What do you think?=C2=A0 If you want to proceed, we should move soon.</div>= <div><br></div><div>Let me know thoughts.=C2=A0 And I'm happy to discus= s. =C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Neera</div><div><br></div><div><br></div= ></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T= ue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Jake Sullivan <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"= mailto:jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com" target=3D"_blank">jsullivan@hillarycli= nton.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style= =3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">No conte= nt in message?<br> <br> <br> <br> > On Jun 2, 2015, at 8:20 PM, Neera Tanden <<a href=3D"mailto:ntanden= @gmail.com">ntanden@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> </blockquote></div><br></div> --047d7bea42949a23f00517924092--