This is a win-win situation for GOP. If the SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional, that is a win. If they find it constitutional, it can be used against 0Bama in November election. Even the moderate from Mass has been saying he will issue executive order on 1st day in office granting waivers to all 50 states.
If it is defeated, will it energize Obama’s supporters to renew their efforts to socialize medical care? Or vice versa? Obamacare was the driving issue in 2010 and it resulted in a turnover of 63 seats in the House. If Obamacare's supporters are energized, you can bet those who oppose it will be equally, if not more so, energized.
I wouldn’t read much into it.
These idiots have disappointed before.
Many of these questions are for “show” so as to make them look more intellectually curious than they are.
Tomorrow will be another salacious headline...going in the opposite direction.
I was listening to the repeat of the audio last night on C-SPAN and was somewhat surprised to hear even the more leftie judges (Ginsburg and Kagan, e.g.) making fun of the government’s case re the “Anti-Injunction Act” of 1875 (or whatever) which states that the supremes can’t hear a case on tax constitutionality until the “tax” actually takes effect (which for Dumb0Care isn’t until 2014).
The gubmint lawyers were trying to argue that the “mandate” is a tax for Injunction-Act purposes even though the legislation itself doesn’t call it a tax. Then they tried to argue it was a “penalty” (for not buying insurance) and then ended up calling it a “tax-penalty” which cracked up most of the supremes.
Considering that Sotomayor wrote most of the Admin legal opinion on it (before being nominated) I’d consider her a definite lock for the bad guys, but now I’m not so sure about the others.