I'm curious as to why you think them upholding ObamaCare would be such an egregious ruling. If they do so, it will merely be another nail in the coffin of the Commerce Clause, but hardly the first. The Supreme Court has only struck down Commerce Clause legislation twice in the past 65 years, and ObamaCare is Commerce Clause legislation. Now if you're saying that upholding ObamaCare would be egregious because the ruling would have profound negative impacts on our health care system then I agree with you, but I find the ObamaCare legislation to be equally as offensive as most of the unconstitutional legislation they have upheld in past years.
Kagan will have to recuse herself since she wrote the defense argument. A 4-4 tie lets stand the lower court ruling. Without the mandate it has to pass the full house because it was passed as a budget recocilliation. O-care is DOA.
10thAmendmentGuy: “I’m curious as to why you think them upholding ObamaCare would be such an egregious ruling.”
Even though the Commerce Clause has been warped and twisted in many ways, it’s never meant government has the right to force citizens to engage in commerce. Wickard v. Filburn, for example, didn’t force Filburn to buy wheat.
I seem to recall the administration was defending the individual mandate as a tax not as commerce. May have been early on and they gave up on that.